Wow...John Loftus never disappoints when it comes to modeling what "Cognitive Dissonance" really is. He provided the following video and commentary on his blog.
When did God create the Candiru parasite? And why didn't he tell us how to avoid it? Seems to me a good God who cared for us would at least tell us, don't you?
To read up on other parasites get the book Parasite Rex. Read it Christian and let it strengthen your faith! Funny thing is that in our ecosystem we need them. But with a God who could perform perpetual miracles we don't need them at all! Which alternative seems most likely?
Oh, and no using the Omniscience Escape Clause.
I'm not really in love with the candiru parasite any more than I like roaches. However notice that John Loftus asks the question why did God create such a creature and then he answers his own question - because we need them in our ecosystem. God did not choose to create a reality where we don't need them. If you don't like it, talk to the one who made everything. The video points out that it is never a good idea to urinate into a river and we know that because of pollution. Loftus further ask why didn't God warn us? God did. In the Bible, when the Children of Israel left Egypt they were given laws about how to deal with such matters as biological waist.
12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. 13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. 14 For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you. - Deuteronomy 23:12-14
Now tell me: if we followed this would we have to worry about a parasite swimming into our ureatha? No.
I love Mariano's reviews! Check out his review of Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape. People like Sam Harris amaze me. I wonder if they really believe the drivel the peddle or are they just making money deceiving others? Either way it is bad. I can't wait for part 2 of Mariano's essay.
I am always interested when I get to hear a person's testimony and methodology for witnessing. This week Brian Auten interviewed John Frame. I enjoyed the interview most because Dr. Frame gave his understanding of Presuppositional Apologetics and how it should be used. He also gave great advice on how to do apologetics. It was an awesome interview. Follow the link to hear it.
Thanks to Mariano Grinbank for finding this: An audiobook of St. Augustine of Hippo's masterwork "Confessions".
Confessions (Latin: Confessiones) is the name of an autobiographical work, consisting of 13 books, by St. Augustine of Hippo, written between AD 397 and AD 398. Modern English translations of it are sometimes published under the title The Confessions of St. Augustine in order to distinguish the book from other books with similar titles, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions. (Summary by Wikipedia)
John Loftus has posts an interesting exchange between Harry H. McCall and Brad Haggard. I agreed with Brad's point and was amazed by how much wrong McCall got wrong. Some of his comments almost deserve a Facepalm but I'll restrain myself. One of the more interesting comments is as follows:
So, in Genesis 1:1, did an assembly of male gods create the heavens and the earth or did one god create? (If you want to play the Trinity card, then I’ll let your explain the other names of אל + prefixes in the MT text.)
Can you show me why the divine name יהוה does not occur in the entire New Testament? Could it just be that “son of god” fit the Hellenic context of the Greek would while יהוה would have been an abhorrent pagan name for them, especially after the Jews were expelled from Rome in 46 CE?
Secondly, my view is in line with that of Edward Gibbons The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Weather or nor Gibbons was anti-Christian, his views of the end of the Roman Empire agrees with mine.
Another insider's look at how Christianity really worked in the late Empire is discussed in G.W. Bowersock’s award winning book: Julian the Apostate.
Julian, the grandson of Constantine, gives a horrific story about members of his own Christian family were murders and why he remained a non-Christian ("pagan", a derogatory term
What I want to focus on is the point about how the Tetragrammaton (יהוה or YHWH) does not occur in the entire New Testament. McCall is wrong. It does. Recall that the New Testament was written in Greek not Hebrew. Therefore what you want to know is what does the name look like when it is translated into Greek. A great Old Testament text to use to study this point is Exodus 3:14. יהוה is the name by which Moses was to identify God with to the Israelites. It is often pronounced "Yahweh" although we don't know how its really supposed to be announced (but that is another story I don't have time for now). Let's look at Exodus 3:14 in English, Hebrews, and Greek (as it appears in the Septuagint). Please note that Hebrew is read right to left not left to right.
English
God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
The Tetragrammaton comes over to English as "I AM". In Greek it is ἐγώ εἰμι. So now ask yourself..."Does this name appear anywhere in the New Testament? Further who is this name applied to in the New Testament?" Of course ἐγώ εἰμι appears in the New Testament and Jesus applies the divine name to himself that is why the Jews wanted to stone Him. The best indisputable place to see this in John 8:58
English
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
I've been conversing with thegrandverbalizer regarding the Trinity and Jesus Christ's incarnation. He has made some comments that I believe are worth responding too because they are so bad. They get the "FacePalm" award today. His comments are italics and mine are in red.
Well McElhanehy hopefully after you post your refutation of the Jewish understanding of Genesis 18 on the messiahtruth forum you will keep me updated on how the exchanges is going.
I don't feel a need to write comments on the forum you provided. I'm amazed that you seem naive enough to think all Jews understand Genesis 18 the way this link explains it. They don't. Michael Brown doesn't see it that way. Neither does Mariano Grinbank. I consider a Mariano a friend of mine he has written many great articles regarding Jewish vs Christian exegesis of Torah and Tanak. I suggest you look to his work as well as continue reading and listening to Michael Brown.
One thing that is hard for me to take you seriously McElhaney is that I do believe that you do have a good heart no doubt, but I see you more of a cheerleader and a yes man than someone who actually does the leg work.
ge, geo = earth where we get the word geodesic or geometry
and sus suis swine; hog, pig sow:
So running around and screaming out the name 'Earth Pig' is just not going to cut it folks!
Don't you have a little more respect for someone you claim to worship as God? If you claim that this person has a name above every name surely it would be a name with dignity and respect?
Is that really good scholarship? What orifice did you pull that argument out of? "Jesus" is the English transliteration of a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic name "Yeshua". It doesn't take Google to see serious flaws in your argument. "Jesus" has nothing to do with "Earth" or "pig". Come' on. If this enough wasn't worthy of a "FacePalm there is a lot more.
" I also know that it was in medieval times that Jews began interpreting Genesis 18 differently than Christians do" Could you give me some references prior to medieval times that show Orthdox Jews interpreting Genesis 18 in the same way that Christians do?
See this is where I think serious research stops with you and you simply google up or look for whom ever it is that agrees with your presupposition.
I did. Look at Mariano's articles and look at how Jewish interpretations of many passages from the Tanak and Torah have changed over time to combat Christian views. There are also many other sources. When I have time I will post them.
I have also read over your article. Let's just start with this piece shall we? "Bad example. The situation is more like the Bible defines a circle. And the grandverbalizer is disagreeing with the definition because he disagrees with the concept based ON THE IDEA THAT THE QUR'AN GIVES A DIFFERENT DEFINITION and that you don't agree with the definition." McElhaney could you show me where I say the Qur'an gives a different definition of the Trinity? In fact could you show me any any place where I say the Qur'an definites the Trinity?
Thegreatverbalizer did not say that the Qur'an defines the Trinity. Dr. James White's argument in his debate against Abdullah Al Andalusi was that the Qur'an misdefines it and thereby refutes a strong man. I was saying that thegreatverbalizer disagreed with the orthodox definition of the Trinity given by Dr. White and if I understand why it was because the Qur'an disagrees with the definition of who and what God is. My point is that the Qur'an doesn't seem to know what the Trinity is. I agree with Dr, James White.
McElaheny you said, "No, I'm not saying that Jesus had two natures. He was human in his physical being. But He was God in Human flesh. Just like you and I are spirits in flesh. Profoundly not the same thing." Than I am curious how many natures are you saying Jesus had when he was on Earth?
I'm not attempting to give an answer to how many natures Jesus had on Earth. As Christians we often refer to the incarnation as Jesus taking on "an additional nature". For centuries many have attempted to try to explain what that means. To date, I don't think anyone has been able to really explain how Jesus simultaneously man and God. I think the best way to understand it is think of it not as God and Man simultaneously but as God putting on flesh and assimilating into creation. It is a subject that takes a lifetime to study and I intend to keep studying it.
You also asked McElhaney "Where did Paul say that?" Well if you read the whole of 1 Corinthians 15 you will see it's not very far away from the text you are quoting. It says, "I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Corinthians 15:50
I have read all of 1 Corinthians 15 and it is one of my favorite passages. The point Paul makes is that the perishable is changed into imperishable and the corruptible becomes incorruptible. If you are going to quote the Bible quote the entire thought. 1 Corinthians 15:50-58
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." 55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?" 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.
Paul does not say what these new bodies would be made of but we know that it will be a physical reality. Not something imaginary.
McElhaney I can see you struggling guy. You see where you say above, "Of course Jesus shed his blood... but that doesn't make Jesus created. No one made Him. WE ARE CREATED-MIND BODY AND SOUL. Jesus' mind and soul was not." Notice you said, "Jesus' mind and soul was not........his body silence! Interesting indeed. Wonder why you didn't complete the thought?
I said it several times. Go back and look at my comments that you did not quote from. I'll keep saying it. Jesus' body was created in time. So what? That doesn't make Jesus created. This is another "FacePalm" passage.
McElhaney you said, "Here is the problem. You are separating out Jesus' humanity and his divinity." So did Jesus have two natures one human and one divine? Or did he have one nature fully human and fully divine?
Not only is thegrandverbalizer attempting to separate Jesus' humanity from his divinity, he attempts to play them against one another as if there is some conflict in logic. Desperate and lame. I think it best to answer this as Paul did nearly 2000 years ago.
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:15-20
Oh and "firstborn" is referring to Jesus' preeminence. Don't get it twisted.
Wow, I had not heard of Rick Sanchez getting fired over his comments I blogged about yesterday. I think he was stupid for saying such things. I really enjoyed reading Danielle Belton's comments and observations. I think she summed it up best:
This sort of fearmongering Sanchez sputtered out is the worst kind. Akin to thinking all black men want to steal your purse, all Mexicans are illegal and all Muslims support al Qaeda. It dehumanizes people (which is why the Nazis said what they said), and once you take away someone's humanity it's all that much easier to take away their life. Also, Sanchez makes the mistake of assuming that just because one is from different circumstances that they are somehow "elitist." I don't know how "elitist" one can be when they're from New Jersey, like Jon Stewart, and made their way through a middling comedy acting career for decades until he finally worked his way up to his own show. But Sanchez bellyaching about not getting a promotion, blaming racism and Jewish people is the height of intellectual laziness. Sometimes you don't advance because you're JUST NOT GOOD AT WHAT YOU DO. Not because "the Jews" are keeping you down.
Also. CNN is not owned by "da Jews." But Turner Network Television, which was founded by the not Jewish Ted Turner.
Try harder, man. Try harder.
I think that Sanchez dislikes Jon Stewart for the following clips from his show:
Thegrandverbalizer posted and commented on a recent debate between Dr. James White and Abdullah Al Andalusi regarding whether or not the Bible teaches the Trinity. I decided that it would be worthwhile to work through his comments. It's amazing. After I watched the Debate myself I was left wondering if thegrandverbalizer saw the same debate videos I did. It's interesting to look at it through his eyes. I invite all who reads this to watch the video at the end and then see if their impression is similar to mine or thegrandverbalizer. I italicized his comments and mine are in regular text. Due to the fact that the post will be podcasted, I fixed some spelling and grammar. This post may be revised later. This was a very engaging debate Abdullah Al Andalusi and James White whom debate one of the many versions of the Trinity. In this debate James White being a Christian offers a Christian model of the Trinity as opposed to a Hindu model of the Trinity (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva).\
Let's be honest. We know...we all know the Trinity we are talking about. It is part of historic Christian doctrine.
I think it is important to mention this because when people talk about 'The Trinity' it makes it sound authoritative as if there is only one. This is an innocent mistake that James White is allowed due to his own ignorance of other faith traditions. To speak of the "The Trinity" is to speak of 'The Country'. For clarification sake a person may well ask which country?
Dr White is not ignorant. When you are talking about historic Christianity there is only one to talk about. You can see from the outset 6:06 minutes into the debate James White makes a huge blunder in his attack upon the Qur'an. He claims that the Qur'an does not accurately critique or cite the doctrine of the Christian Trinity. This assumes on James White's part that there is an accurate model of the Trinity to critique. It assumes that the Trinity is a correct to begin with. So much of James White' argument can easily be dismantled when one understands this.\
There is an accurate model for the Trinity. It is in the Bible. The word isn't but the concept is - the Old and New Testaments. Even if you dismiss and disagree with the doctrine you can talk about what it teaches accurately. That is definable and James White correctly defined it. There Qur'an does not. For example that would be like James White saying 'The Qur'an does not give us an accurate description of a three sided circle.' Well this would assume that a thee sided circle is something accurate to begin with. All that is happening is James White is presupposing a doctrine that came about only after much intra-Christian debate which he admits to be revealed only between the Old and the New Testament' to be accurate.
Bad example. The situation is more like the Bible defines a circle. And the grandverbalizer is disagreeing with the definition because he disagrees with the concept based on the idea that the Qur'an gives a different definition and that you don't agree with the definition. Also Dr White was saying that the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed to us through both the Old and New Testament together.
It is troubling that James White would repeat this age old 'argument' first crafted by Samuel Zwelmer and re-used and re-hashed time and again after Muslims have given answer to this.
It reminds one of Dan Barker being corrected on certain points about Bible contradictions only rehashing it 'for a fresh audience'.
Truth is James White keeps using the argument because it is the consistent view of scripture. Abdullah Kunde has incinerated White's arguments here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/07/quranic-doctrine-of-trinity-are-there.html You can also see reformed Christian missionary and apologist Ken Temple try and give answer in the comment section.
At 8:19 minutes into the debate James White stabs in the dark trying to give us useful and meaningful definitons of 'being' and 'person'. "Within the one being that is God there exist eternaly there co equal and co eternal persons namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"
I don't think that Abdullah Al Andalusi managed to destroy Dr White's arguments in the slightest. "Being" and "person" are not the same thing. In finite human beings we are one person in one Being. Why would be limited the same way? I never heard an answer to that question. I mean even in standard English the two are not the same thing. You would not give the same answer to the question "What are you?" that you would give to the question "Who are you?" They are not the same question. Is it strange to think of three persons sharing the same being? Yes, but given that the Bible teaches that the Father is God. The Son is God. and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there is only one God. The Trinity is the only consistent answer. James White struggles to give meaningful definition to being and personality. I want you people to watch James presentation above and you tell me if he makes 'being' and 'personality' meaningful to you.
Yup. Dr White explained the difference well. Things that have existence and things that have being. Some are person and some are not. "A rock has being but it is not personal. A cat has being and it might have personality but it's not truly a person in the sense of recognizing it's own existence among catkind or anything like that"
Wow! I know some biologist that would take huge exception to the idea that cats do not recognize their own existence among catkind. What a horrible example! So let me get this straight so far. With in the one God there is something akin to a rock (that has no personality but has existence) while at the same time has three personalities? However unlike the rock God is not limited in his existence.
I would like to name a single biologist that would argue that cat recognize their own existence. James White was not equating God to a rock. The rock was given as an example of what "being" means. God is not limited to being a single eternal person. James White mentions that he is not back at home in Phoenix Arizona but neither is the rock in his example on the far side of the moon. "God's being is not limited"
I wonder if James White believes that God's being is no limited such that God can communicate his will, power and speech to created things and objects without necessarily being 'In' them?
Come'on. Thegrandverbalizer knows as a Christian James White believeds that God is not limited in anything and most definitely communicate his will, power, and speech to us that is what the Bible is for. The Trinity (God decided it was best to avoid feminine appellations such as Mother-Daughter and to opt for Father-Son)
God's relationship is masculine relationship. God is described as Father-Son. God is not described as Father-Daughter. God is not described as Mother-Daughter. God is not described as Father-Mother-Son. God is Father-Son and Masculine Holy Spirit (John 16:13).
Difference between Unitarian Monotheist vs Trinitarian Monotheist explained.
This seems like a shallow argument. The same argument can be made about Allah in the Qur'an...unless you wanna argue that Allah is a woman. Nope. I'm sure no one would do that. It's the same regarding the Bible. Gender distinctions regarding God makes no sense. The Father-Son relationship is not a biological description. However, do note that James White said that he personally comes to the conclusion of the Trinity based upon the belief that the 'whole of the Bible is the word of God'. Now this is important as this statement that James White makes the New Testament was also considered by him as part of God's revelation to humanity. He applies a meaningful standard of interpretation that is consistent from Genesis to Revelation ...when he does this he "comes up with three Biblical truths"
It would be interesting to understand what he means by 'meaningful standard of interpretation'. This is a very important admission from James White. Keep in mind that he believes that the Trinity was revealed between the Old Tesament and the New Testament. This means when Jesus would have been trained as a Jew to recite "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4 the SHEMA).
Judaism does not have a trinitarian view of the creator. Judaism has a unitarian view of the creator. So one wonders the standard that would have been consistent from Genesis to Malachi.
I'm sure most people would agree that the writer of the Book of John was Jewish. In John 12 it is explicitly said that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory. Who did Isaiah see in Isaiah 6? Yahweh! Jesus!
James conclusion on his opening is extremely weak. 1) It assumes that the Trinity is true "Allah would know what a three sided circle is"
Nope. White was arguing the Allah would know what Christians say what the Trinity is - where it was true or not, because Allah was arguing that it was not true.
2) It does not accurately define whom and what a 'true Christian' is as this is a matter of on going intra-Christian debate.
No, What does it matter if Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons or Gnostics disagree? They are not Christians. And I admit during the debate I was insulted that it kept being brought up that Christians think of Mary as co-redeemer. We don't. Not even all Roman Catholics ascribe to that. Why is it wrong to lump all Muslims into the same camp and think that they all think the same thing but it's okay to do the same to Christians.
3) It contradictions an earlier statement by James White who says 'no doubt the Qur'an attempts to give a response to Christians'. See how easy it is for James to say this and than turn around and say that only his version of Christianity (reformed theology) is correct?
I have never heard James White argue that reformed theology is the only view one can hold and be right with God. Also the Surahs he quoted definitely seem to counter Christianity. The problem is I don't know of any major Christian church or denomination that views the Trinity as Father,Mary, and Jesus. Also why would thegrandverbalizer try to argue that the Qur'an is not responding to Christians when White's debate opponent attempts to make the point that the Qur'an rebuts the Trinity. I think the Qur'an fails but it does make an attempt.
I would be curious to know what kind of Christians does James White think the Qur'an was giving response to? Curious that James White and others do not attempt to paint a picture of what kind of Christian community existed in Arabia at the time of the Prophet (saw).
Dr. White answered this question before and in this debate. The Qur'an fails to rebut the Trinity because it mis-defines it as Father, Mother, and son. Abdullah Al Andalusi makes a good point about the Logos. Basically the Logos is a combination of the Platonic ideas and Stoic universal causality. So God has to create through another agent, I can see how this could be problematic as this agent itself would have to be created. So hince the concept of John 1:1 and than to say that he (Jesus) was eternally-begotten. Eternally-regenerated. (In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God). It as if the writer has a critique of Genesis 1:1-3.
I disagreed with the discussion of Logos. White answered it. I'm wondering if thegrandverbalizer or Abdullah Al Andalusi understood White's response because Abdullah Al Andalusi didn't explain why White was wrong and neither has thegreatverbalizer.
Abdullah Al Andalusi quotes from Anthansius and Justin Martyr that borrow their views from Greek Philosophy.
White answered this. I'm wondering if thegrandverbalizer or Abdullah Al Andalusi understood White's response because Abdullah Al Andalusi didn't explain why White was wrong and neither has thegreatverbalizer.
Abdullah Al Andalusi shows that the Qur'an understands and refutes the concept that God needs to create 'through' the medium of others.
No one says that the Bible says God created anything through the medium of others. We argue that Jesus is God. Therefore no one else other that God created anything.
(Holy Qur'an chapter 2:117 )Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! And when He decrees an affair, He says to it only, Be, and it is.
"The similitude of Jesus Before Allah is as that of Adam; He (Allah) created him (Jesus) from dust, Then said to him: Be. And he was." (Holy Qur'an chapter 3:59)
"Thy lord is the cause all causes" (Holy Qur'an)
The Doctrine of the Trinity does not say anyone else other than God created anything therefore the Qur'an agrees. Jesus is God. There is no contradiction. The Bible says that God - Yahweh - created everything. Jesus is Yahweh (John 8:58) - again, no contradiction.
James White starts off with talking about Phillipians 2:5-7. This is his response to to infinite vs infinite. Notice that James White was quick to brush off the use of the word Kenosis that Jesus emptied himself. This gives huge problem to their theological position. That is why White says that Paul uses Kenosis in a non literal sense. Why do you think White would make this claim? You can learn more about the different Christian theological views on the Kenosis here:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/06/phillipians-25-7-kenosis-and-alleged.html
No, Dr White didn't brush off anything. He clearly explained what Jesus emptying himself meant - setting aside some of his divine attributes and prerogatives - humbling himself and submitting himself to death and to those he created.
White says that if we said that Jesus was 50% God and 50% man it would be irrational and it would make no sense. Yet, how does saying that Jesus is 100% created (flesh and blood man) and 100% uncreated (eternal God) rational and makes complete sense? Did I miss something?
Yes, thegreatverbalizer has missed the point that having an earthly body does not make you created if you are preexistent.
Listen to what White says at 2:58 minutes into the debate of the second video "His human nature is a true human nature so that's not infinite that's not eternal that particular individual had not existed for eternity past". So as to the nature of Jesus he is both created and uncreated! Remember we are not speaking about two seperate Jesus that are infused. We are speaking about one Jesus. I do not know if James White holds to Nestorian view that Jesus had two natures.
Yes! One Jesus, but thegreatverbalizer is the one trying to split Jesus into created and uncreated - not James White.
Text about Jesus deity ambiguous? Espcially since the God that the Jews and Muslims worship is not shy. For example The God the Jews worship says,
Declare ye, and bring it forth; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath showed this from ancient time? who hath declared it of old? have not I, Jehovah? and there is no God else besides me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:21, 22 - ASV)
"Verily I (alone) am Allah: there is no god but I: worship (only) Me and keep up prayer for My remembrance!" Holy Qur'an (chapter 20:14) Why do we not find a statement of Jesus where he says, "I am God?" Why is Jesus so shy to say this? Why is the Holy Spirit so shy to say this? Why are the angels so shy to say this? Why is Moses so shy to say this? Because it is painfully obvious to all who have open eyes and hearts that are not sealed who is God.
Jesus is not God.
Moses is not God.
The Angels are not God. The Holy Spirit is not God.
Jesus did claim to be God. No human could ever say:
23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."- John 8:23-24
So notice all that James brings up is Titus (Paul) and 2 Peter (disputed author) and goes on and on about what PAUL HAS TO SAY ABOUT JESUS.......notice he very conviently does not quote Jesus.
Not true, Dr. White quoted the same passage I just quoted.
Titus 2:13 13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
I'd like to know why thegreatverbalizer does not think these passages tells him that Jesus is God. Both Peter and Paul tells us they knew Jesus was not just our saviour but God.
I have posted the YouTube video of the debate below.
Here is another gem tweeted by Brian Auten. It's an article by Frank Tipler talking about Stephen Hawking's latest theories and why they don't prove that God exists. As a bonus there is a video of a recent taping of the Unbelievable Radio program in the UK. I've heard the radio program before and love it. In this episode we have:
Prof Alister McGrath and famed physicist, and atheist, Prof Roger Penrose discuss the following questions: Is Hawking's M-theory good science? Does Hawking's M-theory show that God did not create the universe? Is our fine-tuned universe simply one of many in a multi-verse?
Taken from Unbelievable? radio show with Justin Brierley, Saturday 25th September 2010.
For more info, visit: www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
I'm shocked. I'm surprised. The United States government officially apologizing for allowing Guatemalan to become infected with Gonorrhea.I think that Guatemala deserves an apology but there is a whole lot of apologies that need to be made. My question is how do we as a nation make up for that? Obviously America is not a Christian nation.
You may have heard about the discovery of a planet light years away that is the closest to being like earth than ever observed before: Gelise 581g. Some folk have been saying that its guaranteed to have life on it. However, I like this blog post because Peter Williams does a good job in explaining why breaking out the champagne because we have found another planet capable of supporting life as we know it is premature. Don't get excited yet.
Thus far we have an unconfirmed report that Gliese 581g might be rocky (since it may be too small to be a gas giant - although the mass given is a minimum figure) and that it seems to be in the right 'goldilocks' temperature zone for liquid water - that's if there is any water there and if the atmosphere is of the right composition!
Of course, the phrase 'Earth-like' is being used with some lattitude here: the gravity on Gliese 581g is higher than on earth (because its about three to four times the size of Earth). Moreover, the planet is 'tidally locked', meaning it doesn't rotate (i.e. no seasons). This probably means that there's only a narrow 'twilight zone' of the planet that's even potentially habitable; assuming, of course, that the atmosphere (if it even has one) hasn't frozen out over time to the night side of the planet!
I was going to let this one go, but this one so silly I had to comment. deserves FacePalm in triplicate. John Loftus quoted another person on his on his blog: whom he obviously agrees with.
What evidence would I accept for the claim that god exists? That's easy. All he would have to do is show up, once, -or- he could supernaturally change the way my brain works so that I no longer need evidence and am willing to accept as fact, wild claims that are based on ancient religious documents.
At least Loftus and Bob are honest. There is no evidence good enough to make a unbeliever give up his/her unbelief without direct intervention from God. However it's not because God changes you so that you don't need evidence to believe, God frees your mind so that you can accept the evidence that we do have instead of looking for loop holes for wiggle room so that one does not have to believe. That is why Loftus' comment makes sense - there is no evidence that will turn a man or woman to God without direct intervention from God. Consider the following passage:
5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8
The Bible clearly says that in our sinful state, we are unable to obey God and minds are hostile to God. Does that sound familiar? Look at the attitude of many atheists have towards the commands of God in Bible. Further another passages tells us even more
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but menloved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. - John 3:19
Now look at the summary of John Loftus' logic:
Thanks to Mariano Grinbank for pointing out this graphic to me. Very timely. I got this graphic a few minutes before I saw the quote from John Loftus' blog. What is adultery? A sin. Not just a sin but something that Loftus knew was wrong. Instead of taking the responsibility for his own actions, Lofuts says there is no God because God did not stop him or change him. Reminds me of Jesus' words about men loving their sin rather than the light they have been given. The evidence is plain. But if there is a God that means that we are accountable for the sins we commit.
I want to be clear. I'm not picking on Loftus. All of us are evil and deserve hell. This is the bottom line. Believers are saved because of God's grace and goodness not because of anything in us. I just wish people would be honest about their sin rather than just pretend that there is not enough evidence to believe in God and that he has spoken to us through the Bible.
I was amazed by this story. I think if that people take cheating far too lightly. Playing with someone's emotions and just using them is completely wrong. Two women torturing a man for doing cheating on
them? Well, two wrongs don't make a right but I think there should be legal consequences for cheating on a wife. Maybe not capital punishment...maybe too far for today's culture but if people understood just how terrible cheating is...maybe they would not be so quick to do it.
Comics Alliance has posted an article listing the 7 most silly reasons for banning books in the past year. I totally disagree. I don't think its right to censure books no matter how stupid they are or how much they suck. If you don't like something in the arts don't support it.
