Today on a Radio Free Geneva: Norman Geisler and "Theological Racism"

James White posted his podcast yesterday and he discussed Norman Geisler's recent radio interview where he called Calvinism "theological racism". Here is what Dr James White wrote:

Played the very odd section of a radio program from Detroit where Norman Geisler accused the Reformed of holding to "theological racism" and that we (the Reformed) went "berserk" in response to Chosen But Free, which, we likewise learned, was the first attack upon our beliefs by a "major scholar." Went from there to a quick review of John Calvin Goes to Berkeley, and finished up with a number of calls on generally Reformed themes, including one on Molinism. Here's the program.

I think that Dr White went a little too far to say that all of Norman Geisler's single authored books are worse than his co-authored books. I've only read Geisler's Chosen But Free and a couple of books he co-authored and I agree that Chosen But Free is really bad, but I would not go as far to say that all of them are bad.

It was also interesting listening to Dr. White's review of John Calvin Goes to Berkeley. I'd like to read it to see if I agree with him on it. I'd highly recommend listening to this installment of the dividing line.




Today on a Radio Free Geneva: Norman Geisler and "Theological Racism"

When Your Professor Attacks the New Testament

Jamin Hubner has posted a list of resources to counter the poison from scholars who are teaching that we can't trust the New Testament.. Here is what he wrote:

Great question, and tough situation - but a good opportunity for growth! Here was my brief response to the email (note: all of these can be found on the RealApologetics.org Recommended Reading):

Bruce's The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

Carson and Moo's Introduction to the New Testament
J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer,

and Daniel Wallace's Reinventing Jesus

Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels

When Your Professor Attacks the New Testament

Lady Atheist: My Top Ten Grievances Against the Bible

Today, John Loftus linked to one of the blogs of one of his frequent commentators. I don't know this person at all excepts she is a lady and an atheist. She wrote a post on her own blog detailing 10 things she believes discounts the Bible as the Word of God. Surprise, Surprise, none of them are new. However they need to be answered whenever they are brought up. I don't know if she has searched all over for the answers to the objection she has raised and just didn't accept them, or if she doesn't know that there are answers. I don't want offend anyone by assuming that they don't know something they don't. I just can't imagine how someone can come to the conclusions she comes to given the amount of information available. I'm going to re-post her list and respond in italics. If I quote Bible text, it will be in bold text. One thing that really jumped at me was the attitude of LadyAtheist. I see it among many who follow John Loftus' blog. It's the thought that on;y stupid people believe the Bible and if you knew as much as they do you would reject it too. However I find many erroneous presuppositions and things they just don't seem to know. There is a lot of stuff just thrown out in this list as if everyone agrees with how she lays things out.

1. Authority -- NOT -- it was compiled, copied, edited, codified and translated by men. Men with agendas. Over the hundreds of years it was put together there were perhaps hundreds of "hands" tinkering with the unalterable "holy" words.

I've not heard of anyone who truly studies textual criticism  claim that we have no idea what the autographs of the New Testaments says outside of  Bart Ehrman's popular works. When he is pressed he admits that we know what the New Testament Greek texts say to a high percentage. Some say 97%. I posted a recent post from Dr. Frank Turek's blog in which Dr.Turek points out that Dr Ehrman says different things to different audiences.


You might know know Ryan Anderson who used to comment on Loftus' blog. He said I was wrong and Turek was wrong.  He wrote:

I think where you guys are getting mixed up is the word "reliable". I don't know of many people, myself included, who would argue that the gospels are unreliable in the technical sense, i.e. what we have today is reasonably close to the originals, i.e. Matthew in the NIV is probably very close to the original gospel of Matthew. But in misquoting Jesus, that was not the point at all, in general (because I doubt you've read it), he's saying who knows what Jesus actually said because the completely reliable Matthew and the completely reliable John do differ in very important ways. So, it's another question entirely if the originals "reliably" depict real events.

So Ryan Anderson, an Atheist, agrees that the Gospels are reasonably close to the originals. Dr. Bart Ehrman, "a happy agnostics", agrees. They disagree with Christians as to whether or not you should believe the text, but we should be able to agree on what the text says. This flies against what many atheists argue.

2. Inconsistency. Two Adam & Eve stories. Two genealogies for Jesus. Discrepancies amongst the Gospels. Too many inconsistencies to mention, and anyway The Skeptics Annotated Bible did it already.

Two stores would require conflict and contradiction. There is not contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. If anyone thinks so, they just throw it out and never backs it up. As for the two genealogies for Jesus, one must remember:
a. Ancient genealogies were not intended to exhaustively list every single human being in the line. There is a goal and an agenda in mind determining who is included and who excluded.
b. They don't match because Matthew's list is to show Jesus had right to the throne of Israel. Luke's is to show that Jesus was related to all of us - from a human point of view.


As for the Skeptics Annotated Bible, I wouldn't put much stock in it without looking at rebuttals and thoughts on the other side. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Comments is a good place to start looking at counter arguments. If you are interested in truth why wouldn't you look at counter arguments?


3. God's nature is fickle and inconsistent. He is forgiving or resentful depending on the situation. Sometimes he tinkers in the Affairs of Man and sometimes not. He wants you to follow his rules, but then there's the parable of the prodigal son. He made the world and all the animals, including people, and yet made all sorts of really horrible and stupid things. For instance, why do humans have "tail" bones if we don't have tails? Having broken mine I can tell you I'd rather not have it. If he wanted us to protect the useful parts of our spine in a fall, then why put nerve endings there?

How does having requirements and rules invalidate God's love? This objection is often raised but never validated. As for questioning the design of the universe and our bodies, how do you know it's horrible or not useful to have a "tail bone". As an engineer, I think it's silly to look at someone else's design and criticizing it without knowing what all the specifications are. Something you think is a problem may not be a bug at all but a feature to the design.

4. Miracles. They have no corroboration outside of the Bible. They could have been faked or made up as propaganda or exaggerated over time. If Jesus really did walk on water, how do we know he didn't go there in advance and put a table just under the water line? How do we know there wasn't a sandbar there? And yet he couldn't make a fig tree yield fruit out of season, which would have been a more difficult feat than appearing to be walking on water. Couldn't pop the nails out of his hands and feet and jump off the cross, either.

Excuse me? Haven't it ever occurred to people that the Sea of Galilee  would have to be fairly deep in the middle of it? Today it is about 43 meters deep at its deepest. That would have to be a table with long legs. It could not have been a sandbar in the middle of the lake, that close to the surface - in the middle of a storm. By definition, a miracle is not repeatable. A miracle is when God intervenes in nature.  Jesus was showing Himself to his disciples as God - only God can walk on water (according to the mindset of the day).  As for the Fig remark, of course Jesus could have made the fig tree yield fruit out of season. He was using the fig tree to teach his disciples and his followers today a lesson. Of course Jesus could have come down off that cross. He didn't because he was up there on that cross instead of us. He did it to save us. He paid for our sins with his blood instead of believers paying for own sins with our blood. We can't pay this debt. That is what the Gospel is: God himself paid our debt for us.

5. Revelation. Dreams, voices, visions... they are all reminiscent of what today would be considered symptoms of psychosis. If they're psychotic symptoms now, they very likely would have been then, if they even happened. Primitive people can't be faulted for believing that dreams or migraine auras or psychotic breaks came from some supernatural entity, but we shouldn't believe them now. The opposite is possession by an evil spirit. Also mental illness that was misunderstood by bronze age superstitious people.


So who had a psychotic break in the Bible? The Bible tells us how to get out of our own psychosis that comes from being a sinner. Dreams, Revelation, Voices, and Visions are indeed wrong if there isn't anything outside of what we can perceive beyond the physical world. There is so little that we understand. There is so much of reality that we cannot get outside of our five senses. How can you be so sure that the people of the Bible did not experience what they say they experience? Do you really think that we are so much smarter?

6. Scientific inaccuracy. God could have revealed the truth about the Sun revolving around the Earth, at the very least. All of God's words seem to be consistent with what humans would have known at the time, and not at all revelatory or helpful. Every human culture has a creation story. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim one is just one of many with no claim to accuracy in the least.

Where does the Bible tell us that the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa? I think she made a mistake at this point but I think she understood what her thought was. I'd like to know what makes people think that the Bible tells us about this part. The Church was the one that says the sun went around the earth, not the Bible. It's also not completely true that the Bible reveals no important information. Look at Romans 8:18-21

¹⁸ I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. 

It's clear that the creation being "subjected to frustration" is referring to its "bondage of decay". We call it the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - entropy. There are scientists who agree that Genesis is accurate. Just go listen to the lecture from astronomer, Dr. Hugh Ross.

7. Similarity to mythologies in other Middle Eastern religions. Just a little too many similarities to dismiss. Mithras, for example.

Mithras is a bad example. There are no good examples showing what is alleged here. I've been posting and studying this issue for a while now. I've written many posts on this and have linked to other resources regarding this issue. Instead of rehashing all of that material here is a link.

8. Speaking of Paul, Paul's role is a little too important in early Christianity. He never met Jesus, yet he supposedly explains Christianity with authority. He has a completely different message from Jesus' supposed words. A lot of Biblical inconsistency right there. Why should anyone believe anything he said? None of it was of a nature that couldn't have come from psychosis, imagination, or calculation. If he was divinely inspired, he could have set people straight about the Sun, for instance.

Funny how both Muslims and Atheist tend to agree with this point. Should tell you something. The New Testament tells us that the original apostles agreed with him and what did Paul tell us. He tells us to follow Christ. One reason why I believe Paul because nothing he wrote contradicts any of the other other New Testament texts. Why do opponents of Christianity try their best to undermine Paul? Simple. His is a convert's story. He hated Christianity. He turned Christians over to die. What changed him? Here is a man who could have had anything he wanted. He had the access. The education. The intellect. The prestige. He gave it all up for being tortured, persecuted, and having many of his fellow Jews turn their back on him. Why did he adopt the religion he once sought to destroy and systematically lay out what they believed. There is only one answer. He met the risen Christ, just like he said he did.  Why try to undermine Paul? Fear.

9. The Book of John. Written much later than the other "gospels" and seems very biased. Coincidentally, "fundamentalist" Christians are fond of quoting John. They like his brand of Christianity so much that their whole theology would crumble if that "book" was taken out of the Bible.

So which is it? Paul or John? Both. No Book bearing John's name or anything of Paul contradict one another. When people make the accusation that John's gospel is so much later, I wonder what they mean by later. By the standards of the rest of ancient texts all the Gospels are close to one another. Christians like the John's gospel because it does so much heavy lifting. However the deity of Christ and everything we need is actually in the other three Gospels too.  Here is a post containing a video that carries this idea farther. 

10. Disturbing "morality." Over and over there are truly disgusting examples of God or his favorite people doing the most heinous things. The worst of all for me is the central tenet of Christianity: that Christ was sacrificed for the sins of mankind... all of us or some of us, depending on your denomination. This means that a "loving" God practiced scapegoating, punishing his one good child for the sinfulness of all the others. No actual sinning is required to be defined as a bad child, since sinfulness is inherited. Inheriting the "sins of the fathers" is also imoral. Other repugnant practices are portrayed without any negative judgment: war, genocide, polygamy, rape (but only of women!), and slavery to name a few. Then this "loving" God will send everyone who doesn't say they "accept" him to eternal fire and pain. What kind of "love" is that?

Obviously there is a misunderstanding. Actual sinning is already in the equation. Everyone sins in word and deed. Everyone is deserving of hell. That is what is going to happen to everyone without Christ. It's not that everyone is basically good and given the choice are saved by choosing Christ and hell bound if they reject them. We have already rejected him. We deserve hell because of war, genocide, polygamy, slavery, and rape. God isn't the problem. We are are the problem and Jesus is the solution because of love. How is it God's fault you end up in hell because you didn't want to be part of the solution? Read Ezekiel 18 to see how God handles us and our parent's sin. As for Deuteronomy where God says he punishes people for their Father's sin, look at the difference between punishment and death. Of course it's possible to have to pay for things that your parents do. If you gamble away all the money, your children will suffer. If a mother does crack, her babies will be born addicted to drugs. That is the difference being made.

10a. Cannibalism. Yech! You can say it's just metaphorical and wine doesn't really turn into blood, but still, it's a repulsive practice and extremely barbaric. Early Christians already had the practice of baptism for the cleansing of sins, so they really didn't have to have eat their god in a repulsive ritual meal. That practice is also waaaay too similar to that of other religions to be taken seriously as a true historical tale.

No where does the Bible imply that communion is any more than symbolic. People who think otherwise don't understand what Jesus was telling us to do. It's not the same as other religions at all. 

I could probably come up with more but these are the big ones for me. Much ink has been spilt explaining the problems in the Bible. People get Ph.D.s in something aptly called "apologetics." They call the Book "god-breathed" or inspired rather than taking it as the literal gods-ear-to-man's-pen truth, because they know deep down it's really a bunch of ridiculous nonsense. To believe in this book is to believe in a God that's mercurial, vengeful, narcissistic, and possibly insane.

That is a very big indictment of God that people have fallen for.  It also pre-assumes that God is like us. If one of us said the things that God says then we would be vengeful, narcissistic, and insane because we are not omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. However God is and has made everything. Like it or not, and you probably don't, but God has every right to demand of us whatever he wants.

Or... you could believe that the Bible is just like all the other holy books of all the other religions, just a bunch of fairy tales with supernatural buddies and/or bullies as the main characters.

Sure would like some substantiation for this. 

Some of my smaller grievances don't get much attention, but for what they're worth:

• If all of creation was 'good' then wouldn't Adam and Eve have been exiled to a pretty nice place?

The fall affected all of creation. Remember the ground was cursed for what Adam and Eve did.

• Why is it an "abomination" for men to have sex with men but not for women to have sex with women? Isn't that also homosexuality?

Where does the Bible says it is okay for women to have sex with women? It doesn't.

• Why was there no judgment against Lot's daughters after they got him drunk then got pregnant by him? His wife was turned into a pillar of salt just for looking over her shoulder at her former home. That seems a little harsh.

His wife longed for the life she had in Sodom although the city was wicked and corrupt. Homosexuality was probably the least offense they were doing in that city. Lot's daughters thought they and their father were the only people left on earth after witnessing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns. We don't know that there was no judgment on them for incest. The Bible records what happened.

• If Jesus' conception was immaculate, then why does he have a genealogy traced through Joseph's side of the family?

Who said that both genealogies were only on Joseph's side? In ancient times its was rare to see any women on a genealogical list. Husband names were used. This is one of the things that set Matthew's genealogy apart. It lists three women.

• And the fig tree, wtf? Why doesn't Jesus regret his temper tantrum if he's such a great guy? Come to think of it, why did he smite the tree in the first place? Is this some kind of metaphor that a woman who won't have sex during her off-cycle will be smote?

This is one of the reasons that I wonder if LadyAtheists has studied the Bible very deeply. Jesus did not throw temper tantrum. Careful reading of the text reveals that the fig tree showed outward signs of having fruit on it but it didn't have fruit of it. It does symbolize a person who has the outward signs of being a believer but does not really have any spiritual fruit. It has nothing to do with sex or menstrual cycles.

Lady Atheist: My Top Ten Grievances Against the Bible

Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti: Why did Baby Doc return? - latimes.com

My wife was born in Port au Prince, Haiti and still has close family in Haiti. Miraculously, God preserved her family through last year's earthquake and we have been continuing to follow the news of what is happening in Haiti. I don't know how this news got past me, but I just found out that exiled dictator, Jean-Claude Duvalier (aka "Baby Doc") has sneaked back into Haiti last Sunday! I'm shocked. How could that happen? The nation is still reeling from it's problems so much that he could just come in like that. All the historical accounts I could find say that he was a terrible President - he and his father. They tortured people. Silenced dissent. He trampled basic human rights whenever he wanted and then because of a coup in 1986 ran to France with much of Haiti's treasury.

He's under arrest in Haiti, and with most of his stolen money gone (he spent most of it and loosing the rest in a divorce) , 6 million dollars frozen in a Swiss bank account, and rumored ill health we are presented with an opportunity to make him pay restitution for the people he has injured and murdered. I read that the Swiss government have passed a law saying that it would go to Haiti for rebuilding but this is is not enough. He should stand trial for crimes against humanity. It's a horrible situation and more stress on Haiti that it didn't seem to to need. I'm going to be watching this closely because I want to see what will happen. I'm glad that baby Doc isn't being allowed to just run arround but I thin he should be in a jail cell.





Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti: Why did Baby Doc return? - latimes.com
5 reasons why Haiti's Jean-Claude Duvalier is infamous

Related articles

• Jean-Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier Arrested Upon Haiti Return (nowpublic.com)
• Haiti Looking To Try 'Baby Doc' Duvalier (npr.org)
• Jean-Claude Duvalier to Remain in Haiti (ecoworld.com)
• Former dictator "Baby Doc" Duvalier returns to Haiti (omg.yahoo.com)
• Jean-Claude Duvalier charged with theft over 15-year rule - BBC News (news.google.com)
• Baby Doc Duvalier Charged (outsidethebeltway.com)
• "Baby Doc" Duvalier Haiti Return Sparks Rumors (huffingtonpost.com)

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Amos’ Second Vision and the Repentance of God

Dr. Claude Mariottini has posted another article regarding the book of Amos. Personally, I never heard Amos preached from often aside from a few Sunday School lessons but the book is rich with much information you can use to learn more about  God. This article spotlights Amos' second vision. Check out what Dr. Mariottini has written on this.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Amos’ Second Vision and the Repentance of God

Clay Jones Interview: The Crusades - part 1 - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has joined forces with Dr. Clay Jones to produce a series of podcast interviews regarding some of the objections against Christianity because of historical events such as the Crusades, witch hunts, and other events. In this 1st of 3 interviews,Dr Jones discusses how we should approach answering such objections. The thing I liked most was that he said we have to recognize that just calling yourself a "Christian" does not make you a Christian. If you have one raping, pillaging, and murdering, that one can't be a Christian because that one is not following Christ. Further one who is not born -again can't be a Christians as the Bible defines what a Christian is. Like it or Lump it. There is no way around it. Anyone willing to argue that Hitler was "born-again"? I wouldn't. Of course people can use Christianity as a cloak to hide their evil deeds. The bible warns us on this. I would highly recommend hearing what Dr. Johns has to say. I can't wait for parts 2 and 3. Follow the link below.

Clay Jones Interview: The Crusades - part 1 - Apologetics 315

A Classic Illustration of God's Sovereign Electing Freedom

Alan Kurchner continues to post thought provoking articles on the Alpha and Omega Ministries blog. Here he gives a classic illustration of God's grace and his sovereignty. I wasn't raised in Reformed circles so this illustration is new to me.

You have 100 criminals on death row. They are all equally guilty and deserving of death. Every single one of them hates the governor of the state. So much so, that all of them conspired together and successfully killed his only son. One of these death row criminals is you. The governor has the freedom and right to pardon and give clemency to any of them. It could be one person, ten, all of them, or just none of them. If he chose to pardon none of them, would he be perfectly just to do so? Yes. And he is not obligated to choose between a dilemma of bestowing mercy either on all 100 of them, or none of them---he could choose any number in between, if he wills. He can do whatever he wishes because of his right as governor. But let us say he chooses to have mercy on 10 of the 100 justly deserved death row criminals. The ten are just as guilty and deserving of death as the other 90. And one of those ten to be graciously pardoned is you. You are free! You are pardoned! You have been granted mercy! Now as you are stepping out of that prison into freedom, are you going to look back and point your finger at the governor and utter, "How dare you pardon me, and not everyone else." You would be an ungrateful halfwit.

From scripture, I would have to say I agree. Of course being pardoned does include a change of mind and nature. Such a one pardoned would not say "How dare you pardon me, and not everyone else." God changes us from being ungrateful halfwits. I'd say that such a one who does not recognize the grace of God as being just and in God's control is either deluded or not pardoned.




A Classic Illustration of God's Sovereign Electing Freedom

Related articles

• Pardoned By God (samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com)

Did Christianity Steal from Mystery Religions? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a link to a four part response by Lenny Esposito of Come Reason Ministries to the question Did Christianity Steal from Mystery Religions?

Lenny responds to the charge that "There were many resurrected messiahs in ancient religions," "Christianity ripped off other faiths," and the like.

I know that this has been answered over and over again, but it needs to continue being brought up as long as skeptics and enemies of God want to keep bring it it up. There are people who base all of their objections against Christianity on these "points". Follow the links to listen.

Did Christianity Steal from Mystery Religions? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Calvinists are Now Theological Racists

Alan Kurschner, one of the awesome contributors to the Alpha and Omega Ministries blog posted the following

Ergun Caner has stated that Calvinists are worse than Muslims. This week Norman Geisler has added to this vitriolic rhetoric calling Calvinists theological racists. Wait a minute, I thought it was Calvinists who are the mean nasty people?

Geisler said: "These people [meanie Calvinists] teach that Christ only loved the elect and only died for the elect. And I think that's some kind of theological racism."

At 30:30 into this radio show you can listen to human tradition in all its glory.

I liked the whole interview. It helped me remember that Norman Geislet is a great scholar although I think he really got the points on divine election and human free will wrong.  Calvinism is not about believing that does not love everyone. I also don't understand how he can argue that his critics have been cruel when he equated Calvinism with racism.


Calvinists are Now Theological Racists

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Translating the Bible: The Value of the Mina

Image via Wikipedia
Dr Mariottini has posted a great article about how mistranslating Hebrew with the term "mina" changes the meaning of texts in the Bible like Ezekiel 45:12.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Translating the Bible: The Value of the Mina

Watching Sam Harris Hurt Himself - Thinking Christian

Read Tom Gilson's critique of Sam Harris' arguments.

Watching Sam Harris Hurt Himself - Thinking Christian

Definition of "Appeazer"

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." ~Winston Churchill

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Amos’ First Vision and the Power of Intercessory Prayer

Image via Wikipedia
Dr. Mariottini posted a great article about the Prophet Amos and his first prophetic vision. Dr. Mariottini is a scholar of the Old Testament. He definitely carries the weight!


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Amos’ First Vision and the Power of Intercessory Prayer

Francis Schaeffer Lecture Collection - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has announced that Wheaton College has posted a lot of great lectures by Francis Schaeffer. He has provided all the links you need to look at what he taught and believed. It's a treasure trove.


Francis Schaeffer Lecture Collection - Apologetics 315

First MCTS Podcast

James White was recently interviewed for the Midwest Center for Theological Studies podcasts. Well worth listening to.

We recorded some podcasts for the Midwest Center for Theological Studies last week while I was in Owensboro. The first has been released:

White & Barcellos | Interview 1 from MCTS on Vimeo.


First MCTS Podcast

High Five Quote of the Day THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Dr. Jared Ball on the Repackaging of Martin Luther King Jr. [VIDEO]

I like this quote!

"Martin Luther King Jr. stood for revolutionary transformation; he is used today to support policies that he fought against." - Dr. Jared Ball

I agree with Dr. Ball. It's not just being done in politics but it's also being done in such a way that in a couple of more generations Martin Luther King Jr won't even be thought of a being black.




Go ahead and read the link. The post will give you a lot to think about as the country celebrates Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday.

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Dr. Jared Ball on the Repackaging of Martin Luther King Jr. [VIDEO]

FacePalm of the Day #49 - Debunking Christianity: Proving That Prayer is Superstition

Equating Prayer with superstition is really stupid. This version of prayer makes God look like a slot machine. Neither of the verses used in the video rules out that God can say "no". I think its really stupid to think prayer and lucky horseshoes are the same. I would like to ask why would God care if you roll 6 sixes with 6 dies. The amputee objection is just silly. What amazes me most is that it's offered as if no one has ever considered the problem. It's been more than answered (here) and has been answered many times. It amazing. It's like impossible for people who think this way to understand the definitions of "faith" and "prayer". They miss it every time.




If you watched this, you just watched 10 minutes of fail. Of course it's important to ask and examine such questions. The problem isn't coming up with questions. I'm having problems with the logic and presuppositions drawn to reach the conclusions.

Debunking Christianity: Proving That Prayer is Superstition

Answering Muslims: Saviour of the World: Jesus or the Qur'an?

Here is a debate between Samuel Green and Abdullah Kunde where they debate where salvation comes from: Jesus? or the Qur'an?















Answering Muslims: Saviour of the World: Jesus or the Qur'an?

High Five of the Day #7 - Morality and Ethics: "Practical Outcomes Replace Biblical Principles As the Moral Standard" | True Freethinker

Mariano has written a brilliant article about morality and how it's been shifted and changed in our world today. Just because the majority's morality has changed, doesn't mean it's correct. My favorite quote from the article is:

Indeed, when YHVH and His Word are set aside, the natural man looks to the next, highest, thing: government. This is clearly seen in Communist regimes wherein the Most High God was replaced by the Most High State and wherein since the state gives freedoms it can likewise take them away.
With YHVH out of the way, the very height of humanity and evolution is the ruling class. The way this plays out in a majority theistic society such as the USA is that people end up “reasoning,” “Well, if it is legal, it must be moral.”

Follow the link below to read the whole article.

Morality and Ethics: "Practical Outcomes Replace Biblical Principles As the Moral Standard" | True Freethinker

Related articles

• Morality: Consensus Ethics (time.com)
• Morality Has No Place in the Law (daylightatheism.org)
• The Separability Of Metaethics From Questions Of Theism (camelswithhammers.com)
• Helpful Terms and People for Studying Philosophy:study Guide Part Six (socyberty.com)

FacePalm of the Day #48 - Debunking Christianity: The Mind/Brain Problem

John Loftus has been been commenting a lot on Dr Victor Reppert's blog lately. His latest driv...er attempt is responding to nature of mind and matter (the brain). My comments will be in italics.


Okay, Okay, I've been participating in a guilty pleasure by visiting Victor Reppert's Blog lately. Vic argued

I am suggesting on principled grounds that a careful reflection on the nature of mind and matter will invariably reveal that there is a logical gap between them that in principle cannot be bridged without fudging categories.

I'm glad Loftus has been reading Reppert's blog, maybe God can use it to reach him.


My responses so far:


You're arguing that we cannot get to a mind from the fact that there is only a brain.


So, let's talk about the mind. If there is a mind can we get to a brain? Think about this. You have merely reversed the argumentation but it leads to the same conclusion. I maintain that there is no logical connection between the mind and the brain. If we presume there is a mind then how does it tell the brain what signals to send to the arm such that it moves? Logically, unless there is a point of contact between them, the mind cannot interact with the brain. You know the problem.


Loftus does not say why this must be true he merely asserts it. I think a good analogy are computers. The hardware - the processor - is like our brain. In this analogy the mind is like the operating system/software that runs the computer. The analogy breaks down quickly but let's ride it for a moments as far as it can carry us. How is the software connected to the processor? It's not in the same way the hardware is connected. I think it's here where the analogy starts to go off the rails. I don't know how the mind and brain are connected. No one really does. Are they connected? Yes. Is the brain all there is? I don't think so? We do have people who have had near-death experiences and while they were brain-dead for few moments, they still reported consciousness.


Would you please define a mind for me? If that definition does not include material properties then how is this not a logical problem? What's your solution?


The mind is our desires, personalities, memories, emotions, consciousness - it's the sum total of everything that makes you who you are. This is more than what you are. When you talk to someone you are interacting with their mind not their brain.


Let's say you have none, or at least, let's say I'm not persuaded. Then we are at a logical impasse.


What to do then?


I'd like to know why does John Loftus think that his persuasion would make it true. Something can be true even if he doesn't think it is.


Trust the sciences. Science repeatedly disconfirms that there is a mind. Drugs, strokes, electromagnetic probing, and a nail through the brain can and does change a person's emotions, ideas, thinking patterns, and a man's personality itself.


Science does no such thing. If a computer's hardware is damaged or changed, don't you think it would change the software? Saying that mind and brain are not the same thing is not the same thing as asserting that they are not connected. Some people get brain damaged or head trauma or even lobotomies and experienced no change in who they are. Just because a person's emotions, ideas, thinking patterns, and personality are affected by changing the brain does not mean there is no mind. I don't know why anyone would expect the mind and body to be totally separate. Making a distinction does not mean making a separation.


In fact, as neurologist Sam Harris has said, if there is a mind there is no reason for God to have created us with brains. If the mind tells the brain what signals to send to the arm then it can by-pass the brain altogether and simply send signals to the arm.


Sam Harris sure likes making assertions that he can't prove. If the mind is your intentions and thoughts then you want to move your arm and the brain sends the signal. To argue that either the brain or mind is unnecessary is a really silly idea and no reason can be found for that.


The brain ends up being unnecessary on the hypothesis there is a God who created the mind. Or you could perhaps give me one function of the brain that could not be performed by the mind if there was one.


Just one.


That is not what theists argue. God created mind and brain - in fact all of reality. We don't understand ourselves or the universe to determined what is unnecessary just yet. As for one function of the brain that could not be performed the mind is the wrong question. The question that Loftus and people like him are afraid of is the question: Where does consciousness come from? I think computers again help us here. Is anyone really willing to argue that if we made a computer with enough circuits and connection (like the human brain) consciousness would result? I don't think so. I don't think consciousness comes form the brain. However research is currently being done that will prove it as our computers become more sophisticated.


I also maintain that on the supposition of a creator god that the vastness and age of the universe isn't necessary. He could have created a world on a flat disk for this. The question at that point is why did god create unnecessary things? The burden of proof is on the theist to show why unnecessary things were created.


I think that Loftus is seriously mistakenly. He failed to show the mind or anything is unnecessary. He first has to prove that the mind is unnecessary.


To the Christian objection that we need our senses and the brain as a storage unit to process the senses I argue that you theists do not take your theology very seriously at all. If there is a mind then it can sense the empirical world on your own assumptions. If there is a mind we do not need our senses. Get it? If there is a mind that can interact with the brain then it can control the brain. If it can control the brain then it knows what the brain is doing. How it does this is left unexplained, but if we take that position seriously it can. Now if it can sense the brain then it can sense the outside world and so we do not need the five senses.


I don't know anyone who thinks that the mind can sense the empirical world. He offers no proof or explanation that the mind and brain are related to one another the way he says it is. It is silly conclude that if the mind can sense the outside world we don't need the five senses. Our five senses organs are like hardware on a modern computer. Microphone of ears. Speakers for mouth. Cameras for eyes. We even have peripherals that sense force so it is like touch. Without software to make sense of analyze the input, all those senses are useless. Same thing with brain and mind. The brain processes the data but the mind makes of the data and determines its values and importance.


You people need to be more consistent here. Consistency, that's all I ever ask.


I'll be happy when Loftus offers such consistence.


But let's assume God created us with senses anyway. The mind supposedly has the characteristics of memory storage, critical thinking, decision-making and so on. What need then of a brain? I simply don't see it based on theistic grounds.


I wouldn't say that the mind store memory. Memory storage is a function of the brain. I believe science has been able to show that. But when it comes to thinking and consciousness there has been no proof that it's only the brain responsible for that.


Why is it that atheists like Loftus Harris are invested in denying the existence of the human mind? Simple. They know that if there is no mind and if all that means that all that there is (to them) is a material world and you can't have a consciousness without a body which (to them) would mean that there in no way could be a god as described in the body. They are trying to get around the scripture, and perhaps not even consciously.

²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ²⁸ ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’


²⁹ “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. ³⁰ In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. ³¹ For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
- Acts 17:24-31

Debunking Christianity: The Mind/Brain Problem