YouTube - V for Vendetta Speech

Image via Wikipedia

Here is one of the commentaries on politics and government I have ever heard. I really need to read the graphic novel.

Atoms and Their Electrons

Atoms and Their Electrons

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Fascinating interview with Evolution Critic, Dr. David Berlinski

This is a great interview. David Berlinski is a scientist! He is not a Christian (he said so in this video)! Yet He questions macro evolution. He is not alone and there are many scientists who disagree with Dawinian Evolution. I'm so glad Mike found this and put it on his blog. Berlinski should debate Richard Dawkins. I'd like to see that. Berlinski is not as theist, so Dawkins should be willing to talk. He won't though because He knows his position is indefensable..



THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Fascinating interview with Evolution Critic, Dr. David Berlinski

Aunt Jemima's Revenge: Suspected Serial Killer Anthony Sowell Proves That The Police Don't Give A Damn About Black Women As Crime Victims

I'm sure by now that you have heard of horrible serial killings in Cleveland Ohio by a convicted rapist named Anthony Sowell. I'm amazed that he got away with this for so long. The reason why is because he was murdering black women and the authorities did not care enough to find several women when they were reported missing. I have posted a link below to a blog that I think sums up the feeling of many. Here is a news video








Aunt Jemima's Revenge: Suspected Serial Killer Anthony Sowell Proves That The Police Don't Give A Damn About Black Women As Crime Victims

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Which Member of the Trinity is Omnipotent?

Here is the next post in Mariano's series of posts on the Trinity! Here he lists all of the scriptures that talk about God's omnipotence!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Which Member of the Trinity is Omnipotent?

I agree with Mariano's question in the post Title. All of the persons of the Trinity are omnipotent. Omnipotence is a quality of being and in his being God is one. Therefore, by definition, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have the same essence of being so omnipotence is a quality they all have.

Atheism is Dead: Dan Barker Sues Barak Obama

Mariano brings up very good questions in this post. He asks that if all religion should be banned from public celebration by the government, then why does no one complain about Halloween. For example President Obama's administration threw a Halloween party for poor children and the families of soldiers overseas. This is nothing new i think every President had done this for decades. That isn't the point. The question is if Dan Barker wants to get rid of the government supporting celebrating Christmas and Easter, then why no problem with Halloween? Mariano correctly points out that Halloween is religious based too - paganism. Seems like a double standard to me. Read Mariano's take...it's very insightful!

Atheism is Dead: Dan Barker Sues Barak Obama

RC Sproul Report from November 5, 2009

Image via Wikipedia

I was blessed to go to the sermon by RC Sproul at the KFAX Speaker Series in Fremont, California. I had a blast! Sproul is better in person than I ever thought! I thought that Sproul was amazing in video and in audio recordings, but no where near as fun  and I heavily enjoy Sproul's work. His text was from Acts 17:29-31 which says:

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

He spoke about the fact many of us, who claim that God saved us, seem to never give any thought  to what God has saved us from. He pointed out that in America today, people - Christian and Non-Christian - don't believe in the Biblical fact that God will pour His wrath out on everything and that without Jesus, you will be swept up in that wrath. I whole heartedly agree. Here are some points that stood out to me:

1. Dr. Sproul gave his testimony that he first came to salvation as a college freshman in 1950. He was told of Jesus by the captain of the football team. RC heard Ecclesiastes 11:3 -

If clouds are full of water,
       they pour rain upon the earth.
       Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north,
       in the place where it falls, there will it lie.

RC said that he saw himself as that tree - broken, sinful, fallen, and lost.  He said he pleaded to God for mercy and God gave it to him.  Funny, what God uses to call us to Himself.  He said that he then read the Bible and the Old Testament scared him because He understood that there really is a wrath coming.

2. Sproul also said that in 40 years of teaching a question that keeps comes up is: "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Sproul answered the question with two words: "They Don't!" There is no one good enough. We are all sinful and deserve the wrath of God. I agree with Sproul. No one likes it. But it's unavoidable. Sproul said that its the wrong question. A better question is "Why do good things happen to bad people?" I agree. Whenever anything at all good happens to us, it is the mercy of God.

3. Sproul also gave several examples as to how Jesus answered this question. We have two different examples in Luke 13:1-5 which says

 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 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? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Jesus' answer applies to every calamity and every problem.

4. There was also question and answers at the end. Two questions I asked came up that I think is worth documenting here. Sproul was asked about whether he was millennial or post-millennial in his views on Jesus' return. Sproul replied "What day of the week is it?" We all was laughing so hard. He then said that he hasn't gotten a concrete view on it all yet. And he was asked about when he thought the book of Revelation was written he said that he now thinks that the evidence pointed to the 60's AD. Unfortunately, he was not able to fully explain why he thought that because it was the last question he had time for.

Stand to Reason: Radio Archives

Here is a link to an interview of Dr. David Berlinski by Dr. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. I really like Berlinski. I hope he finds saving faith in Jesus Christ, but he does an awesome job refuting the ideas of Darwinian Evolution. Also for an agnostic, he understands the dangers of atheism and what its logical conclusions are. I think the reason why he is so good at this is because although he is not especially religious, his Jewish background has got to give him the grounding he has to look at this. I agree with so much of what he says and I like his personality. I think someone who is not a christian should be putting his/her finger in the eye of people like Richard Dawkins. Berlinski actually enjoys it. I wish that Dawkins would debate him. Berlinski cannot be ignored because Berlinski is not religious and is challenging them because of logic and science.

Stand to Reason: Radio Archives

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Colbert vs. Francis Collins

Image via Wikipedia

Again with the hilarity!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Francis Collins
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Colbert vs. Francis Collins

Atheism is Dead: Richard Dawkins Rules Out Abiogenesis, part 2 of 2

Mariano has published the 2nd part of a great post about about Richard Dawkin's latest book. this is from the point of view of seeing that Dawkins has an anti-religious ax to grind in his book the Greatest Show On Earth.

Atheism is Dead: Richard Dawkins Rules Out Abiogenesis, part 2 of 2

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Translation of “Secret Mark”

Image via Wikipedia

Dr Mariottini has found a link to where you can read the translation made by Morton Smith of a "lost letter" from Clement of Alexander that he found at the end of a book from 17th century. The letter contains a passage from a secret version of Mark's gospel. It's interesting to read. Some warning flags that have already waved include that no one else has reported seeing this letter and the truth is the letter contains more than enough gnosticism to mark it as something that should not be included as scripture.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Translation of “Secret Mark”

John 6 from the Great Falls Conference

Here is more spectacular exegesis of a passage of scripture that plainly teaches that no one comes to God on their own. I'd really like to hear the Arminian viewpoint on John 6:44 in particular. How do they get that it's up to us to accept on our own without God? I see no way I was able to do it on my own. I read Chosen But Free(CBF) but I don't think Geisler can handle this particular passage at all from the "People have free will to choose to accept or reject Jesus" perspective. I really would like to read a better Arminian treatment on the subject. CBF doesn't cut it.





John 6 from the Great Falls Conference

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The New Simplified Bible.

Image via Wikipedia

 Here is a great post I just read. Dr. Mariottini has sounded an alert about a new online translation of the Bible - The New Simplified Bible. The problem? The translator says he made an honest translation free from the influence of any church or sect but you have complete mistranslations of  John 1:1 and John 1:18. These verses equate Jesus with God yet he translates them as saying Jesus is "god-like". I'm all for making easy to read translations of the Bible, but don't change what it says! I agree with Dr. Mariottini. I can't recommend this translation either. The translator is denying the deity of Christ and I know for a fact that the Greek is being mistranslated by him. It galls me that he has the audacity to say that he was not influenced by any church or sect.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The New Simplified Bible.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Character of the God of the Hebrew Bible

Dr. Mariottini has posted a post about a conference from back in September in which research was presented talking about the character of God as shown in the Hebrew Bible. This is important.  I would contend that that the character of God has not changed and is ultimately revealed to us through Jesus. The Old Testament tells us much about character of our Creator. Anyone who see the existence of evil as a challenge to the truth of God's existence or wants to know more about who God is...should see this post. There are links to videos of the conference on his blog too. I may do a review of the material on my own blog but I'm not sure yet. Thanks, Dr. Mariottini.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Character of the God of the Hebrew Bible

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Hypatia: A Woman of Renown

Image via Wikipedia

Dr. Claude Mariottini posted a link to great article about a figure of ancient history that few people have heard of. Her name was Hypatia and she was a lecturer, a philosopher, an astronomer, and a mathematician in a time when women were not allowed in those fields. Truth be told, there are few women in those fields even today.

Below is a video showing the trailer for a movie based on her life. Dr. Mariottini is right, this artivle is really great on Hypatia.





Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Hypatia: A Woman of Renown

Arminius' Works - NINTH CHAPTER OF ROMANS

Image via Wikipedia

 I've had a chance to examine a letter Arminius wrote to Gellius Snecanus about exegeting Romans 9. I admit that I'm impressed to how Arminus mind worked. He was much better at explaining Romans 9 then many people today. I found that I agreed with much of what he wrote in the letter. I see that I have greatly misjudged the man before reading his works. I think he nailed the main point of the chapter when he wrote:

I come to the subject itself. In the first place, the scope of the chapter is the same with that of the whole epistle: That the Gospel, not the law, is the power of God unto salvation, not to him that worketh, but to him that believeth, since, in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested in the obtainment of salvation by faith in Christ. This chapter performs its part, and indeed is peculiarly engaged in the support of that proposition. It defends the proposition against the objections of the Jews, who, with all their power endeavour to overturn it as hostile and destructive to their own views, and so defends it as to confirm its truth more and more, and, by refuting those objections, adds strength and stability to the foundation already laid, in that very divine word and purpose, which the Jews were strenuously wresting, in their own favour, to the overthrow of Paul's doctrine.

I find myself in total agreement, as I'm sure all Christians would. The disagreement comes in interpreting what Paul is saying is the reason why some people are lost and some people believe. Paul discusses this point in the context of  the fact that most Jews of his time (as well as now) reject Jesus as Messiah does not negate the fact that the Bible is true. It's at this point that I see Jacob Arminius takes the same tactic as some do today. Instead of seeing the examples given in the dynamics of Isaac vs Ishmael and Jacob vs Esau as being applicable to individuals, they are taken as types.

Here we must repeat what was said before, as a general remark, that Esau and Jacob are to be considered, not in themselves, but as types, and so that which is attributed to them, is to be accommodated to the antitypes, or rather to the things signified. Hence, also, the antitypes are to be considered, before a conclusion, similar to the former, can be deduced from them, to the refutation of the sentiment of the Jews and to the confirmation of that of the apostle. But what those antitypes are, may be gathered from the end or design which the apostle has added, in these words: "that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth." That is, God, in those words, "the elder shall serve the younger," addressed to Rebecca, "the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil," designed to indicate nothing else than that He had formed, in His own mind, from eternity, a purpose to communicate righteousness and salvation, not one which should embrace all the posterity of Abraham universally, but which should be according to election, by which He would distinguish between these and those, not considered simply in their own nature, as pure or corrupt, but in respect to the condition, by which righteousness and salvation were to be applied, as the apostle shows in the following words -- that this purpose, according to election, might stand not of works, but of him who calleth, in which words is contained a description of the antitypes, which had before been given in the phrases "children of the flesh" and "children of the promise." Here it is more clear, for the children of the flesh and those of the promise are, such, by their own peculiarity, defined by the apostle, in this passage, since the former are "of works," the latter of faith, by which obedience is rendered unto God, who "calleth." Therefore, the apostle says that the purpose of God, which is according to election, has reference to those who have faith in God who calleth, and who trust in Christ, not to those who seek salvation by the works of the law. The conclusion can be drawn from these things against the objection of the Jews in favour of the doctrine of the apostle concerning justification by faith, in this way: "If the word of God and His purpose is according to election, by which the former is rejected, and the latter accepted, then it follows, even if some of the Jews are rejected, yet that word and purpose is not in vain; rather indeed, if that purpose, which is according to election, should be said to embrace all without any election, it would be in vain; -- But this word and purpose is according to election; Therefore, even if some of the Jews should be rejected, yet that word and purpose does not, on that account, fail; it is, indeed, rather confirmed from that fact, because it is its nature to exclude some, as it is according to election, by which one is rejected and another accepted."

Romans 9 in its entirety makes the case that God chose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. Why? Not because of anything in them but because of God's sovereign choice. The point of Arminus letter seems to be on the fact that we are saved by faith not of works or who our biological father is - and I completely agree. I will need to spend more time in this library cache online to see if  I can find how Arminius answers the question of why those who believe believe and those who don't believe don't believe.

Arminius' Works - NINTH CHAPTER OF ROMANS

Firing Line 1997: a Creationism vs. Evolution Debate « Rationally Thinking Out Loud

 I came across a 4 way debate on Creationism vs Evolution December 19, 1997.

Resolved: Evolution Should Acknowledge Creation
Moderator: Michael Kinsley
The Debaters:

• Pro (creationist):
  
  
  • Mr. William F. Buckley
  • Mr. Philip Johnson (lawyer, author, Darwin On Trial)
  • Dr. Michael Behe (biochemist, author, Darwin’s Black Box)
  • Dr. David Berlinski (mathematician, author, The Deniable Darwin)
  
  
  
• Con (evolutionist):
• Mr. Barry Lynne (Americans for the Separation of Church and State)
• Ms. Eugenie Scott (Exec. Director, National Center for Science Education)
• Dr. Michael Ruse (philosopher)
• Dr. Kenneth Miller (biologist, author, reviewed Darwin’s Black Box)

1-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

2-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

3-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

4-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

5-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

6-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

7-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

8-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

Firing Line 1997: a Creationism vs. Evolution Debate « Rationally Thinking Out Loud

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Babylonian Exile

Dr Claude Mariottini is doing a series on the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 BC and how it affected Jewish history, life, and culture. It is a great read. I have the link to the first two parts below. The thing that stand out most to me is just like the prophets foretold that after their exile you no longer see idolatry as a problem among orthodox Jews. I mean they learned it so well, they were willing to die generations later when the Greeks tried to force them to worship idols.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Babylonian Exile

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Lonely Widow

John MacArthur on the "Lie of Evolution"

Image via Wikipedia

I found  a great article linked below. The author addresses an important question. The discussion is whether or not John MacArthur is being heavy handed in treating evolution as something that Christians should outright deny. I agree with the writer of this post that I don't know how old the earth is. The Bible does not tell us. Geology and Physics seemingly point to about 4.5 billion years. The Bible does not tells us that this is wrong. As someone trained in science and a Christian I must reject macro evolution for two reasons:

1. Scientific
Many scientist don't "drink-the-kool-aid" of  macro evolution. I think the most powerful argument is the fact that evolution cannot adequately explain how human consciousness evolved or how genetic mutations increased the amount of genetic data from one species to the next. 

2. Biblically
The debate over evolution  is not like the debate of geocentricism vs heliocentrisim of Galileo's time. The Church said the earth is center of the universe not the Bible. The Bible gives us plenty of information on God's character and we can talk about would our creator use evolution to create life on earth? I'm not saying that God could not have used evolution only asking does it make sense given what we know about how He has acted throughout time? Macro evolution is contingent on the idea that live evolved through natural selection where the members of the species most healthy - stronger - faster- survive to reproduce passing those traits to new generations. By defintion - God has circumvented this time and time again. Each and everyone of us are here because God actively and purposely changed circumstances. The truth is if God had not picked Abraham and his descendants to be his "special project" there would be no Jews today. We are all God's "special project" - a masterpiece that he has been putting together ever since he spoke and all of reality leaped into existence.

 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'   - Acts 17:24-28

John MacArthur on the “Lie of Evolution”

Posted using ShareThis

Romans 9 from Great Falls Conference

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I am always interested as to how people understand Romans 9. To date i have heard no better exegesis than the Way James White does it. I'd be really interested in hearings an exegesis from an Arminian viewpoint, because when I read Roman 9 I am forced to concur with James White.






Romans 9 from Great Falls Conference