Sunday Quote: Thomas Nagel on Atheism - Apologetics 315

Sunday Quote: Thomas Nagel on Atheism - Apologetics 315

Bible Defended: Jesus is not Hesus - addendum

dsurman has responded to my post about Esus (found here).

@mmcelhaney found information on the web about the cross on the chest and claims Jesus ideas are from Jesus.The site link is 2 large to post

@mmcelhaney Go to google books,google "Esus gaulish chest cross" then go to page 436. Interesting information.I can get pic if really needed

@mmcelhaney In the case of Jesus & Hesus, I think the names are more coincidense because of Esus being from Gaul area. Just my opinion.

If you can find the book link, you will see that author claims Hesus & Jesus are coisin gods because ideas are similiar.

@mmcelhaney Read the article I sent U. The author has an extreme opposite opinion than U. I personally feel the truth is in the middle.

I did manage to track down the book dsurman refers to History: Fiction Or Science By Anatoly Fomenko and here is page 436. I did not read the whole book but the previous post categorically shows that Jesus and Esus bear no resemblance. Forenenko only hints that there is a resemblance because of the name Hesus looks like Jesus but gives no logic for this. Then he goes on to say that there is parallels between the Gospels and Osiris. I dealt with these in an earlier post. I see no basis for making that conclusion.

Bible Defended: Jesus is not Hesus

I ran across the following tweet from dsurman:

Before Jesus, there was a god of Gaul named Hesus.An ancient statue of this god was found with a cross depicted on it's chest.Total coincidence? [link]

I tweeted him back and asked for the documentation he was using. He responded back with two tweets:

@mmcelhaney It is in "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Daughtery, and two other books I have on ancient gods.U can google it for web photos..

@mmcelhaney Hesus is a well known vegetation god of Gaul.. Look it up.. The cross is suspected to represent the S. Crux constellation

I decided to take him up on his challenge and see what I could really find about Hesus. Is there any correlation between Hesus and Jesus?



In a word: "No". There is the temptation to look at the similarity in the names "Jesus" and "Hesus" and think that one derives from the other. But you have to remember that name of the god in question from Gaul is in the Gaelic language not English. Scholars usually spell the name "Esus" not "Hesus". "Jesus" is transliterated from Greek "Iesous" which was transliterated from the Hebrew/Aramaic "Yeshua". Those "scholars" who like the idea of Jesus being a made-up figure plagiarized from earlier pagan myths like Earl Daughtery have tried to draw many parallels between Esus and Jesus. Here is an except of the claims:

One site says, "The Celtic Druids depict their god Hesus as having been crucified with a lamb on one side and an elephant on the other, and that this occurred long before the Christian era (834 B.C.)" Another site says the Druids reenacted this crucifixion annually; yet another says Hesus was born of a virgin. Most of this, if not all, is apparently taken from Graves' 16 Crucified Saviors.

The problem is that experts in Druid history and culture disagree with these claims of Esus. They can't find any evidence of Esus being crucified but they do know the following beliefs about him.

Esus was a real nasty-gram to deal with. The first-century writer Lucan refers to the "uncouth Esus of the barbarous altars." He didn't call them "barbarous" because they needed decorating help from Martha Stewart: Esus was a guy who liked human sacrifice.

What kind of human sacrifice? Victims would be suspended from trees and ritually wounded. Omens were read based on the pattern of the blood spurting out.

Esus is often linked to Mercury and/or Mars as a god of war.

Esus is depicted as a woodcutter (i.e., a lumberjack) in one early carving.

Esus' favorite animal was neither lamb nor elephant -- he preferred birds with long necks like cranes and egrets.

Esus is sometimes connected with Chu Chulainn.

sources here were McKillip's Dictionary of Celtic Mythology and Anne Ross' Celtic Britain.


It's fairly obvious that no credible parallel can be drawn between Esus and Jesus...and be honest or factual anyway. I was also amazed how little information we really have about Esus: 2 statutes, a section in Lucan's Bellum civile explaining how sacrifices were offered to Esus; the Gallic medical writer Marcellus of Bordeaux may offer another textual reference to Esus in his De medicamentis (from the 5th Century) - the sole source for many Gaelic words; given name "Esunertus" ("strength of Esus") occurs at least once as an epithet of Mercury on a dedicatory inscription and a possibly Esuvii of Gaul, took their name from this deity. Seems really sketchy to me. We don't know nearly as much about Esus as we do about Jesus and the manuscript evidence is really, really poor. No way did Christianity conjure up Jesus Christ from Esus.

References:
Hesus of the Druids. No Parallel To Christianity.
Esus - Wikipedia

Esus

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Historical Jesus — Toledoth Yeshu

Mariano has published a great article on what does Judaism says about Jesus. Take a look!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Historical Jesus — Toledoth Yeshu

Zombies and the Bible According to Askegg

Image by iamraphael via Flickr

In my interactions with Askegg he postulated that the Bible is unbelievable because it contains zombies! Okay, I'll wait a minute while you finish laughing....done? Good! In his worldview, a zombie is anyone coming back from the dead. Zombies are fictional and therefore the Bible is lying. So he says. The issue is that, yes, zombies are fictional and the stuff of horror films, books, and video games. They are depicted in many different ways but none of the common depictions even remotely approaches what the Bible describes in the Old and New Testaments when people were raised back to life or when Jesus was resurrected. Being clinically dead and returning to life are not both necessary and sufficient criteria for determining what a zombie is. You've got to look at what a zombie is and see if they match the descriptions we see in the Bible.

1. Eat human flesh/brains
2. Bad skin and abnormalities making them look less than human and barely recognizable
3. Enhanced strength
4. Bad Breath

No one in the Bible even remotely resembles these characteristics. Besides Jesus can never die again according to the New Testament and zombies in fiction die all the time. Zombies in voodoo are not the same as zombies in fictional American cultures. Zombies in voodoo are mind-controlled and aren't dead.

To add to this discussion, earlier this week on G4TV's Attack of the Show, Kevin Pereira talked to Harvard Medical School Professor Steven C Scholzman about understanding the living dead, their biology and why they like to eat our brains. This could help Askegg a lot in defining what a zombie really is so he can see that zombies do not belong in the Bible.

Video Games - E3 2009 - Attack of the Show

reBlog from wired.com: Top 10 Reasons I’m Not Sorry to Be Missing Comic-Con

I found this fascinating quote today:

It’s July again, another Comic-Con has kicked off in San Diego, and yet again I’m not there. I would love to be writing GeekDad posts from my hotel room, but instead I read the host of tweets from people who are there and sigh heavily. To prevent myself from weeping out of sheer envy, I console myself with carefully considered reasons. Here are the best ten I’ve come up with so far:wired.com, Top 10 Reasons I’m Not Sorry to Be Missing Comic-Con, Jul 2009

You should read the whole article.

Responding to Atheism vis Twitter

Over the month of July, I have been in dialog with three or four people who have strong disagreements with me on the existence of God, the validity of the Bible, history, and the nature of the math and science. The past couple of days have been quiet as if my "playmates" have become tired of the discussion. My correspondents have been Askegg, naontiotami, Cynskeptical, AdamJTP, freeplay, jearle, and dsurman. Although they are all very different and ran the whole range from being civil and courteous to being insulting and childish, they're opposition all seemed to boil down to the same themes. I'm not saying that each of these guys all necessarily agree with one another, but considering that they never argued against each other is something of note. Here is the list of ideas and qualities I think they share.

1. How do you know the God of the Bible is real and all the other religions are wrong?
2. The Bible describes a God they would never worship.
3. There is no good evidence for the validity of God.
4. Asking them to prove there is no God is logically errant because you can't prove a negative.
5. There is no historical evidence for Jesus outside the Bible.
6. The universe is eternal, therefore it does not need a creator.
7. If the universe was designed by a creator, then the creator must have a designer.
8. The Bible is flawed and contradicts itself and known facts.
7. They all claimed familiarity with the Bible and what it teaches yet show a marked ignorance of what the text means and what Christians believe.
8. They refused to apply context and culture to the Bible text and instead imposed their own ideas and supposition anachronistically.
9. They claimed that Christianity borrowed/stored theological ideas can concepts from pagan/mystery religions.
10. They claimed that there are no known evidences and facts that confim the bible as being true.
11. They refused to discuss the original languages of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and instead wanted to focus on 400 year-old English translations which the translators themselves agreed was not perfect.
12. They were willing to call my knowledge and education into question without providing any credentials of their own to speak as an authority.
13. Refused in many cases to be corrected in things about what the Bible really does say. For example a. Zombies and b. Unicorns
14. Refused to provide any meaningful refutations of facts and information I raised or pointed them to.
15. Tried standard atheists arguments like trying to resorting to equating the evidence for God to the evidence for leprechauns as if it their existences were linked some how.
16. Ignoring the fact that intelligent and educated experts in sciences, history, and the fields of study we discussed have come to different conclusions that they have come to and should not be dismissed out right.
17. A couple of these men have blocked me from following them on twitter...so I guess that means that as far as they are concerned the discussions are over.
18. They don't see the hand of God in mathematics and the sciences.
19. They desire to come up with alternate theories to explain the obvious design of the universe
20. The use the same tired arguments as Richard Dawkins (who refuse to debate competent Theists anymore) and Christopher Hitchens (who is a good debater).
21. They accept macro evolution as the scientific explanation for the origin of the variouos lifeforms on earth.
22. They define God differently than God defines himself in the Bible.
23. They don't believe that there is one true religion that all of humanity should follow.

I haven't really decided to turn this post into a series or not. I could respond to each of these posts and even show examples of argument and statements made because I think it could be useful to anyone contemplating these matters. If I do turn this into a series of posts I will take each of the above statements and write a single post around it. I may even say some things I didn't say in my twitter stream. If any of the people I've been discussing these things in Twitter, or anyone, I hope that they will free to post their own responses if they disagree. I also hope that althought it got heated, especially from freeplay and askegg, that they know that i harbor no ill-will towards them but that God will make known to them about His love and mercy. Once you try Jesus you will never go back.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : A Jewish Book Called “The New Testament”

Mariano has posted an excellent article arguing for the "Jewishness" of the New Testament. I agree totally. Christianity does not supplant Judaism but is a continuation of it. He even provides a handy chrat showing Old testament passages that Jesus uses in the Gospels. This great!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : A Jewish Book Called “The New Testament”

Truthbomb Apologetics: Free Apologetics E-Book Library

Chad over at Truthbomb Apologetics has done a great job for all of us of compiling a wonderful resource list of Apologetics material. If you have questions, chances are you will find the answer on this comprehensive list! Thanks, Chad.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Free Apologetics E-Book Library

Bible Defended: Dying/Rising Mythologies

Many Atheists try to write Christianity off as a derivative of other pagan or mystery religions. However if you really look at the the proposed similarities you see that Jesus really is alone. There has been none like Him, nor will there ever be one like Him. Let's look at some of the common ancient personage said to be similar or plagerized by Christianity.

1. Mithra/Zoroastrian system - Here is what Atheists argue:

Alleged Similarities
Some today have advanced the notion that Mithraism bears many striking similarities with Christianity and therefore was influential in the formation of early Christian beliefs and practices. Some of these borrowed beliefs are said to include:

1. Mithra was born of a virgin
2. He was born on December 25 th
3. He was a great traveler with 12 disciples
4. His followers were promised immortality
5. He sacrificed himself for world peace
6. He was buried in a tomb and rose after three days
7. He conducted a sacramental meal resembling Jesus' last supper

If these beliefs pre-dated the beginnings of Christianity and were known in the same part of the world, the Biblical writers may have some explaining to do. Is that the case? Even if so, does similarity necessarily imply causality?

If you want to examine Mithra and what his followers believed about him, you consult an expert.

Edwin Yamauchi has a doctorate in Mediterranean studies and written 17 books including Persia and the Bible , which includes his research involving Mithraism. What does Yamauchi's research show?

1. Mithraism did not teach that he was born of a virgin; rather, the mythical Mithra was born out of a rock. Furthermore, he was born an adult, not a baby as was Jesus. And, Jesus was of course not born in a cave as the second century letter of Barnabas alleges.
2. The birthday of Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the Bible and is not known. In fact, the earliest birth date for Jesus celebrated by Christians was January 6 th . The earliest time in which Dec. 25 th was used by Christians is AD 336 when Emperor Constantine proposed this day – possibly appropriated from the sun god worship. December 25 th is close to the winter solstice and was chosen by Emperor Aurelian for the dedication of his temple to the sun god.
3. Mithra was not a traveling teacher of disciples.
4. The belief of immortality may be inferred in Mithraism, but that is common to almost all religions, so is not significant.
5. Mithra did not sacrifice himself for anyone, he killed a bull.
6. After extensive study, Yamauchi knows of no references to Mithra's death. And, consequently, there are no records of his resurrection.
7. Any possible sacramental meal in Mithraism is unrelated to the Lord's Supper because it was initiated much later, in the second century. Furthermore, the Christian meal is based on the Passover, begun during the time of Moses.

Therefore, in no way can Mithra be compared to Jesus Christ.

2. Horus - Some try to equate Horus with Jesus. Does not work.

1. Horus was concieved by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin.

Actually, Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris who were married. And the Holy Spirit? That figure did not exist in Egyptian mythology and had nothing to do with the story.


2. Horus' foster father was Seph. Jesus' foster father was Joseph.

Horus did not have a foster father, Osiris was his father.


3. Horus was of royal descent. Jesus was of royal descent.

Horus was a god born of gods and was therefore a diety, not royalty.


4. Horus' birth was followed by three wise men who followed a star bearing gifts. Jesus' birth was followed by three wise men who followed a star bearing gifts.

The Delta Cycle, which is the oldest complete texts of the Horus myth, do not agree.


5. Horus' birth was announced by angels. Jesus' birth was announced by angels.

Actually, Isis gave birth to Horus in secret. It was not announced by anyone to anyone.


6. Herut tried to murder the infant Horus. Herod tried to murder the infant Jesus.

From the time he was born, Set and his minions, the snakes, attempted to murder Horus. There was no parallel.


7. Horus was baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptist in a river. Jesus was baptized at age 30 by John the Baptist in a river.

Egyptians did not have such a tradition. Horus was never baptised.


8. Horus resisted temptations by Sut on a high mountain. Jesus resisted temptations by Satan on a high mountain.

The story actually goes that Horus and Sut were having one of many large battles, and one of them seduces the other. Then Set became preganant by Horus.


9. Horus had twelve followers. Jesus had twelve disciples.

This simply is not true.


10. Horus performed miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Jesus performed miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water.

Horus never healed the sick, and he did not walk on water -- he flew.


11. Horus raised Osiris from the dead. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

Actually, Isis was the one who resurrected Osiris. Horus was the one who avenged him.


12. Horus was crucified. Jesus was crucified.

13. Horus was crucified with two thieves. Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

14. Horus was buried and resurrected in Anu. Jesus was buried and resurrected in Bethlehem.

15. Horus came back to life after three days. Jesus came back to life after three days.

16. The resurrection of Horus was announced by three women. The resurrection of Jesus was announced by three women.

Not only was Horus never crucified, Horus never died at all.


17. Horus was called the anointed one. Jesus was called the anointed one.

This simply isn't true.

This does not work. There is no chance Horus is similar to Christ? Some try to equate Jesus to Osiris, who was Horus' father.

3. Osiris

The Truth About Osiris

Claim: Osiris was called “Lord of Lords”, “King of Kings”, “God of Gods”, “Resurrection and the Life”, “Good Shepherd”, “Eternity and Everlastingness”, and the god who "made men and women to be “born again"
Truth: These names for Jesus were NOT used by Osiris, who was called, “Lord of All”, the “Good Being”, “Lord of the Underworld”, “Lord (King) of Eternity”, “Ruler of the Dead”, “Lord of the West”, “Great One”, “He who takes seat,” “the Begetter”, “the Ram”, “Great Word”, “Chief of the Spirits”, “Ruler of Everlastingness”, “Living God,” “God above the gods.” These rather general names were not uncommon for many other deities as well.

The Reasoning Behind the Osiris Mythology: If there is a God, we would expect Him to be powerful and possess a title that reflects that power.

Claim: Osiris’ birth was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, and Osiris had a star in the east (Sirius) that signified his birth
Truth: It IS true that some scholars connect Osiris with Orion, but they don’t stretch the imagination to call the three stars of the belt “wise men”, and there is no mention of an eastern star in the Osiris mythology.

The Reasoning Behind the Osiris Mythology: It is reasonable to assume that if there is a God, his emergence into the natural world would be in some way spectacular and supernatural

Claim: Osiris had a Eucharist ceremony of sorts, in which his flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat
Truth: There is no evidence for this in the research of the scholars

Claim: Osiris taught much of the same material as Jesus; many teachings are identically the same, word for word
Truth: There is absolutely no evidence of any of this, and the ‘wisdom’ of Osiris is still available for review.

The Reasoning Behind the Osiris Mythology: If there is a God, we would expect Him to be a source of great wisdom

Claim: Osiris was killed and later resurrected, providing hope to all that they may do likewise and become eternal
Truth: Osiris was murdered and his body was then dismembered and scattered. Later, his body pieces were recovered and rejoined, and he was rejuvenated. Osiris then journeyed to the underworld, where he became the lord of the dead. He did NOT resurrect with a glorified body and walk with men on earth, as did Jesus. He was not alive again, as was Jesus, but was instead a “dead” god who never returned among the living

I have presented 3 cases of how lies about Jesus is used against Chrristians. None of these characters are anywhere close to being like Jesus. Not just that, Jesus claimed to be God made flesh and He proved it by not just predicting the day and method of his death, but by laying done His life for us and then picked His life back up again.

Total Solar Eclipse

On July 22, 2009, Asia will experience a total eclipse. It will be longest eclipse this century. This is amazing. I wish I could afford to see it in person.

Iron Sharpens Iron: ERIC C. REDMOND: SOVEREIGN GRACE & THE BLACK CHURCH

I just heard on the Iron Sharpens Iron blog that Eric C. Redmond was on the webcast discussing how Reformed theology affects the Black church. I grew up in the Church of God In Christ, the largest black denomination on earth, and so I find this very interesting. I've pasted the information from the Iron Sharpens Iron blog below in its entirety.

MP3 Available Here


ERIC C. REDMOND, author, sought-after theologically Reformed conference speaker and founding pastor of Reformation Alive Baptist Church in Temple Hills, MD, a new church plant in the suburbs of Washington, DC, will address the theme: "SOVEREIGN GRACE & THE BLACK CHURCH".

Pastor Redmond served as the Second Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention from 2007 to 2008, and has served as the Theology Editor for "NAAF Outlook: Newsletter of the African American Fellowship of the SBC". He has also served on the Trustee Board of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary . He is a gifted expository preacher and teacher of God's Word. A graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary , his passion is to see lives transformed by growing in love and understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Pastor Redmond’s ministry emphasis lies in expositional preaching and teaching of the Scriptures, development of godly male leadership, and the cultivation of Biblical community within the local church. He has a burden to encourage academic theological studies at research levels among young African-American church leaders, and to see the rearing and sending of African-Americans into international missions work.

Pastor Redmond's book, "Where Are All The Brothers?: Straight Answers to Men's Questions About the Church", is one of Pastor Redmond's attempts to help strong men give Christ a second look by addressing some of their modern day concerns. He also contributed to "Glory Road: The Journeys of 10 African-Americans into Reformed Christianity".

Currently, Pastor Redmond also serves as an Assistant Professor of Bible & Theology at Washington Bible College in Lanham MD . He feels a burden to reach all generations for Christ, so that a generation yet unborn might be raised up to know and love God. On his blog, "A Man from Issachar", Pastor Redmond again attempts to point his readers to Christ through an examination of current events.

Pastor Redmond and his wife Pam will have been very happily married for 18 years this July. They have five children – Charis (17), Chloe (15), Candace (11), Calvin (9), and Codell (8) – and they reside in Lanham, Maryland. The heart of the Redmond’s ministry partnership is strengthening families.

A controversial and refreshingly honest article by Pastor Redmond that is highly recommended, "Living Soli Deo Gloria Under Obama", may be read here.

Pastor Redmond was also one of eight featured speakers at a special event of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals: "The Sovereignty of God Conference", held this past June in Haledon, New Jersey.

Iron Sharpens Iron: ERIC C. REDMOND: SOVEREIGN GRACE & THE BLACK CHURCH

Is the Universe Designed? William Lane Craig MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

I admire William Lane Craig a great deal. He does a masterful lecture giving evidence why it's perfectly plausible that the Universe is designed and refutes all the major objections by unbelieving Scientists and philosophers that the God of the Bible did it. I don't agree with all that Dr. Craig teaches but He nails it on the Resurrection and on the Intelligent Design of the universe.

Is the Universe Designed? William Lane Craig MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Does Faith Make Sense In An Age of Science?

Brian, from the Apologetics 315 blog, has tweeted a very interesting article from
Thinking Christian. It is a lecture in which the question is asked: Does Faith Make Sense In An Age of Science? It is well demonstrated that it does make sense. And the interesting thing about the lecture is that a lot of myths surrounding the relationship between Christianity and science are debunked. Things that I thought that were true that aren't. For example there is no reference to European in Medieval times believing that the earth was flat until Washington Irving's work in the early 19th Century. Dates and documentation are expertly cited. The idea is also developed that Christianity is necessary for science as we know it today...not sufficient cause for science to develop but essential. You can download or listen to the lecture at Thinking Christian.

Bible Defended: Moses' Authorship of the Torah

It has come to my attention that some people don't believe that the tradition that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible is true. Their reason? Well it breaks down to two contentions:

1. The stories were passed down orally and written down later on. Some say during the Babylonian exile. Makes sense? No, this theory does not jive with what the Bible itself says or what the historical record shows. I have two Reasons why I say this.

Had the Torah been codified I think that at least part of it would be written in Aramaic which was the exiles spoke in during captivity. Recall that parts of Ester and Daniel are in Aramaic. However the whole Torah is in Hebrew.

The words of the Torah predates the exile. When the "Books of the Law" were found during the renovations of the first Temple during the time of King Josiah (2 Chronicles 34:14-33). If the Torah was not written down before the Exile, what was they reading?

2. The other contention is that because Deuteronomy describes Moses' death, he could not have written the Torah. There is a Christian response and a Jewish response that I think that works either way. Some Christians believe that someone completed Deuteronomy after Moses died. This does not mean the Torah is not divinely inspired. It's perfect because it came from God. The other reasoning comes from Jewish teaching. They suggest that Moses wrote the passage about his own death in tears. Doesn't bother me because Moses was a prophet and why couldn't he write about his death before he died and be completely right on the details?

Criticizing the New Surgeon General

I've heard recently that President Obama's choice to be the United States Surgeon is a Black woman, Dr. Regina M. Benjamin, who by almost all accounts is perfect for the job. She is an expert in medicine. She has been awarded the MacArthur Genius award. She works with the underprivileged and by most accounts she is perfect. However, some people are questioning her fitness on one thing...they think she's overweight! Their logic is that the doctor who is representing the United States should fit and healthy not obese. I'm highly offended. Who say's she isn't healthy? Not all women are meant to be a size 6 and weigh 120 pounds. Some women are meant to be full-figured and not be proportioned like a Barbie doll. There is nothing wrong with the way Dr. Benjamin looks and she could possibly be completely healthy. I hope so for her own sake. You can't judge a person's health by how much they weigh or what they look like. I do agree that the surgeon general should be healthy but had she been a man, this would not have come up in discussion. I'm not sure if the problem is that critics are looking to call Obama's decisions into question or if they personally don't think Benjamin is a good choice due to her gender and race. It may be combination. In either case I don't like it.

source 1
source 2

The More Things Change....

Being at the top of field, and being a reknowned scholar world wide does not make a difference if you are Black, even in post-racial America! Henry Louis Gates, yes the professor at Harvard, was arrested last Thurday night for being in his own house and being angry that the police harrassed him even after he proved who he was and that he owned the house. Apparently, he had problems getting into his house, probably struggling with his keys (as we all have done), and someone had called the police about a prowler. The police came and Dr. Gates are undertandably upset at being harrassed and put into the back of a police car for no reason. When he mad his setniments abundantly clear, accusing the officers of racism, they arrested him for "disorderly conduct". My mouth is hanging open! Grant it the charges were dropped today, but that is besides the point. If this could happen to someone like him, it could happen to anyone of us, especially if you are Black.

source 1
source2

Terminology Tuesday: Ontology - Apologetics 315

It's "Terminology Tuesday" from Apologetics 315. This week its"Ontology". Look at the definition and visit Apologetics 315.

Terminology Tuesday: Ontology - Apologetics 315: "Ontology: The study of being. Ontology is often considered to be equivalent to metaphysics, but some thinkers, such as Martin Heideggar, have viewed ontology as a quest to understand the meaning of being, in contract with metaphysics as inquiry about specific types of entities.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 85."

Response to "Is A Bigot"

I came across the following the following article from twitter. The author attempted to answer questions posed to atheist by a Christian. I have to say that I think atheist does a better job than most but that is because the questions are not good. They show some knee-jerk thoughts that show that the questioner perhaps has not thought too deeply about either position. My comments are in red.

Nestafan made a comment on this article that I felt deserved a post by way of response, as it involved a number of interesting questions meriting detailed responses, and I didn’t want them buried in the comments. I’ll address them on a per-question basis: Nestafan’s text is in bold and my own is in default type.

A few questions for aetheists[sic]:

1. Aren’t you saying people who believe in a higher power are idiots because science can explain why we’re here? Hypocritic[sic].

No? I’d be the first to admit that any number of men of extraordinary genius have believed in a “higher power”. I’d add that science (in terms of “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation”) doesn’t concern itself with the metaphysical moral sense of ‘why’–this is the proper province of Ethical philosophy, in both its secular and religious flavors.

I don't like this question because most atheists don't seem to think that science can explain ethics and morality or the purpose of life. However, many do think theists (Christians and otherwise) was stupid. At least this author is willing to admit that there have been brilliant men and women who also believed in God.

2. How do you know what’s right and what’s wrong? If there is a moral law, why is there not a moral law giver? Who determined morality, scientists?

The first question is a good one, and deserves lengthier treatment than it’s reasonable for me to give it here. If I were to elaborate upon it, though, I would at least not have to do all the heavy lifting myself, as thousands (perhaps millions?) of man years worth of thinking and writing have gone into the study of normative ethics (moral theory), the branch of Philosophy which attempts to address this question. A large number of workable non-theistic ethical systems have been proposed; you may wish to look into them.

About these non-theistic systems, how many of them have actually been put into practice? The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Nazism and Communism. We see how well they have turned out.

Parenthetically, the fact that an enormous corpus of fairly robust non-theistic moral philosophy exists partially informs the irritation experienced by many atheists when they are accused of not being “ethical”, or having no “moral barometer.”

God tells us that He has put his rules and laws in the minds of every human being. We all know it is wrong to steal and adultery is wrong. We all know murder is wrong. Of course atheists have ethics and morals. They get them from God like everyone else.

The second part of this question will have different answers for different non-theistic ethical systems and interpretations of the word “law”. Suffice to say, no non-theistic ethical system requires a “moral law giver” in any traditionally anthropomorphic sense, and the word “law” may refer to anything from “government legislation” to “accepted custom”.

The problem is that without a law giver where does the law come from?

For the third part of this question, see my response to question 1.

3. Aren’t these scientists and evolutionary theorists dead?

If this question is meant to continue on from “Who determined morality, scientists?”, then I’ve already addressed it.

4. How do you explain death?

In terms of what it is, “the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism” works for me. In terms of why I think death’s a good idea, well. A constantly changing environment would have been a real evolutionary stumbling block without it (and its logical complement, reproduction.)

Would you still think death is a good idea if it's your life hanging in the balance? Also if it's only the cessation of vital functions and natural then why do we fight death? Why is it wrong to murder?

5. There is archaeological proof that Jesus did indeed walk this earth some two thousand years ago. Is there any proof that we evolved from some intergalactic comet?

I don’t recall denying the existence of Jesus as a historical entity. Based on the available evidence, I think it far more likely than not that Jesus did exist. Whether or not I think he was a divine being with magic powers who rose from the dead is a separate debate.

Only those ignorant of History deny Jesus' historical existence. Christians however don't think He was magical. His life and mission are separate Debates.

The idea that comets might have been responsible for bringing simple organic compounds to Earth’s surface in the distant past is only a relatively minor component of one of many current abiogenetical theories. Check out some of the others. Most don’t require comets.

The idea stems from the problem of figuring out how organic life began on earth without believing God did it. There is no evidence what so ever that any of the abiogentical theories is how life started on earth.

6. Wasn’t the constitution (which protects your rights) based on biblical principles?

There is no unequivocal statement in the Constitution specifying the importance of Christian principles or morality; Christianity is never singled out as the basis of anything claimed by the text. (For an extended discussion of this often-heard claim, read this.)

I agree that the constitution is not based on Christianity. Most of the founding fathers were deists and free masons - not Christian. I think it's proof of God existence that America is as Christian as it is given it's origins.

7. Do atheists marry? If so, why?

The answer to the first part of the question is obviously “yes”. I can’t speak for all atheist couples, but I’d imagine they get married for many of the same reasons that theists do. Legal, social, emotional, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; to be perceived as “legitimizing” their sexual relations; as a public declaration of love.

I have no idea why a Christian would ask this question. I mean God commanding and blessing marriage has nothing to do with being a Christian. It's ingrained into all of us just like our consciousness of right and wrong.

8. If believers only “pick out” the good points in the bible, don’t atheists only “pick out” the bad? Who’s right?

I’ll answer these questions with a question: to what authority or standard are you appealing when you use the terms “good”, “bad”, and “right” here?

I'll come right out and say it: poor question. There are no good or bad parts. There are parts that make us feel uncomfortable and confused. They are supposed to be.

9. Isn’t it easy to oversimplify or discount something when you already have a preconceived notion about it? Okay Steve Harvey called atheists “idiots,” that’s a bit heavy-handed; but Bill Maher said the same thing about believers. Who’s right? If you say atheists are, how do you know this?

To the first part of this question I would respond: “Sure, I guess?”, to the second: I’m not familiar with the specific context of Bill Maher’s statement (a reference would be appreciated), but were I to take his reported utterance at face value I ‘d say that I thought both Harvey and Maher guilty of making bigoted statements. I don’t think people who believe in God are necessarily idiots, but I do think atheism represents a superior conceptual system, of course. Otherwise I wouldn’t be one.

As politically a correct answer as I could have imagined. We all sinners and deserving of Hell. The difference between a believer and an atheist is that the believer has received grace and mercy. The hope is that atheist will become believers.

10. We are not born understanding right from wrong. Inherently, like animals, we are more prone to do wrong (ex. breaking your mom’s favorite vase at aged-three, then denying it when she confronts you). How, then, do we learn that violating someone and lying about it is wrong? How did we become separated from animals? Who’s to say it isn’t right to get yourself out of a fix? We know murder, rape, theft, etc. are wrong, right? Well, who says?

I don’t know about “wrong”, but if we don’t figure it out independently (or are genetically defective enough to not have developed empathy) we soon learn that raping/murdering people or stealing their property is a bad idea when doing it gets us killed/beaten/put in jail for a decade.

Do you really think that this was a trial or error thing? Do you think that humanity nearly wiped itself out before we "figured" it out? I don't think so.

And I don’t believe we are separate from animals in the sense of “not being animals”. Why do you believe that we are?

We have moral concerns and consciousness. We have self-awareness. We think. We do art. We do science. We keep track of events from generation to generation - history. What other living things do these things?

Without morality, there would not be six billion people on this planet, because we’d all destroy each other. And, someone had to be the moral law giver as I said earlier. Oh, yeah, it was those evolutionist dudes, right? But wait, aren’t they dead? n Mensa members can’t even figure out how to stop death.

Your statement is a confused one. It presupposes there’s no good reason outside “getting laws from a moral law giver and abiding by them” for humanity not to want to completely destroy itself. Self-preservation is the most important instinct for any life form to develop. Not developing this instinct would make a life form autodeleterious.

The problem with this argument is that self-preservation does not always mean being moral. At times murder can be rationalized as self-preservation. Or even stealing. Self-preservation is a piss-poor explanation for morality.

I fail to see the relevance to your argument of the observation that “those evolutionist dudes” are dead and that “Mensa members can’t even figure out how to stop death”.

I'm sure it was a "brain fart".

“God is like the sun; you can’t look directly at it, but without it you can’t look at anything else.”

Cute. Here’s one I like: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

I don't think it is all that cute. As for the tired remark "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” I think it's really horrible. It assumes that a theist (Christian, Muslim, or Jew) rejects all other Gods for the same reasons an atheist rejects the God we call on. Paul explains why you reject the God of the Bible.

¹⁸The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20

James White Debates Harold Camping

Hear that? It must be the sounds of pig wings flapping because I thought pigs would fly before James White would debate Harold Camping! However, a debate between James White and Harold Camping is scheduled to occur on Iron Sharpens Iron July 28 and 29. The debate will be about the Camping's teaching that the church age is over. He and Dr. White will go toe-to-toe to see if Camping's teachings can be Biblically supported. This is going to be a great debate. Read Jame's White's announcement on his blog. My first question is if Camping has ever read any of White's books especially the one on this very subject called, Dangerous Airwaves. My guess: probably not.