Apologist Interview: John Warwick Montgomery - Apologetics 315
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Apologist Interview: John Warwick Montgomery - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: John Warwick Montgomery - Apologetics 315
Bring it: Did Paul make up Christian Theology with nothing pointing to it in the New Testament?
For this first post let us deal with something fundamental: Did Paul make up Christian Theology with nothing pointing to it in the New Testament?
Feel free to defend or attack the theology in the comments. Use science. Use the Bible. Use philosophy. Use History. Use whatever evidence you think is relevant to proving your point.
Bring it.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Answering Muslims: Iranian Actress Marzieh Vafamehr Sentenced to 90 Lashes and One Year in Prison for Criticizing Iran's Attitude Towards Artists
Now Muslims have sentenced an Iranian actress to 90 lashes and a year in prison, all because she criticized Iran's harsh treatment of artists. And the Iranian authorities simply don't understand how they've confirmed the criticism.
Let's see what she is going to jail for and what she's getting lashed for!
Answering Muslims: Iranian Actress Marzieh Vafamehr Sentenced to 90 Lashes and One Year in Prison for Criticizing Iran's Attitude Towards Artists
Contra Mundum: When Scientists Make Bad Ethicists | MandM
Contra Mundum: When Scientists Make Bad Ethicists | MandM
Rick Perry on Robert Jeffress: Mormonism as “cult” - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com
Read the full article at the following link!
But what, exactly, did Robert Jeffress say? Here are the relevant portions of his statement. The statement is important to consider as he was not merely referring to Mitt Romney but about Mormonism in general, whether a Christian should consider Mormonism as just another denomination and therefore, whether a Christian could join a Mormon church, etc.:
“As to Mormon churches, you must join none of them, for they were all wrong,” Robert Jeffress stressed, “all their creeds were an abomination in God’s sight, their professors are all corrupt, as the Bible says, ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’ You are forbidden to join any of them. Oh yeah, and they’re, like, a cult and stuff.”
Rick Perry on Robert Jeffress: Mormonism as “cult” - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Why was Adolf Hitler wrong? - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com
Some atheists do believe in ethical absolutes, some don’t. My answer is a bit more complicated — I don’t believe that there are any axiological claims which are absolutely true, except within the context of one person’s opinion.This is shocking to me. I don't believe that there is anything else any atheist who is sane and yet consistent to his/her worldview could possible say. It's terrible but unavoidable. One of Mariano's arguments was:
That is, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so are ethics. So, why is Adolf Hitler wrong? Because he murdered millions, and his only justification, even if it were valid, was based on things which he should have known were factually wrong. Why is it wrong to do that? Because I said so. Unless you actually disagree with me — unless you want to say that Adolf Hitler was right — I’m not sure I have more to say.
Now, what the atheist said is not true anyhow. Why not? Because, by his very own definition, there are no axiological claims which are absolutely true, except within the context of one person’s opinion. Thus, since we are considering his claims from outside of his opinion, we can determine that his statements are not absolutely true. In fact, claims which are made within the context of one person’s opinion are not absolutely true as, by definition, truth is absolute or else it is not truth.Brilliant. Mariano wrote an amazing answer that totally points out one of the glaring flaws in Atheism. Check out his article. I have never heard a good answer from an atheist to the challenge of this line of reasoning.
Why was Adolf Hitler wrong? - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com
The Dunamis Word: The Mormon Mirage
The Dunamis Word: The Mormon Mirage
Bring it #2: Does the Bible Teaches the Deity of Christ?
A lot of people do not think its correct to use the Bible to discuss Christian concepts and theology. I disagree. So I've decided to create a series of blog posts to give skeptics and atheists an opportunity to make their best case against key Biblical concepts. If you decide to take me up on my challenge, be prepared to defend your position because I will respond. I believe the Bible is true because it stand up to scrutiny and challenge. So go ahead and take your best shot.
For this first post let us deal with something fundamental: Does the Bible Teaches the Deity of Christ?
Feel free to defend or attack the theology in the comments. Use science. Use the Bible. Use philosophy. Use History. Use whatever evidence you think is relevant to proving your point.
Bring it.
Christology 101 from James White
Image via WikipediaLast Tuesday, October 4th, Dr James White went over church history and the Trinity on his web cast - the Dividing Line. He even did the favor of posting free resources that can be read and reviewed to go along with the class. It was like a seminary class - for free.Here is the link for resources to read to prepare for the class:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4798
Here is the link for the episode:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4812
David Wood Responds to Muslims Regarding Sin and Salvation
Kim's Claim about Christianity and Sin
Kim Condemns Muhammad, Allah, and Islam
Kim's Muslim Scholars Command Her to Hate Non-Muslims
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Bring it #1: Demonstrate that there is no Original Sin
I'm starting a new series of posts. A lot of people do not think its correct to use the Bible to discuss Christian concepts and theology. I disagree. So I've decided to create a series of blog posts to give skeptics and atheists an opportunity to make their best case against key Biblical concepts. If you decide to take me up on my challenge, be prepared to defend your position because I will respond. I believe the Bible is true because it stand up to scrutiny and challenge. So go ahead and take your best shot.
For this first post let us deal with something fundamental: Is there such thing as original sin?
Feel free to defend or attack the theology in the comments. Use science. Use the Bible. Use philosophy. Use History. Use whatever evidence you think is relevant to proving your point.
Bring it.
If You're Broke, Herman Cain Sez That's Probably Your Fault (Video) - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
CAIN: I don’t have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration. Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself! [...] It is not someone’s fault if they succeeded, it is someone’s fault if they failed.
I don't want to vote for anyone who thinks this way!
If You're Broke, Herman Cain Sez That's Probably Your Fault (Video) - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
Faithful Thinkers: Video: Purpose For The World
I think the best answer is the Biblical one:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. - Colossians 1:15-17
I don't totally agree with Norman Geisler. Everyone of us understand and feels that this world in it's present state is far from perfect. We have tons of suffering of every kind on an unimaginable scale and pervasiveness. Some of what we experience is self-inflicted. some is inflicted on us by others, and some of it seems to have no discernible cause or intent. Why?
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[f] And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
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. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.
28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. - Romans 8:1-30
Faithful Thinkers: Video: Purpose For The World
The Dunamis Word: Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 7
When asked to repent of his "apostasy" of becoming a Christian, this was the Pastor's response:
"Repent means to return. What should I return to? To the blasphemy that I had before my faith in Christ?" ~ Pastor Youcef
Now that is the attitude and commitment of a born-again Christian. I disagree with the laws in Iran. He should not be put to death. Everyone should be allowed to see and view all the evidences and then come to a decision as to what they believe is true. Everyone should have that right. At the same time everyone should have the right to disagree, say they disagree, and tell why they disagree...no matter if I agree or not. We can't go and force Iran not to execute him. Our government may not even be able to convince Iran's officials not to execute him. They should keep trying. But what I think the United States should do is offer to give Nadarkhani, his family, and congregation asylum if they want it.
Thanks, Elder Harvey Burnett for posting this!
The Dunamis Word: Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 7
Friday, October 7, 2011
the a-atheism blog: Richard Dawkins' Hypocritical & Self-Promotional Excuse for Avoiding William Lane Craig:
Richard Dawkins' Hypocritical & Self-Promotional Excuse for Avoiding William Lane Craig:
Thursday, October 6, 2011
FacePalm of th Day #132 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will?
It seems that you are somewhat overambitious in calling this a face-palm, judging by your continual question-begging annotation. For example, you first comment on evil, without really defining it, says that we would never exist if evil did not exist. I take it, then, we don’t exist in heaven – it’s empty (d’oh, facepalm!).
Evil doesn't make it heaven (double facepalm). The point of Jesus dying on the cross and being born-again is to get rid of the evil in our souls. I also find it interesting that Johnny P didn't define evil. As a Christian, I can define it but without God I don't think anyone can define what evil is. It would be amusing to see Johnny P try. In case he responds to this (or anyone) I'll save my full definition. Instead let me explain what I am meant that without evil we would not exist. I wrote: This line of argumentation has never impressed me because who says that we can determine when God should deal with evil. The argument also fails to take account that if God destroyed all evil now, we would all be destroyed. If God had destroyed all evil at any time in the past, we would never exist. Instead God has a plan in mind and everything is in place to bring that plan to fruition - even evil. Because obviously Johnny P didn't understand, let's restate it. The statement was in reference to the evil and sin that permeates humanity. If God destroyed evil without cleaning evil from our lives, we would all be destroyed. When we say that God should get rid of evil and punish sin, we usually mean those people over there - apart from us and not recognizing that we are no better than they are. We deserve hell just like they do. You don't earn your way to heaven - it's by grace.
“I really wish that when people raise this objection would really argue without the arrogance of assuming that we know just how much suffering there should be in order to get the "best possible world". “
Er, I think you entirely miss the point. It’s not about what we know, it’s about the notion that God knows. And as such, in order to earn he title of omnibenevolent and perfect, this MUST be the most perfect world. It’s got nothing to do with what we know. We simply make evidential observations about the amount of suffering and people like you try and harmonise it with your God claiming that it is not gratuitous. This does, indeed, beg the question. It is logically possible, but this by no means that it is logically probable or plausible.
Johnny P missed the point I raised. God does know perfectly everything. And we don't. The Bible does not tell us that his world is perfect. It tells us that the world is decaying because of our sin and evil. I quoted Romans 8:19-25. Guess he missed it. Let me be clear. Johnny P's presumptions are wrong. Even if you don't think the Bible is correct, you have got to admit that he is making arguments based on claims that the Bible does not make.
“Why would we expect the universe and reality to be different?”
Well, for starters, I would be clever enough to create a life-sustaining planet that didn’t have plate tectonics that killed millions of people throughout history. I think that’s fairly obvious. Especially since no theodicy that you could offer says anything about the billions of animals and ecosystems destroyed in the 2004 tsunami.
I don't need to. Paul answered that: Romans 8. Also he ignored the rest of the argument. How do you know that the world would be better without plate tectonics, As far as we can tell, life as we know it is impossible without plate tectonics. No people. John Lennox discussed this really well. As for Tsunami, Jesus offered the best theodicy.
1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” - Luke 13:1-5
Your next set of comments lead onto the larger argument over whether free will can be a potentiality only.
“Doing the maximally loving thing at all times is hardly limitation if you don't want to do anything otherwise”
If God can’t WANT to do anything else, then what the hell do you define as free will?
I didn't say "can't" I said "doesn't" and watch your language. .
I would say that this is simply determinism. To analogise, this would be exactly the same as espousing determinism in humans – we act because we are who we are, in our nature. If you studied free will (I have written a book on it) you would see that, if God was always to act in a particular way, you are denying the Principle of Alternate Possibilities.
What is the title of this book? According to the Bible telling us that we are hopelessly imprisoned in sin, terminated in total separation from God, I don't see how we have the ability to make choices free of sinful influence without God. That's not free will. I don't deny that there is such things as free will. I'm saying that only God has it. And yes, that mean there aren't alternate possibilities outside of what God has already "bound" or "loosed". (Matthew 16). God always acts in a particular way - the way he chooses.
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:11-12
As for your criticism of my tax man analogy, you don’t really say much but a simple assertion that it is a bad analogy (it is a synopsis of a much longer analogy).
Maybe Johnny P missed it. I offered a different analogy. Here is again: It's more like having already been born in prison and not being able to raise bail. You are sentenced to death. The only way to be free and live is to let Jesus no just pay the price for your release but take your punishment of death as well.
“The problem is that we don't know that the maximally loving options are or even what "love" really is in all situations. We have an idea, but we don't really know exhaustively”
Exactly the same issues as mentioned before.
Which Johnny P again misses that giving our ignorance we don't know what the perfect world even looks like.
And your worst moment comes here:
“The Creation did not fall short of perfection before the fall.”
Oh dear, you believe in Original Sin. Too many criticisms of this to even begin.
Bring it.
“Again do you or anyone of know what the whole plan is? Do we know what the best for us in the world is? I don't. If you think you do, then you are really dishonest. If you don't know what maximally good and perfect are, how do you know that there is no purpose for the suffering we witness? You don't.”
Again, pretty poor reasoning. As I asked God in my last book:
If my child was to walk on the flowers in my garden, trampling them, it would be immoral to punish him without telling him what he had done wrong. This would communicate to my child his misdemeanour so that he would not do it again. What have we done wrong to deserve cancer, malaria, the tsunami, the Holocaust, disability, cholera etc., and is it right that you have not communicated to us why we have had these ‘punishments’?
God told us what we did to deserve all of this. The books of Job, Habakkuk, and most of the Bible deal with this. Johnny P said that he asked God this question in his last book as if God did not answer. He did..
The wages of the righteous is life, but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death. - Proverbs 10:!6
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23
You special plead God’s master plan on behalf of God, but any responsible and loving parent, teacher, society TELLS PEOPLE WHY THEY ARE BEING PUNISHED. Whether it be tsunamis, malaria, cancer of whatever, The almighty God can’t be bothered to tell us why these things are necessary to make a better world, but instead relies on you to tell us through ad hoc, implausible reasoning! Outstanding. No, my friend, the facepalm is all yours.
Considering Johnny P fails to understand the answer given in the Bible or even offer and objection - I see two facepalms
And as for arrogance, you are attempting to speak for an almighty and all-loving God. I’m sure he could get off his throne and do it himself.
I'm not speaking for God out of pocket. I'm only saying what the Bible say. I didn't write it. If you don't believe it prove it wrong. Johnny P makes several assertions without a single basis. It's arrogant to criticize a design and not know the specs, which is all Johnny P had done. If you want to demonstrate arrogance on my part Johnny P has to do one of two things. Show how I have misrepresented what the Bible has said or show that the Bible is wrong. He has done neither.
"So Johnny P's reasons for rejecting God has to do with erroneous presuppositions about what good is and what love is and what the nature of God is."
This, again, is poor. My ideas about what God is follow necessarily from the rather arrogant and unsupported ideas of what his characteristics are. You circularly use the bible to maintain your opinions and then accuse others of misrepresenting your god when you ad hoc harmonise everything about your god.
Using the Bible is no circular reasoning. I maintain that the only way you can know much about who God is, is by revelation. The Bible gives us that revelation. Unless you can show that the Bible is wrong there is no reason to throw it out as a source of knowledge.
As for Middle Knowledge, I did not say that WAS the mechanism, so thanks for building the straw man. Go back and read the sentence.
I didn't say Johnny P did. I was saying that Johnny P seems to think that the Christian position is Middle Knowledge by default. I know Johnny P is an atheist and does not accept Middle Knowledge. Neither do all Christians. The straw man is his.
This was a logical argument that you have treated rather illogically.
Sim,ply[sp] put:
1) God is perfect
2) a perfect being cannot create imperfectly
C) this universe is a perfect creation.
What do you disagree with there? That was my argument, and it then follows that:
The Bible does not support your premise: "this is a perfect universe" You should agree. That's the point you are making. God did not create imperfectly. It was perfect until Adam and Eve sinned and our sin perpetuates the problems. Your premises fail.
1) this is a perfect universe
2) we have tsunamis, malaria, cancer etc
3) these things exist in a perfect world
C) these things must be necessary for a perfect world
It's not a perfect world (see Romans 8 and the rest of the Bible). Therefore Johnny P's conclusions are flawed because we don't know what the "perfect world" is. His argument is that if there was a perfect world things like tsunamis, malaria, cancer, and etc would not exist. God agrees. It's not perfect. The Bible does not tell us it is with sin running rampant. When God purges sin, and according to the Bible He will, then it will be perfect again.
All you have done in you 'critique' is waffle on about not much, and NOT address the argument!
Johnny P has been consistent in his inability to answer what God has said about the questions he raised. I did address the argument because God has addressed and it was put to rest 2000 years ago. Just read your Bible for a change. Philosophy doesn't cut the mustard. Revelation is need. And you can't argue against Christianity without understanding what the Bible says and Johnny P shows no understanding. Double FacePalm.
What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #129 - Debunking Christianity: Is this the Best Possible World and does God have Free Will?
Westboro Baptist Church Picketing Steve Jobs’ Funeral Is Just Ridiculous | Crushable
Image via CrunchBaseI hate tIhat people think that Westboro Baptist Church is an example of what being a Christian is. It's Th not. Apparently they are going to protest Steve Jobs' Funeral! It's crazy and stupid and picket a funeral - to say nothing of rude and in bad-taste. It's not what Jesus has commanded us to do or to be. According to this article the following tweet went out.http://twitter.com/#!/MargieJPhelps/status/121733810231590912
Natalie Zutter wrote:
She's right. Not only does it not make since but it's just plain not Biblical or even factual. I'm not aware of Jobs spreading sin, anymore than anyone else. Zutter is kinder than I because I can't even call their thoughts "reasoning".
Mere hours after Steve’s passing, Fred Phelps‘ daughter Margie Phelps took to Twitter to announce that WBC will be picketing Steve’s funeral. Their reasoning? He served himself, not God; and “he had a huge platform,” which probably means that they consider his worldwide influence as a way that he used to disseminate his sinful ways. Or something. It’sbullshit.
A small consolation: Twitter noted that Margie’s tweet came from her iPhone, so at least we can add “hypocrite” to the list of insults about these insane cultists. (Margie’s defense: Rebels mad cuz I used iPhone to tell you Steve Jobs is in hell. God created iPhone for that purpose! :) …That doesn’t even make sense!)
Westboro Baptist Church Picketing Steve Jobs’ Funeral Is Just Ridiculous | Crushable
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)