Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Will the Messiah Institute New Commandments?, part 5 of 7

Here is part 5 of Mariano's 7 part post discussing Jewish conception of what the Messiah is and how Jesus fits.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Will the Messiah Institute New Commandments?, part 5 of 7

An Alfred Hitchcock documentary on the Nazi Holocaust

Sunday Quote: Ed Harrison on Fine Tuning - Apologetics 315

I just found the following quote by Edward Harris, posted by Bryan at Apologetics 315. It's amazing.

Sunday Quote: Ed Harrison on Fine Tuning - Apologetics 315: "The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one."

- Edward Robert Harrison

I didn't know who Edward Harrison is so I looked him up. He's a noted cosmologist. You can read his latest text book on cosmology called Cosmology: The Science of the Universe which is also in the Google library. Although the man is dead he is credited with solving Olber's Paradox.

He had an astounding career and I don't think his comment about the design of the universe can be ignored.

Argument from the Contingency of the Universe - Apologetics 315

Brian has started a series on his Apologetics 315 blog. Every week he will be defining a theological argument and discussing its strengths and weaknesses. First up: Argument for Contingeny of the Universe to infer the existence of God.

Check him out at:

Argument from the Contingency of the Universe - Apologetics 315

The only thing I would like to add is that the thing I don't like about this one is that it does not specifically point to the God of the Bible but as Brian points out, it's a first step.

Theology and Apologetics on iTunes U - Apologetics 315

Brian has don it again over at Apologetics 315. I always learn so much every time I visit his blog. There is great Apologetics educational materials in ITunes. Who knew? Now we do!

Theology and Apologetics on iTunes U - Apologetics 315

Truthbomb Apologetics: Is ID Creationism? William Dembski Answers Top Three Objections to ID

Chad has shared a great interview of William Dembski on his blog Truthbomb Apologetics. Dembski answers 3 three objections to Intelligent Design.

1. Can't infer design because unlikely events happen.
2. You can't infer design if there is perceived imperfections.
3. Intelligent Design is just repackaged creationism

Check him out!

Find the podcast at the following link

Truthbomb Apologetics: Is ID Creationism? William Dembski Answers Top Three Objections to ID

History – “The Destruction of Hiroshima & Nagasaki”

Here is a video documenting destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Will the Messiah Institute New Commandments?, part 4 of 7

Here is part 4 of Mariano's 7 part post discussing Jewish conception of what the Messiah is and how Jesus fits.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Will the Messiah Institute New Commandments?, part 4 of 7

Earl Doherty Interview

Brian Flemming interviewed Earl Doherty. Doherty is an atheist who believes that historical and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus is completely a myth and never existed. Flemming is also an atheist and he agrees with Doherty. Doherty has written several books such as "The Jesus Puzzle" and "Challenging the Verdict". I think it's important to hear the other side even though I completely disagree with them.

EarlDohertyIntervi...

I'd like to point out a couple of things. One, Doherty's understanding of facts such as the dating of the Gospels and the New Testament do not square with traditional understanding. Two, Doherty's exegesis of the Bible texts are wanting. He says that Paul never referred to Jesus as a human physical being.

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. - Romans 9:3-5

If Jesus did not have a human physical body, then how could He have a human ancestry? Doherty's "smoking guns" are really false. He says that Hebrews 8:4 says that Jesus was never on earth. It doesn't say that. The context is in Jeus' fucntioning as high priest today. Doherty admits to being an amateaur historian. I'm not saying that makes him an idiot but I think someone who has made a profession of history disagree with him. Even atheistic historians agree that Jesus did exist as a man and He was crucified. This is beyond dispute. When Doherty was asked if the Biblical cannon was set during the Council of Nicea, he didn't know, but gave wrong information. I have never heard any real historian agree with Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Doherty claims to be able to show that the Christian understanding of Jesus is wrong. He should be able to know what the first generation Christians really believed and he does not. He made the argument that the gnostic conception of Christianity was just as valid as the Christianity depicted in the New Testament. He's wrong. I will suggest taking everything he says and writes carefully. No one is trying to silence him because he is way off base. The interview tries to paint a picture that the idea of Jesus being a myth as being ignored and unchallenged. This is not true. There is much around answering the charges Doherty raises. For example here is an Interview of historian (a professional Historian) Paul Maier discussing the reality of Jesus' existence. And Paul Maier wrote the following article.

Atheism is Dead: Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – Lazarus Comes Forth

Mariano, has turned out a great post discussing the validity of Miracles in the Bible. I think everyone should read it!

Atheism is Dead: Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – Lazarus Comes Forth

Someone has anonymously commented that Pantheism is a better explanation for miracles than any theistic system and posted the following video.





After I finished laughing I realized that this fantasy must be addressed. The whole argument that since all theistic religions claim authentication by miracles, none can be true because if there was only one God then only one religion would have miracles and answered prayers. The Bible answers this charge in Deuteronomy 13:1-4.

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

God clear says that He allows false prophet and false religions to have miracles of their own. Miracles alone cannot be used to validate a religion or system of belief. Another good example is how Egyptian magicians were able to duplicate a few of the Plagues God brought upon Egypt to bring about the Exodus.

In addition I don't think that just the existence of miracles is enough to consider. We should consider the quality of the miracles not just quantity. For example name another miracle, from any other religion, rivaling the parting of the Red Sea! Or the one Mariano started out with in his essay - The raising of Lazarus from the dead after three days! Or the Miracle of the resurrection - Jesus predicted it and executed His own resurrection saving all of us who believe on Him! What could be greater! It was like a base ball player telling when, where, and how he is going to knock the ball out of the park and by how many runs they will win by. Nobody is like Jesus!

Jesus vs Attis - Is There A Connection?

Here is my latest post discussing whether or not Jesus is just a myth stolen from Pagan sources or if Jesus is unique. Some critics accuse early Christianity of borrowing its theology from the Greco-Roman god called Attis. Let's discuss the points that they bring up and see if their claims hold up. This post was done with the help of Mariano of Atheism is Dead. The very first mention of Attis can be found in the research I found:

Our first mention of Attis comes from the well-known writings of the Greek historian Herodotus [Verm.CA, 88-9]. According to Herodotus, Attis was a shepherd from Phrygia and the son of a king, Croseus of Lydia. King Croseus had a nasty dream in which his son was killed by an iron spear, and because of this, he refused to allow Attis out on a boar hunt, until Attis himself persuaded him that it would be OK.
Still a tad worried, Croseus hires a gent named Adreastus, whom he had earlier granted sanctuary to, to guard his son's welfare on the hunt. Unfortunately, the foot of irony stomps right in when Adreastus throws his spear at a boar and misses, instead hitting you-know-who and killing him.

As anyone can see, Attis has nothing to do with Jesus. Okay, let's look at the alleged similarities.

1. Attis was born on December 25th of the Virgin Nana.

December 25 means nothing when discussing Jesus. He was not born December 25th, as far as anyone can tell, neither was Attis. Also, in terms of Greek mythology, Nana was impregnated by an almond that fell from a tree that grew up from Zeus' sperm. That is a lot different from Jesus.

2. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.

There is no evidence for anything in the cult of Attis dying to save anyone and, let alone, being resurrected.

In a study devoted entirely to the subject of "soteriology" in the Attis cult, Gasparro finds no "explicit statements about the prospects open to the mystai of Cybele and Attis" and "little basis in the documents in our possession" for the idea of "a ritual containing a symbology of death and resurrection to a new life." [Gasp.AAO, 82]

Put it bluntly: Attis was no savior, and was never recognized as such. The closest we get to this is from a writer named Damascius (480-550 AD!) who had a dream in which a festival of Attis celebrated "salvation from Hades" (see more below).

We also see some evidence of Attis as a protector of tombs (as other gods also were, guarding them from violation); use of Attis with reference to grief and mourning -- but when it comes to the gravestones of devotees of Cybele and Attis, they are "all equally oblivious to special benefits the future life guaranteed by such a religious status." [Gasp.Sot, 90-4].

3. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers.

There is no record of bread being eaten by worshippers like in the Christian communion sacrament.

Despite the footnote to Godwin's text at the end of this sentence by Freke and Gandy, Godwin makes no such assertion in his text; what Godwin does say is that "what they ate or drank we do not know" -- not a word is said about it being "likely" bread and wine, and Freke and Gandy's footnote is therefore a partial fabrication.

Vermaseren, the dean of Attis studies [Verm.CA, 118-9], adds more. Vermaseren confirms the use of the cymbals, and the eating and drinking, but suggests that milk was the drink of choice, because wine and bread were forbidden during the Attis festivals -- if wine and bread was the snack of choice, it would have had to have been an exception to this rule.

Bread and wine were consumed during the communion because during the Last Supper Jesus and his followers are observing Passover not worshipping Attis.

4. His priests were "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven."

In the mythology of Attis, he went mad and castrated himself. His priests did the same and were laughed at and derided for it. Nowhere does Jesus tells his followers to castrate themselves.

5. He was both the Divine Son and the Father.

Nowhere does anything about Attis support this idea. And applying it to Jesus contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity.

6. On "Black Friday," he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.

Attis died under a tree. He was not crucified on a tree. His blood made flowers grow but it didn't redeem anyone.

7. He descended into the underworld.

Ok, finally; a true statement about Attis. Attis did go to Hades (Hell). Jesus did go to hell. Jesus was in Paradise during the time his body was buried.

Mariano’s addendum: The question to ask is what was the Attisian conception of the “underworld”? Jesus is said to have “descended into the lower parts of the earth” (Ephesians 4:9) without reference to “hell,” “hades,” “gehenna,” “sheol,” etc. It is reported that Jesus “went and preached to the spirits in prison [phylake]” (1st Peter 3:19). Moreover, Jesus told the thief on the cross “today you will be with Me in Paradise [paradeisos]” (Luke 23:43). Apparently, Jesus descended into Abraham’s Bosom; the paradise section of Sheol/Hades (Luke 16:19-31). The phrase stating that Jesus “descended into hell” appears to be a 390 AD accretion into the Apostles’ Creed.

8. After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25th (as tradition held of Jesus) as the "Most High God."

Um, I found nothing even remotely like this about Attis. Two stories that come up have Attis castrating himself and his grandfather Zeus brought him back to life.

9. Attis was represented as a "a man tied to a tree, at the foot of which was a lamb, and, without doubt also as a man nailed to a tree..."

The closest story that even looks like this remotely is that in one of them, Attis turns into a pine tree. He was not like a lamb but Attis was raised by goats in one account. Nothing like Jesus' resurrection comes anywhere close.

10. On March 22nd, a pine tree was felled and "an effigy of the god was affixed to it, thus being slain and hung on a tree..." Later the priests are supposed to have found Attis' grave empty.

Look at the response I read. It devastates the idea.

Based on a calendar dated to 354 AD, there were six Roman celebrations to Attis -- dated March 15, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. The one on the 22nd was indeed as Jackson relates -- a pine tree was felled, and the figure of Attis attached, although it represents his death under the tree -- the figure being affixed to the tree therefore being no more than a matter of practically depicting the scene, since the figurine of Attis isn't just going to float along while the tree is carried by the processioneers.

The problem with all of this, though, is that the only one of the six feasts known certainly to have crossed paths with Christianity was the one on the 27th, which is the only festival attested on a calendar dated 50AD. A sixth-century writer says that the Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) instituted the festival on the 22nd. (The 23rd was a day of mourning; on the 24th the priests of Attis would flagellate themselves.)

And what the "resurrection" on the 25th? It is here, on the festival called the Hilaria, that a return from the underworld is implied (but not directly pronounced). It is attested no earlier than the 3rd or 4th century AD [Gasp.Sot, 57; contra Verm.LAGR, 47, who interperts [sic] pictures of Attis only dancing, as early as the 4th century BC, as somehow celebrating his release from death).

The bottom line is that there is no credible connection between Jesus and Attis. None whatsoever. Next!

Mariano’s addendum: Some basic questions ought to be asked with relation claims of likeliness between Jesus and Attis, Jesus and Buddha or Jesus’ likeliness to any other historic or mythical personage: How do we even know that the character to which Jesus is being likened ever lived? (find citations to 236 references to Jesus from circa 70 AD to 280 AD at this link). The pseudo-skeptic does not care since they will instantly accredit anything which they consider as a challenge to Christianity.

What is the time of the events of Atti’s life until the time the event was recorded? What is the time of the recording until the time of the earliest manuscript? How many manuscripts are there? How do they compare? For example, much of what is known about Attis comes from Julius Firmicus Maternus who wrote circa 350 AD, the sacrifice of bulls (with reference to Cybele) comes from 245 AD and the sacrifice of bulls in relation to salvation dates to Aurelius Prudentius Clemens who wrote circa 400 AD.

It appears that the closest one can get to Attis being referred to as a savior is from Damascius who wrote circa 480-550 AD. Moreover, even when Herodotus refers to Attis he, “does indeed testify to the existence of the myth of the death of Attis, says nothing about his superhuman quality and his association with the Great Goddess.” Horodotus wrote in the 5th century BC. Thus, as with Buddha if there was any borrowing it seems to have been by the Attisians and from Christianity rather than the other way around. Again, the pseudo-skeptic does not care about these and many other relevant questions since they will instantly accredit anything which they consider as a challenge to Christianity whether myth, legend or what someone just came up with right off of the tops of their heads.

Sources:

Attis - Wikapedia Attis - Greek Mythology

Alleged Similarities Between Jesus and Attis

Do You Worship Attis or Jesus?

Was the Story of Jesus Stolen from the Pagan Hero Attis?

---

¹J. P. Holding, “Was the story of Jesus stolen from the pagan hero Attis?,” Tekton – Education and Apologetics Ministry
²2Giulia Sfameni Gasparro, Soteriology and mystic aspects in the cult of Cybele and Attis

What Hollywood Believes - Laurence Fishburne

"I have this unshakable faith. I believe in myself, I believe in God. I had two times in my life where I wanted to give up everything I worked for, but God gave me a job. I believe in my children. I believe in human beings. I believe in the goodness that is in human beings. I believe in many, many things I cannot prove. I believe that there's the world of the seen and world of the unseen."

I got to wonder what Fishburne really means. Do any of the things he believe in conflict with one another? Do they coincide with the Bible. One thing he said that definitely conflicts is the thought that people are inherently good. It is one of those things that I wish was true but is not. The Bible expressly contradicts this thought.

Retract The Claws, Hillary

Our Secretary of State, Hillary R. Clinton snaps at a man for asking her for her Husband's opinion. I understand why she might have gotten angry. It was a condescending and demeaning question, but not purposely I think. I wish she had handled it differently.

WORLD ACTRESS NEWS.......: Shameless: The unrepentant mother who walked out on her five children and husband and began a new family

Marie Cartwright walked out on her family - her husband and their five children. She left them for another man and is raising another family. I think it's awful. I think the reason she made news is because we see this kind of selfishness more from men than from women. I find it disgusting no matter who does it.

WORLD ACTRESS NEWS.......: Shameless: The unrepentant mother who walked out on her five children and husband and began a new family

Hazakim's "Theophanies"

A couple of days ago, I posted a playlist of their new album, Theophanies, on my Favorite Media blog. On this post I want to focus on what the album says and how it affected me. The album has 3 main themes:

1. The Old Testaments describes theophanies - cases where a man or an angel appeared to Old Testament people and equated with God himself. The album sticks to Old Testament accounts in order to show that God could have incarnated Himself in the Old Covenant for finite period of time, then why can't Jesus be the incarnate God for years? I love this!

2. Personal testimony by the brothers of what God has done for them and the trials they face and how God has sustained them through those sufferings. These things are awesome. I could identify with that.

3. There are about 3 songs on the album that does touch on the New Testament. One song describes heaven (Shamayim in Hebrew). Another song describes the crucifixion from historical, physiological, and spiritual viewpoints! Another song also sums up God's whole salvific plan.

I'm not a very musical person. It does not move me the same as other people. I can't sing and don't even really enjoy singing. However, I do like to listen to certain music. There was not a track on this album that I did not like. It was fun. I love the level of Biblical exegesis illustrated in the music. They obviously care about Apologetics and making sure that the Bible is understood.

These brothers need our support. If you can, please purchase and listen to this album.

Terminology Tuesday: Ontological Argument - Apologetics 315

Brian has posted a great post on his blog, Apologetics 315, defining what the "Ontological Argument" is.

Terminology Tuesday: Ontological Argument - Apologetics 315

Atheism is Dead: Atheist Quotes / Atheism Quotes - Richard Dawkins Quotes

Mariano has put together a good resource for anyone who would be interested in researching the teachings and works of Richard Dawkins. Here is list of quotes and interviews we can use to see how he thinks. Scary in how wrong his conclusions are...interesting how God can be merciful enough to allow such convoluted thinking yet still breathe.

Atheism is Dead: Atheist Quotes / Atheism Quotes - Richard Dawkins Quotes

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Jewish Messianic Concepts, part 3 of 5

Mariano has started a series on one of his blogs exploring the idea of who and what the "Messiah" is supposed to be from the point-of-view of Judaism. This is a great start to what I know is going to be a great series of posts! Here is part 3!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Jewish Messianic Concepts, part 3 of 5

Showing the Belief in God is Reasonable

Update 08-11-09. I'd like to thank AdamJTP for discussing this post with me on Twitter. As per his points I decided to add a little more points of clarification. My additional comment s are in red.

It's funny to me how when people try to discredit the Bible on the grounds of what it says, history, or science, the conversation always devolves into "Oh yeah, prove there is a God!" and "Oh yeah, prove there is no God." It gets to that point because the Bible is unassailable. You can confirm much of what it says but can't refute anything it says. Therefore a common objection against proving that God does not exist says "You can't prove a negative." Of course this dodges the question. If you can't prove that God does not exist then why do you close your mind to the possibility? The next part of the challenge to the Christian Theist is to prove that God exists. Of course to the staunchest atheist it really is as the Bible says. It doesn't matter how much evidence you present they refuse to see God's truth.

I've recently been challenged to show that God exists in a logical proof of the kind used in mathematics. They want me to state my givens - state the axioms on which my argument rests. I admit that i wasn't clear in my twitter exchanges. The Bible itself states that we understand that God created everything because of our faith. This faith is not blind, nor is it defined the way the non-believing, secular world defines faith. No, when I use the word "faith" I mean it the way the Bible uses it, not colloquial America. Therefor, I ask if anyone comments on the post or have as problem with it that they remember that I am making the following axiom from Hebrews 11: 1-6

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.

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. By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

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. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 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.

This is just one of the axioms, I'm suggesting. If you want argue that I can't use it, keep in mind that the validity of the Bible is another, separate issue - and out of scope in this discussion. In addition recall that in geometric proofs it is just assumed, and without proof, that two lines determine a point and three points determine a plane. If you want to argue that the above is not faith (pistas - in Kione Greek) then please also explain why we can define line and point without proving that there are "points".

As I stated earlier, I intend to list all of my assumptions and then show that the Bible ascribes all the attributes of the creator of the Universe, given what we know. Before I go farther, I want to remark that it has been said that this post is silly because no one has been able to successfully argue for the existence of God. Let me be clear: I am arguing that the preponderance of the evidence points to the God of the Bible and if you honestly consider the evidence and trace it out, you will have either decide to outright reject God consciously or fall to your knees and in worship and adoration. There is no middle ground. I'm not naive enough to think that this one post will have the desired effect, but what I am intending is to give anyone who reads this and "sitting on the fence" to have a starting point to make a decision.

Let's get started with my assumptions. If anyone wants to debate or argue any of these, I will take on such challenges later on. Just let me know.
1. The universe is not eternal.
2. At some point time and space came into existence.

AdamJTP had suggested that I don't need to state axiom 1 because it logically follows axiom 2. I placed it there because it's not an obvious point to some people.

3. Something that begins to exist must have a cause

AdamJTP challenge me that there is something that can happen without a cause. He cited radiactive devay as an example which according to the Copenhagen interpretation radioactive decay is causeless. I had to point out that not all physicists agree. You can check out the article I sent him here at Nuclear Decay Cause.

4. Something can only be brought into existence by something greater than itself.

AdamJTP offered the example of how a simple equation [The Julia set (z^2 + c)] can generate a complex graph. The thing is a mind came up up with the equation and that mind is more complex than the graph. We still have something being made by something not greater than itself.

5. The universe is so fine-tuned in such a way that only the reality that we observe is possible.
6. The Bible describes a personal, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and omniscient supreme being.
7. In order that something is designed, there must be a designer.
8. A designer must have person-hood, thought, purpose, and will.
9. There is no other known god, worshiped by human beings that fits the description of God in the Bible.
10. For every event, there are possible alternative outcomes.

Logic
If the universe is not eternal, then it had a beginning.
If the universe had a beginning then it had a cause
If the universe had a cause then the cause must be greater that itself.

If the constants and laws governing the universe is fine-tuned to result in the reality we can measure, observe, and predict, then it must be so because it was set up to be so.

If the universe is set up a certain way, then it was designed purposely.
If the universe is designed purposely then there was an intellect who know knows all things in the universe it designed.

If the universe is designed then the sum total of all its matter and energy must have been in control of its designer.

If the universe is designed and there are so many possible alternatives that could have become reality instead of the one we experience, then the designer would have had to be able to manipulate multiple events in diverse locales simultaneously.

If the universe is designed, then it must have a designer greater than itself.

If the designer is greater than the universe and everything in it, then by definition the designer is omnipotent.

If the designer is greater than the universe and everything in it, then the designer must know everything about it therefore the designer is omniscient.

If the designer is aware of and sees multiple locals of the universe simultaneously, then the designer is omnipresent.

If the designer is greater then the universe, then the designer is eternal - no beginning. No end.

If the designer fits all the characteristics I have outlined then HE must be the God of the Bible.

The God of the Bible exists.

QED

I'm sure there are many people who disagree with my assumptions and my proof based on those assumptions. If you disagree, explain why you disagree. If you think it's not worth your time, that is your rifght, but bear in mind that I'm correct, your soul hangs in the balance. Go search out the evidence and be really, really sure. There is nothing worse then to be cut off from God. Seek God while you can.

A lot of great men and women have done great work on looking at the evidence of God as a creator. Some of them I have covered in previous blog posts. Here is a list of some previous post I recommend reading, which will lead you to other resources.

Sunday Quote: Stephen Hawking on the Big Bang - Apologetics 315
Does Faith Make Sense In An Age of Science?
Richard Dawkins and John Lennox: Has Science Buried God? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315
Astrophysics Points to the God of the Bible MP3 Audio by Hugh Ross - Apologetics 315
Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator"
Jay Richards Vs Christopher Hitchens - Intelligent Design
“Fine Tuned Cosmos” by David Heddle (Faith and Science Part 2)

If I were to pick a single chapter out of the bible that I would say goes with this post, it would be Romans 1.

In case it was missed, I want to make sure that the point of God's eternality is something non-negotiable. It's taught throughout the entire Bible. The divine name literally means that God has no beginning or end. To ask "What caused God?" makes no sense because the God Iam declaring has no beginning. As a human being it's hard to imagine anything that has no beginning but that is how God describes Himself. If you want to argue that a god who has a begginiing and and is bound by time then I will agree with any atheist - that god does not exist. However that is not the God of the Bible.

Mormonism 101

TurretinFan, one of the contributors to the Alpha and Omega Ministries blog has compiled previous resources regarding mormonism by Dr. James White. You can find it at the following link: Mormonism 101 - Index Page.