U.S. Oil Consumption [infographic] | Daily Infographic
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Craig A. Evans Resources - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: Craig A. Evans - Apologetics 315
The other resource are a few video interviews Dr Evans has done.Go to this link to get at those.
Video Interviews with Craig A. Evans
Lego robot beats human world record for solving the Rubik’s Cube with Android | Hello Android
Lego robot beats human world record for solving the Rubik’s Cube with Android | Hello Android
American Atheists’ Al Stefanelli rallied the atheist troops | True Freethinker
American Atheists’ Al Stefanelli rallied the atheist troops | True Freethinker
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Answering Muslims: Bart Ehrman Explains Why He Doesn't Criticize the Qur'an
Image via WikipediaOh, so Dr Bart Ehrman doesn't criticize the Qur'an because he agrees with it, he won't discuss Islam because...Looks like James White was right!
Answering Muslims: Bart Ehrman Explains Why He Doesn't Criticize the Qur'an
Whew!!! Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos Result of GPS Movement
Although the speed of light is does not depend on the the frame of reference, the time of flight does. In this case, there are two frames of reference: the experiment on the ground and the clocks in orbit. If these are moving relative to each other, then this needs to be factored in.Everyone can breathe now. Still nothing has been observed traveling faster than the speed of light!
So what is the satellites’ motion with respect to the OPERA experiment? These probes orbit from West to East in a plane inclined at 55 degrees to the equator. Significantly, that’s roughly in line with the neutrino flight path. Their relative motion is then easy to calculate.
So from the point of view of a clock on board a GPS satellite, the positions of the neutrino source and detector are changing. “From the perspective of the clock, the detector is moving towards the source and consequently the distance travelled by the particles as observed from the clock is shorter,” says van Elburg.
By this he means shorter than the distance measured in the reference frame on the ground.
The OPERA team overlooks this because it thinks of the clocks as on the ground not in orbit.
How big is this effect? Van Elburg calculates that it should cause the neutrinos to arrive 32 nanoseconds early. But this must be doubled because the same error occurs at each end of the experiment. So the total correction is 64 nanoseconds, almost exactly what the OPERA team observes.
Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos Result of GPS Movement
Featured Short: The Valley of Dry Bones [Video]
Ezekiel 37:1-14
1 The hand of the LORD was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2 He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. 3 He asked me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”
I said, “Sovereign LORD, you alone know.”
4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! 5 This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath[a] enter you, and you will come to life. 6 I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.’”
7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.
9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’” 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.
11 Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.’”
Featured Short: The Valley of Dry Bones [Video]
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Bring it: So Christians, the "Born again" kind, can commit murder?
For this post let us deal with something fundamental: So Christians, the "Born again" kind, can commit murder?
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.
This question was posted by Ryan Anderson on a different post so he would not have to answer Why Hitler was wrong?
If one wants to know what Born-Again Christians do and don't do, you read the Bible to find out. What does it say? The entire epistle of 1st John deals with this but given Ryan Anderson wrote (here):
Yeah, you are going to have to be more specific (the verse in question) because I'm not reading the whole epistle and then trying to guess what you mean. It would be better indeed if you could show the capability of rational thought and state why in your own word.
By his own admission, he's not going to read the very thing that will answer his question - one of the shortest books in the Bible. But we'll help him out because we know that exegesis is not one of his strengths.
So how did John know who was a born-again Christian and who is not?
9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. 11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another -1st John 3:9-11
14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. -1st John 3:14-16
There are so many scriptures that deal with this but we are going to focus on the above verses. First. we know that a born-again Christian will not purposely continue to sin on and on. This is evidence that he/she is not born-again. A born-again Christian does all he/she can to live according to the commands of God which are summed up by loving one another. Further because a murderer does not gain eternal life and hating your brother or sister is equated with murder, I think it's pretty safe to conclude that born-again Christians don't make a practice of murdering or hating others. We should follow Christ's example of love.
This does not mean that if you have ever hated anyone or even killed someone that you are lost forever. God can still redeem you. You can still repent and receive forgiveness. Don't forget that the Greek in these text carries with it the idea of habitually sinning not making a mistake - but outright will-full rebellion. So here's the next question. John is writing to a church - a body of people who claim to believe as he does: Does "brothers and sisters" refer to every human being or just to other Christians? Well given that no where in the Bible is it condoned to hate anyone or to murder anyone - I'd say that this isn't a license to hate or kill non-Christians.
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. 1st John 1:8-10
So a born-again Christian would embrace this and accept this and some one who isn't would reject this. If you, Ryan, or anyone else wanna know what a born-again Christian is, you need to read 1st John and the rest of the Bible, then won't need to ask questions like this one.
So, Ryan Anderson, what about now? Are you ready to answer my question: Why was Hitler wrong? Feel free to answer here
Bring it.
FacePalm of th Day #136 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 5
For someone who claims to have ended a conversation, Johnny P, keeps attempting to up the ante. Well at least there are more facepalms to go around. Again my responses are in red. Sweet bejesus, you are incredible and not in a good way. Your first two paragraphs show why I do not further want to deal with your points about my original post. If you can't understand the format of the logical argument, still, then it really does show you don't have a clue.
It's not the format of logical argument that I have a problem with. It's your inability to correctly represent what Christians believe. You prefer straw men that are easy to beat up.
Look, we don't have to agree on perfect since the argument has nothing to do with my beliefs. I don't believe that God exists at all, so what form his perfection is, is irrelevant to me. Because it's not about me. It is about the classical theistic position that God is perfect.
Oh but you are "critiquing" my worldview. The term of "perfection" and what that means happens to be important. If you are going to make an argument based on what God's "perfection" means, you should be prepared to define and defend on why your premises are correct. You have to show that you understand what the classical theistic positions are. And you haven't.
All we need to know is that the Christian believes that God is perfect. From here, it follows that his creation must be perfect too (whatever that is).
That is exactly what you have ran away from.
It later follows that tsunamis etc must be events and soforth which are ingredients for a perfect world.
Again where does the Bible tells us that the world in its current state is perfect? What do you mean when you say "prefect"? You seem to be either unable or unwilling to deal with this. This is why I can't take you seriously.
The fact that you fail to grasp this, shift the burden of proof and produce red herring after red herring shows quite clearly that you are out of your depth.
You won't even get deep but keep playing inland. I keep asking you direct questions and you keep pretending that they don't matter. That is the reason why this discussion does not been more fruitful.
OK, on to science:
And the hilarity continues....
You claim this:
“When God first made earth, there was no earthquakes and it was not part of the prefect design or earthquakes are a consequence of the fall. I don't know but both of these possibilities fit the Christian worldview and does not not conflict with science”
OK. 1) earthquakes were not originally part of the perfect design (are you now finally admitting to the premises of my argument?!). How did they then become part of the actualised design without God realising they would actualise.
I think you either have a reading comprehension problem, selective amnesia, or stupidity. You claimed that earthquakes were part of the original perfect design. I'm saying that earthquakes in which people die and evil in general were not part of the design when God looked upon His creation and said that it was GOOD.. I never said that God did no know what would happen? He did. Why do you think God told Adam not to disobey Him? Of course God knew. He chose to do this the way it has. Again re-read Romans 8 if you wanna know why,.
You imply this imperfects the design and yet God would not have known about it in advance!
No, I DID NO SUCH THING,. Now you are just being dishonest.
Either it happened naturalistically, or supernaturally. Either way, the design and passive allowance of it to happen is clearly the behest of God. And therefore, since it was in this wordly actualisation, it must be part of the design. If I design a machine and infallibly know that smoke will billow out of the third hole on the right, then this is part of the design in the same way that knowing the widget will tap the sprocket to make the gasket work. He either knew earthquakes would come from the natural parameters he set out, or that they would come from the other parameters he set.
Finally something that actually makes since. I agree. God did know deadly earthquakes would come about by allowing humanity to bring sin into being and not obliterating us. Do your conclusions follow from this? In a word: no. God did this because He loves us and has a purpose in everything that has happened, happens, and will happen. It is not about us. It's all about Him.
2) earthquakes are the consequence of the fall. This is where you apply ridiculous unscientific reasoning since it assumes:
a) plate tectonics appeared after man. Empirically disprovable.
Then do so...with some empirical data.
b) naturalistic events of material causality can be caused by abstract ideas (which by philosophical definition are causally inert).
So you admit that there is such a thing as sin and that you stand condemned as a sinner deserving of hell fire. If so then you should repent and return to Christ. However, if you agree that the Bible is right about sin being real, then you need to consider what the Bible says is caused by sin. All of creation has been subjected to decay because of our sin. (See Romans 8 again). The Christian worldview is against your very conclusion here. You don't deal with this. You just assume it. Rather sloppy.
c) Adam and Eve existed as the first humans. If you don’t bury your head in the sand, you would know this is empirically disprovable through human geography, palaeontology, anthropology and genetics.
You do realize that there are not 100% agreement on that conclusion among professional scientists right?
You defy science (or philosophy) on all of the above points.
Says you, falsely.
This is cherry-picking. This is why I claim you live a life of hypocrisy. Accepting science (and thus the scientific method) that agrees with your worldview, and rejecting any science which doesn’t. If you can’t see this, then you are wearing blinkers.
You have failed to show this. But I have shown how you live inconsistently by claiming to be a philosopher but refusing to back up your epistemology.
As for universalism and YEC, of course I know what they are. Sheesh. (I have written about them both in my last book).
And what is the title of that book? Who publishes it? And aside from agreeing with John Loftus that atheism is the correct worldview what qualifies you determine who can and cannot discuss these matter? Where did you go to school and how many degrees do you have? I hope you know that Universalism is not the classical Christian perspective, right? Therefore my comment should have made sense even to you, in context. And the YEC comment was important because uninformed people like you seem to think that the Bible says that the earth is only 6000 years-old. Here's a clue: it doesn't.. Some people only interpret it that way.
And the use of your quote “I'm suggesting that God created everything and placed you in the best possible place at the best possible time with all the life experiences that would best lead you to God.”
…simply illustrated an implicit acceptance of my argument.
Um no. I don't think you understood what Paul was saying at all. Re-read Acts 17 (or in your probable case, reading it for real). You'll like it. Paul was a brilliant philosopher, only he does it correctly in the case or presenting Christian truth claims. In this case, Paul is not talking about the world being "perfect". He's actually referring to how people get the opportunity to find Jesus and live for God - in other words. This is how people become born-again Christians.
You will slag me off with ad homs and silly naïve jibes. Fair enough, it shows the defensive tactics you need to blind people to the fact you have been ‘outclassed’. I too have ad hommed, but out of sheer disbelief that what should be an intelligent human can arrive at such erroneous conclusions.
I've given you reasoned arguments and you continue dodging. You can claim to have outclassed me all you like - whatever helps you sleep better at night. However you have been far from classy.
My logical argument was so simple at the beginning and you failed to critique it in any kind of logical manner.
"Logical argument"? Are you trying to make me laugh? Your arguments fail to represent the Christian worldview correctly - meaning you have it wrong.
Oh, and I apologise as I said I wouldn't post anything else. So this is going back on my word.
You did that on the first comment already, so why not continue?
It was just that I was listening to a fellow believer of yours, Dr Phil Fernandes (Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion degree from Greenwich University, Master of Arts in Religion degree from Liberty University, Bachelor of Theology Degree from Columbia Evangelical Seminary.), in a debate with Lowder (in which he got trounced).
I thought these quotes from the lips of someone who you have previously respected and agreed with in several of your posts. Moreover, you have dedicated posts just to him:
Yes, indeed. Dr Fernandez is a much better philosopher than you. Point-taken. I don't agree with Dr Fernandez on everything. He's very anti-Calvinistic and I think he goes a tad far in that direction, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about everything and I think he's a great scholar. Much better than some people I won't mention.
"As a classical theist, I believe God created the world perfect."
Where have I disagreed with that. You are arguing that the world is perfect now. That is not what Christians believe and not what Dr. Fernandez was saying. Your inability to grasp that may explain why you think Dr Fernandez lost the debate.
"A theist ... would have to argue that this is the greatest possible way to achieve the greatest possible world... God often uses evil and human suffering to draw people to himself. Now God's ways and thoughts are far above our understanding and even the Scriptures state that. At best atheistic arguments show that limited minds can't fully understand why God allows so much evil..."
So even he agrees with my argument in principle.
Huh? How does that quote agree with anything you said?
If this is the greatest possible set of parameters to create the world, and given we empirically know that plate tectonics preceded humanity (even you admit the movements wrt pangea etc.), then these evils brought on by things existent before human free will are clearly designed in by God. Since it was a perfect creation, these must be ingredients in that perfect creation.
When God told Adam that he would surely die if he disobeyed, do you think Adam had to worry about being killed in an Earthquake? The Christian Worldview holds that if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed, they would have never died. Earthquakes are not evil. What makes them natural disasters is that people sometimes die in them. I've lived in California my entire life. We have a vast number of earthquakes all the time and in my 36 years you can count the number of deadly earthquakes on one hand. Before the first major one in my lifetime when I was 14, I thought that they were fun and did not respect them like I should have, especially that I knew that people do sometimes die in Earthquakes. I'd wager that if there were no sin, we wouldn't have people dying in earthquakes - not necessarily that there would be no earthquakes.Was the earth and the universe perfect when God first made it? Yes. Is it perfect now? No. And God never said it was.
This was brought up in several guises in said debate and Fernandes simply appealed to the omniscience escape clause. Incidentally, cherry picking of science would be to accept the history and timeline of geological movements, such as pangea, but not to accept the evolution and journey of man in favour of Adam and Eve. THAT is DOUBLE STANDARDS.
I don't think the evidence completely support your conclusions concerning Adam and Eve. And what about your double standard saying you don't need to explain your terms and epistemology but claim you are using the correct standards for philosophical argumentation. "Take the beam out of thine own eye."
You, however, fail to grasp the argument as others do.
Make a cogent argument that I can grasp before claiming my failure to do so. Y'know one that is based on a correct understanding of what the Bible says Christians should believe.
So all your rhetoric about me can be aimed at Fernandes, who seems to understand the issue at hand, even if he just appeals to the 'knowledge of the gaps' argument of divine omniscience as to why these things are necessary for a perfect world.
Again, I doubt your understanding of "prefect" is the same as his or mine. But you refuse to clarify, so it seems we'll never know.
I would be critical of Dr. Fernandez if he is saying the same thing as you. I don't think he is.
I have had the time to write this in watching the All Blacks stuff the Wallabies in the first half of the RWC semi-final. The RWC is certainly time well spent.
And this helps your argument how?
Oh, and like Columbo, one more thing...
I teach plate tectonics (albeit to a basic level), so I have a fair grasp, thank you very much.
You teach where? You still haven't explained or provided any evidence of how I've said anything about plate tectonics that is incorrect. By the way, no matter what the majority of scholarship says - it's subject to change as new data becomes available. I'd be very careful if I were you of trying to fix a geological timeline. There is still much research being done. Oh well, I guess I'm just a little more open-minded than you. No biggie. IT happens.
Johnny P, from the way you endlessly reference this debate between Dr Phil Fernandez and Jeffery Jay Lowder.I was thinking that you were talking about a recent debate. You mean the one from September 26, 1999!!!? Well since, you haven't provided a link. Here is the only debate between the two I could find and it matches what you said they covered.
Any one who's interested watch it and I will be responding to it in a future post. And if you want to hear another debate with Phil Fernandez about Calvinism you should see this recent one:
And listen to Dr. James White's response on his web cast at these links.
What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #135 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 4
Douglas Groothuis on Christianity's Claims - Apologetics 315
"Many have misinterpreted the meaning of certain aspects of Christianity and so have attributed to it claims of wrongdoing for which it is not guilty. By failing to discern the meaning of Christianity's claims, some have thus rejected it unfairly. In fact, any worldview that is caricatured and then criticized on that basis has not been fairly interrogated."
- Douglas Groothuis (Christian Apologetics, p.123)
Douglas Groothuis on Christianity's Claims - Apologetics 315
Saturday, October 15, 2011
FacePalm of th Day #135 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 4
Look, I genuinely think you are being a bit delusional here, and let me explain why. You seem to have opinions of your logical argumentation that exceed reality. Take the simple premise “God is perfect”. You wasted time equivocating on the meaning of this word without realising that it wasn’t important to the argument at all. You could have substituted perfect with A and followed that God created A-ly. All things in the universe (tsunamis etc) merely contribute to the notion that the world is A.
The meaning of "perfect" is not a irrelevant. If we don't agree on what "perfect" means an argument that depends on describing reality, the world, or God makes no sense. The reason you think it doesn't matter because then you are free to poor whatever meaning you want into it and play around. I'm interested in making rational arguments and common ground is needed. I can see that we are not using the same definitions so I wanted to do was clarify what you mean. You are the one who said philosophy was needed to establish epistemology - how do we know what we say we know. You have refused to do that and then claim I am delusional. Cute.
And then you spout nonsense like this: “Too hot for you”
I apologize that I obviously offended you. But what other conclusion do you expect me to draw. All I have gotten from you were attacks about how I don't understand what you are saying when I have clearly stated what you are saying, answered your questions, and you ignore mine. Either this is too much for you or you don't understand what I am saying. Which is it?
The reason I am refusing to continue debating you is because, not only do you keep making blunders as above, but you make comments like this:
Johnny P, you say will refuse to debate me and then go on for several more paragraphs. You'd have more time it you would directly answer me.
“I'm saying that God in his omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscent chose to create a life-sustaining universe that now has plate tectonics. When the earth was first formed - there was one land mass. One of two things is true. When God first made earth, there was no earthquakes and it was not part of the prefect design or earthquakes are a consequence of the fall. I don't know but both of these possibilities fit the Christian worldview and does not not conflict with science.”
This really is utterly stupid. Harsh, but in reality, not harsh enough. To admit that you entertain both of those theories is enough to warn me off ever conversing with you again.
What part of it offend you? The thought that there was once a time when all the land on earth was one land mass or the thought that our sins and depravity caused the earth to deteriorate to the point that life-ending natural disasters were brought into being? If you knew about plate tectonics, you could not have a problem with the first statement. It's science.. As for the second, it's a theological thought. Agree or disagree - whatever but to dismiss either out of hand without explanation is either ignorant or lazy. Take your pick, I don't know.
Look, from this comment it is abundantly clear that we simply CANNOT debate. Why? Well, the world is full of people making empirical observations and creating (testable) theories based on these observations. These can be disproved using the scientific method, the best method for achieving cumulative accuracy that there is.
Empirical evidence tells us that the earth was at one time one land mass and that continent eventually broke up due to guess what? Plate Tectonics. Just what exactly do you think that science can disprove about what I've written? Couldn't you have been clearer?
YOU, however, take those observations, and sweep them under the carpet / stuff them down your pants / pretend they don’t exist. Your two ‘theories’ or ‘ideas’ are hilarious.
You mean the earth wasn't one land mass one time? Do you really wanna argue that?
They are hilarious because if you knew the first thing about cosmology or geology, you would know that they are empirically disprovable.
Where is your evidence that the earth wasn't one land mass?
We know EXACTLY why and how plate tectonics work. We know how planets form. Heck, scientists reckon they have even empirically seen it off the star T Chamaeleontis. So it is pointless debating with you when you can simply claim any theory out of your arse while ignoring all empirical data. It renders the collection of all such data pointless.
And exactly how does any of that disprove what I said? C'mon you must be able to be clearer than that.You would have to throw out Pangea and what we know from Geology and how plate tectonics works. Wither you are mistaken or you have not clearly said or thought about what you are trying to say.
It is my opinion that you should never receive medical help, you have no right to use the internet and modern technology. All of these things are a result of the scientific method which helps to accumulate knowledge and develop everything.
That has always seemed like one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. Science is how I make living. Science is one of God's gifts to humanity. I wouldn't deny it anymore than I would refuse to breath. And you have yet to show how anything I have said is scientifically wrong. You just don't like it. I don't care about your opinion.
In my opinion, Johnny P, you seem to be just making excuses. Adding insult to injury with you condescension.
You, however, decide to ignore any science that may harm your worldview, and use only that which doesn’t harm your worldview in a world of cherry-picking.
Show me where I have done that.
Such double standards are hypocritical. My partner’s daughter in her first year of a geology degree could disprove your crazy ideas in an instance. Go and read some cosmology. Go and learn.
Again - was the earth one land mass at a single time in the distant past or not? Won't answer or can't? I bet she could.
Don’t argue out of your depth. Get the philosophical training and the ancillary knowledge to deserve a place at the debating table with people who clearly have a better idea of science and logic. Good day to you, and don’t you dare say anything like ‘it’s too hot for me’ since you seem to struggle to argue yourself out of a paper bag and I really do have better things to do.
Johnny P, you won't even step into the paper bag and won't even agree to making some epistemological foundation. You have not shown that you have any idea of science and logic so I really don't feel bad if you never comment here again I'll just pray that God has mercy on you and bring him to yourself. Some one may get through to you even if I don't.
Incidentally, I was reading the conversation you had on DC some time ago and I had to cringe.
http://debunkingchristianity.
Examples of your superb logic:
"He isn't right because he's smarter or has some special interpretation you are too stupid to understand. He is right because he agrees with God"
I guess you would have to prove that God doesn't agree or that there is no God,. Good luck with that.
"your own sins affect others around you - even those not yet born. "
And your problem is?
"That is true no matter who you and where you live. I'm suggesting that God created everything and placed you in the best possible place at the best possible time with all the life experiences that would best lead you to God."
Acts 17. Can you demonstrate this as false?
".I'm not a universalist because the sacrifice was too high for God to redeem His people for everyone to just get a pass."
Do you know what a universalist is?
"I didn't say Adam and Eve were enslaved to sin...We are." - but God knew that Adam and Eve would do what they did at creation, so who is ultimately responsible. He chose that outcome over and above any other outcome. Oh yeah, and you're a fool to think Adam and Eve actually existed. Again, empirically false.
"all people are evil and deserving of Hell."
Tell me, how would you go about disproving that scientifically? Again, I think defining "evil" would help you understand what I said, because you probably did not. Oh wait, can we try something simpler? How about using your "knowledge" of the Christian Worldview to show that is now what Christians believe.
"I'm not a young earth creationist and neither" and yet you believe in Adam and Eve and some very strange ideas of plate tectonics etc.
Guess you don't know what a Young Earth Creationist is. Given the level of ignorance of plate tectonics and the Bible you have shown, can't say I'm surprised.
etc etc
By and large, Johnny P., you claim I am not worth your time talking to yet you look up my previous posts and you just go on and on about how wrong I am with no substantiation or context or demonstration. Who are you that your opinion should carry weight. Seems all your writing is good for is instigating facepalms. Thanks for the laughs however.
What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #134 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 3
The Dunamis Word: "Saved, Sanctified, Baptized & Filled With The Precious Gift Of The Holy Ghost"
If one has been around the Pentecostal church for any length of time, one has either said or heard someone say that they are glad to be"...Saved, sanctified, baptized and filled with the precious gift of the Holy Ghost and that with [a mighty burning]fire!"The following is an attempt to display why that saying was important within what became known as the Pentecostal church and circles, and what, if anything, that it means today. One may also reference our previous article "What Does 21st Century Holiness Look Like?" for additional information on the holiness movement.
Follow the link below to read the whole thing.
The Dunamis Word: "Saved, Sanctified, Baptized & Filled With The Precious Gift Of The Holy Ghost"
Answering Muslims: Photoshopped Mohammed
Image via WikipediaObviously Islam's Muhammad has been repacked and retrofitted to fit Western and American sensibilities today. David Wood has written a great article detailing this. Follow the linkAnswering Muslims: Photoshopped Mohammed
John Loftus on the Militant Christian, Militant Muslim and the Militant Atheist | True Freethinker
John Loftus on the Militant Christian, Militant Muslim and the Militant Atheist | True Freethinker
Faithful Thinkers: Video: Adam's Sin and Us
I respect Dr Geisler but I think it's a mistake to conflate our current enslavement to sin and death that was not a part of Adam's experience before he fell when it comes to free will. I believe Adam had pure libertarian free will. He was truly free to choose to obey or disobey God. We however can't say the same thing. If we weren't slaves to sin then Jesus would not have had to die to to pay for our sins and free us. IF there had been another way that didn't require Jesus' death and resurrection, don't you think God would have taken it? I do. Faithful Thinkers: Video: Adam's Sin and Us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)