Atheism is Dead: About.com, Austin Cline, Adolf Hitler and the Continued Promulgation of Nazi Propaganda, part 3

If you ever attempt to share your faith with atheists, many of them will try to use the argument that Christianity is evil because Hitler was a Christian. Mariano's blog Atheism Is Dead has many resources refuting this farce. And this particular article is one of those In this one, Mariano lists several quotes that are used to make Hitler sound like if not a Christian, then a theist. Check it out because soon Mariano is going to unpack each one and show that Hitler was not saying what people thing he is saying.


Atheism is Dead: About.com, Austin Cline, Adolf Hitler and the Continued Promulgation of Nazi Propaganda, part 3

Apologetics 315: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus MP3 Audio by Craig Hazen

I got this great lecture from Craig Hazen about the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus from Apologetics 315. It's awesome. He discusses it and gives us 12 facts the majority of scholars agree on concerning Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection and then goes through all the major theories for explaining those facts and how only his physical, bodily resurrection fits all of those facts. Take a listen using the link below.


Apologetics 315: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus MP3 Audio by Craig Hazen

Biblical Exegesis: Exodus 32:30-35

This time I would like to interact with Exodus 32:30-35. It was pointed out to me that sometimes people interpret verse 33 as referring to the "Book of Life or the "Lamb's Book of Life" discussed in Revelations. This book refers to the list containing all those who will be saved. from Hell. See Revelation 20:15 , Revelation 3:5; 20:12; and Philippians 4:3.  and Revelation 13:8; 21:27. This is confused with the "book of life" in Psalm 69:28: “Let them [David’s enemies] be blotted out of the book of the living.”. This is the "book" is Moses and God are discussing. Look at the context in the passage itself.

 ³⁰ The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."
 ³¹ So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. ³² But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."
 ³³ The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. ³⁴ Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin."
 ³⁵ And the LORD struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.

I see this as totally not talking about the book in Revelations because in the context these events take place right after 3000 people were killed after Moses found Israel worshiping the Golden calf. I read about this issue in an article that defends the doctrine of "Eternal Security" also known as "Perseverance of the Saints". We know that as a nation, Israel was punished by lots of the people dying by the sword and by that plague.

Source
What is the Book of Life?

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 3 of 4

Here is part 3 of  Mariano's series discussing Psalm 22 from Judaism and Christian point of views. This is awesome. This part deals with various scholars from across all the centuries. Here is Mariano's introduction:

There seems to be two issues in dealing polemically with Psalm 22. One issue is whether v.16 should read “they pierced” as Christianity claims, or “like a lion” as Judaism claims. The second issue is the question of whether this Psalm is Messianic or not.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 3 of 4

Iron Sharpens Iron: Leslie Wagner-Wilson: The Jonestown Suicide-Massacre: A Survivor's Testimony

A few months ago, one of the survival of the Jonestown Massacre was interviewed on Iron Sharpens Iron and the mp3 has recently became available.  Here is the description!

Leslie Wagner-Wilson, author of "Slavery of Faith", will address the theme: "The Jonestown Suicide-Massacre: A Survivor's Testimony".

Tomorrow (Wednesday, November 18) marks the 31st anniversary of the "Jonestown Suicide-Massacre" in a remote jungle settlement in Guyana, South America. 918 United States citizens died that day. An estimated 93% of those who died were African American. It was the largest number of American civilian lives lost in a single event "(before September 11, 2001, during which there were 2,974 fatalities on American soil, out of which there were 2,669 American lives lost: 2,266 civilians and 403 among the FDNY, NYPD and Port Authority Police Dept.)". This included United States Congressman Leo Ryan and his entourage. His assassination marked the first and only murder of a U.S. Congressman in the history of the United States.

After surviving sixteen months in the armed jungle compound and through daily prayer amongst a world of madness, our guest Leslie Wagner-Wilson, then twenty one years old, escaped Jonestown walking thirty odd miles through the jungle along with nine other members of the cult on the morning of November 18, 1978. Strapped to her back was a 40-pound care package - her son, later to be known as the youngest survivor of Jonestown. After reaching a small outpost that night, she would be told that Congressman Leo Ryan and four of his entourage had been assassinated along with a Temple defector. Within the next two days she would be told that all of the residents of Jonestown had died, including her husband, mother, brother, sister, niece, nephew, sister in law, brother in law and friends she had grown up and loved since 13.

Since Jonestown, Slavery of Faith also chronicles Leslie's return to the U.S. under a veil of secrecy in fear of the “death squads”, her fight to maintain faith in her darkest hours; suffering Post Traumatic Stress, survivors’ guilt, drug addiction, a family suicide, redemption and finally forgiveness. All the while holding on to the only thing she knew was true-God. It shares her journey through psychological and spiritual jungles to reach a place of remembrance—- to “live their love and not their deaths.”

I have given this a listen and I am amazed. Her testimony is nothing short of miraculous. I'm so sorry that her family was killed but the story of how she survived is amazing. She also spoke about although it wasn't reported often that most of the victims were black. We are talking about 0ver 900 civilians killed almost at the same time. I've seen documentaries. Listened to the news. However nothing like hearing it from someone who was there. I thought Jim Jones started out orthodox, but Leslie testifies that he wasn't and they were so brainwashed and so caught up they couldn't see it.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Leslie Wagner-Wilson: The Jonestown Suicide-Massacre: A Survivor's Testimony

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Are Jesus and the Archangel Michael the Same Personage?

Image via Wikipedia

Here is the next article in Mariano's series of blog posts regarding the Trinity. This time Mariano presents Bible passages that refute the heresy that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same. Some Jehovah Witnesses teach this. The Bible says different!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Are Jesus and the Archangel Michael the Same Personage?

Apologetics 315: Five Postmodern Questions About the Bible MP3 Audio by Amy Orr-Ewing

On his blog, Apologetics 315, Brian has posted a great lecture presented  by Evangelist Amy Orr-Ewing. The subject: Five Postmodern Questions About the Bible. The Five questions she answers:

• “How can you present the Bible as true?”
• “How can the Bible say anything at all?”
• “Isn’t the Bible sexist and out of date?”
• “Why is the Bible any better than any other Holy Book?”
• “How can the Bible be relevant for 21st century life?”


You can hear her by visiting Apologetics 315 at the link below.


Apologetics 315: Five Postmodern Questions About the Bible MP3 Audio by Amy Orr-Ewing

The Human Sexes (Part One) - Different But Equal

I found this interesting documentary on google. Here is the summary:

Written and presented by Desmond Morris (1997). Will boys always be boys and girls always be girls? Will we ever really understand each other? You may be shocked by your conclusions. Prepare yourself for an intimate, erotic examination of physical differences between the sexes, from body fat to brain power. See Turkish men demonstrate their suitability as mates by wrestling in olive oil. Celebrate Mardi Gras in New Orleans, where women bare their breasts to entice men to reward them with strings of beads. Observe women who flaunt their femininity as exotic dancers, and female body builders who develop their muscles to the point of masculinity. Examine brain scans that show that men and women even think differently about the same problems. 'Different But Equal' explores whether the amazing differences between men and women are based on biology or history.

The Human Sexes (Part One) - Different But Equal

The 10 Most Expensive Comics Ever

Although finding a near-mint condition copy is nearly impossible, if you happen to own any of these old comics where popular characters make their first appearance, you could be sitting on hundreds of thousand dollars. Take a look through our gallery of the ten most valuable comics in the world, and what makes them worth six figures.

The 10 Most Expensive Comics Ever

The Geek Teamups of Sherlock Holmes, From Batman to Doctor Who

This is a fascinating article about various ways Sherlock Holmes has been portrayed in modern comic books and literature! This is a fun article! Sherlock Holmes has teamed up with Batman, fought Dracula, fought Joker, and has adventures far outside the ideas of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.


The Geek Teamups of Sherlock Holmes, From Batman to Doctor Who

The Nature of Morality part 1a of 2

This is wonderful. I've really struck a chord with the previous post about morality. Beechbum has actually provided comments worthy of response. His response is in black and mine are in red! I've changed the format of his response to make them easier to read.

Beachbum said...

You don't think the bible treats women as property:

"Beechbum obviously believes that the Bible condones treating women as property but it doesn't."

This is from the King James Version: Judges 19:23-25 (King James Version)

23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. 24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

And if you want a real good definition of chattel, read to the end of the chapter. But I have more, just in case; Genesis 19:7-9 Another case of Women as property

7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

But does god punish Lot for throwing his daughters to the mob, of course not, he protects him from the harm that besets the cities by sending him out of Sodum and Gomorrah, but wait the god is not done yet he then turns Lots wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back in remembrance:

26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

No, your religion doesn't treat women as property, it treats them much, much worse. But you have asserted even more from your state of... anyway. From your point of view slavery of biblical times isn't real slavery, not compared to, as you say; "the slavery practiced in ancient Israel is nothing like the slavery of Africans and native North and South Americans" Men used as primitive boat motors, women used as sex slaves, even young boys used as sex slaves, if anything the slavery of the ancient Mediterranean was even more horrible than the slavery of early America, if you can imagine that, wait you don't have to: Slavery is now a crime against humanity, because it is universally proclaimed. So this is one heinous act regulated by the godly that proves morality is not objective, therefore can be changed and if it can be changed it is subjective but when it can be changed for the better, but is stopped by superstitions or a superstitious tyrant - that is truly heinous.

January 8, 2010 4:23 AM  

All Beechbum has managed to prove is that he is so biased he can't read properly. No where in the passages he quoted does the Bible say "This is good idea...this is how you should live.". It's not God commanding the men in these passages to do these heinous things. The Bible does not condone these behaviors. It only describes what happened. Description not prescription. What does the Bible really say about the equality of men and women.

for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.- Galatians 3:27-29

I have written an extensive blog post truly describing how the Bible portrays women: An "Evil" of Christianity. Beechbum obviously needs to study more. I doubt Beechbum even knows why Lot's wife was punished. She wasn't punished because she was a woman. She longed for the life in Sodom that God was delivering her from. That was why she got what she deserved. And don't think that we all don't deserve the same. We should be grateful for God's mercy.

As for slavery, I was not referring to slavery practiced in all the ancient Mediterranean but only to the slavery as it was described in the books of Moses. Is Beechbum really trying to suggest that the same the same things as he referred to in the following quote happened in ancient Israel?

Men used as primitive boat motors, women used as sex slaves, even young boys used as sex slaves, if anything the slavery of the ancient Mediterranean was even more horrible than the slavery of early America, if you can imagine that, wait you don't have to: Slavery is now a crime against humanity, because it is universally proclaimed.

If such was practiced in ancient Israel. it was against scripture. No where in scripture does it say that one person can own another as property and be pleasing to God. Slavery is still with us today...denouncing it is not universal but I wish it was. I've also written more about this at Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world? Part 1.

Beachbum said...

"Stoning was no different back then as firing lines, electric chairs, and lethal injection that we have today. Capital punishment is still with us."

Stoning is vastly different than capital punishment, not in the result of course, but for the crime that incited such action, i.e. being in the company of the wrong gender, or religious affiliation, being raped or molested. You know, crimes of the heart or mind, for the act of being too desirable or speaking out against the perpetrator.

 Beechbum calls himself moral relativist but he feels like he has the right to judge ancient Israel for the crimes that were considered capital offenses in comparison to what is a capital offense today. The word "Hypocrite" comes to mind. "Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue. It is no way that can be equated with the thought that adultery is wrong and stealing is wrong. If Beechbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay."  Which side of the road one drives on is arbitrary as long as it is consistent and agreed upon by the community at large, that was the point. I wouldn't equate transportation regulations with a personal choice, that would be as silly as saying adultery was wrong because your sky fairy said so. Adultery is wrong (immoral) because infants without two fulltime parents are less likely to do as well in this world, and it was even worse in our evolutionary past when social cohesion was built on the family, even extended family, unit. Along similar lines, is the socially destructive nature of theft, societies that didn't curtail it did not persist through time. The motivation for attaining goods in such a society were greatly diminished without a trust that one would reap the full reward for ones labors. Like all of your "misguided" concerns with regards to morality, while this one is only a vitriolic example of arrogance from ignorance, sex with little children has been a heinous act and treated as such for far longer than your superstitious god(s) have been poisoning the minds of man. But this does show the level one will stoop to protect their silly superstition. Do you honestly think anyone would condone a world view that would permit such an act, hardly, but the religious relish your decrepit attempt at fear mongering, disgusting. I wonder if Beechbum really does think that sex with children will never be the majority view? Just 50 years ago, homosexuality was wrong from the majority point of view and as far as I can tell had never been mainstream or a bedrock of any society. In ancient Greece and Rome, it was accepted as long as you kept a wife and family.. There are a lot of taboos and crimes that were shunned by the majority of people that are no longer viewed as wrong today. They are condoned and on public display. I agree that sex with children is awful and horrible and should never be considered as plausible. However not everyone agrees with us on that point. What if they manage to convince more people that it does not harm children and the majority starts thinking that adults can have sex with children and not harm anyone. They'd be wrong, but then that would be minority view. According to Beechbum, then sex with children would then be moral. This isn't attempt at fear mongering. This is the logical conclusion for Beechbum's worldview. If morality is subjective and depends only on the opinion of the majority, then what's to keep things from going in horrible ways?

January 8, 2010 4:25 AM  

Beechbum wrote:

The rights of one individual end where another individual's begin, that is why it is not your place to tell someone else how they can live their life, as long as they don't infringe on your rights. Like your use of the old canard about Hitler, the majority took him down because he was wrong, conducting himself immorally. Who says he was wrong? By what right do we have to tell the Nazi's they were wrong. According your worldview we have nothing to stand on except  most of the nations on this world said "No, you can't just do what you want and roll over us." The majority is the only authority, because of examples like Hitler's affiliation with the Church and their interpretation of what god(s) "supposedly" said or commanded him to do about the Jewish problem. The power of morality, moral choices of right and wrong, in the hands of the power hungry is what gave us a Hitler, or the Aztec kings, just about all totalitarians in history. What if the majority is wrong? The majority of the German people were wrong. What if the majority of the world had agreed with Hitler? Would Hitler still be wrong if the majority of the world agreed with him? According to Beechbum's worldview, no Hitler would not have been. According to mine, Hitler was wrong no matter who agreed with him. Since you cannot prove your god(s) even exists, how are you going to convince me that you can talk to him. Which means I would be a fool for taking your word for anything. But that doesn't matter, the community knows that your "good" is just as important as my "good" and it is the community that judges us on those grounds, because there is no god(s). You had better be glad that morality is not stagnant and objective or we would still be living with the morality of Lot's daughters or the concubine, slavery or any of the bloodthirsty acts in the bible. The very fact that our morality has evolved is the proof that you are wrong about objective morality, it has already changed. You said the magic words yourself, "remember when it was illegal."

The point having a personal relationship with God is the fact that you don't have to take my word for anything. You can go to God yourself and let Him tell you how things are. The argument that my good is just as good as yours carries little weight.  We have people in this world who are happiest and pursue happiness in denying you yours. Is their good just as good as yours? If so I hope Beechbum will give me all his money, because that would be consistent with His worldview. The morality in the Bible has not changed because it is based on the unchanging character of God. Our understanding has changed. Our moral views have changed not God. When I said "remember when it was illegal" I was talking about our culture not the one God has painted for us. In that scenario - theocratic Israel - there is no such thing as "when it was illegal".

 ¹Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. ²This is what the ancients were commended for.

 ³By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. ⁴By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

 ⁵By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. ⁶And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:1-6

"Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is."

Good evolves with our understanding of how our actions affect our surroundings, our society, and our future. Morality, improves as our understanding improves, there is no standard but that of Confucius, don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself, what Christians call the golden rule, and what every 10 year old in the world understands, it is innate in us all. And one final note; You already live in the world I described, because it is only people that make it good or bad. There is no god to interact in the actions of man and if the bible is a testament to the world with a god, be very glad he does not exist.

 January 8, 2010 4:27 AM

          Beechbum is incorrect about the "Golden Rule". Jesus and Confuscious actually said two different

          things. Jesus did not say "Don't do to others that you don't want done to you." Jesus said that we

          should do to others as you we want done to us. It included what Confuscious said but calls us higher.

          Just don't do to other what you don't want done to yourself, but do good to others as you want them to

          do to you! That's higher. We can't just not help others but help others the way we would want to be

          helped even if they are unable to help us. This is antithetical to what is in us inherently. We only really

          want to do these types of things for friends and family if that. Jesus is commanding more. We are to

          show love like this to everyone...even enemies.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.

So who has the higher morality? Jesus. We should follow him.


What had happen' was.....: The Nature of Morality part 1 of 2

Reasonable Faith: question_16_Slaughter_of_the_Canaanites

I respect William Lane Craig. He is a gifted scholar and debater. I was recently pointed to an essay he wrote on his website answering the question as to how could God order the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite nations and still be moral. I like his answer and I wanted to call attention to it. I disagree with what he said about biblical inerrancy. It is just as important as the deity of Christ or the existence of God because it is by the Bible we have proof of these things. Craig is an existentialist which is not a bad thing. but it does mean that we see something differently.

Reasonable Faith: question_16_Slaughter_of_the_Canaanites

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Most Ancient Hebrew Inscription Deciphered

Dr Mariottini has posted an interesting article on the  Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription.  It is the oldest inscription in Hebrew ever found from the 10th century BC and it has been translated. It is inscribed on a shard of pottery. Dr. Mariottini quotes a passage from his source showing why this is noteworthy:

Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa who deciphered the inscription: "It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research."

Anything that give us more insight into the world in which the Bible was written can only deepen our understanding on scripture. Dr. Mariottini has given a great place to start researching this. If you are interested the resource quoted by Mariottini also gives the translations of the text.

English translation of the deciphered text:

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

Professor Mariottini has provided the most up-to-date information. When the pottery shard was first found many thought it was about King David directly. To see the older information follow this link.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Most Ancient Hebrew Inscription Deciphered

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 2 of 4

Here is the second part of  Mariano's four-part series telling more about the differences between Judaism and Christianity sees Psalm 22. It's brilliant. This part covers more rabbinical sources on the subject.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 2 of 4

Apologetics 315: Antony Flew's Change of Mind

Apologetics 315 has posted a pretty great discussion concerning Anthony Flew's recent book, The Big Picture: There Is A God. Anthony Flew is one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century and he has spent most of his career arguing for atheism....until about 2004. He used to argue, debate, and try to disprove the evidence for God for about 50 years! There has been shock and awe that he now says, after looking at the current evidence, the he has changed his mind. The discussion is about what caused him to change his mind. It's extremely useful to hear this discussion. The post also has other resources and documentation showing that Flew has indeed had a change of heart. I want to make clear that I am not saying that Flew is now a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. He has merely stated that now he has gone from saying that there is no God to agreeing that there is a possibility that there is a God. This is monumental and goes to show his character. Most people would rather not say anything than admit that they have changed their mind after expousing something for 50 yrs.

Apologetics 315: Antony Flew's Change of Mind

The Nature of Morality part 1 of 2

I've been debating Beechbaum on Saturday on the basically the existence of God. We talked about scholars and he made some accusations against William Lane Craig who he says he can refute.  Craig has a  three-point  reasoning the  existence of God.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Subject: Slaughter of the Canaanites

Beechbum rejects the existence of objective moral values. He retweeted a tweet from last Thursday in which he tried to argue that a god is not needed to to have morality. I have represented his tweet below and will respond point-by-point. My comments will be in red font. In our interaction we focused on whether or not morals such as marriage was really universal and objective. He admits that it is rare for a society to reject marriage but he offered two such cultures: Kung San in Africa and The Na of China. I will be writing a second post on this. 

On Thursday 31st December 2009, @Beechbum said:

@_7654_ @zaloomination I brought up Euthyphro's Dilemma - Socrates' question:

"Is what you're doing pious because it is loved by the gods, or do the gods love what you're doing because what you're doing is pious?"

to highlight an inescapable property of morality.

Morality is not a property of the universe (nature) like say; the freezing/boiling points of water, E=MC² or the properties of thermodynamics. This is to say that morality is not, nor has it ever been, an objective property of nature, i.e. the universe. Morality is the excepted convention of the majority, concepts learned through the experience of our antecedents, the surviving members of an evolving society, it is subjective, (subject to a given situation). This is why we, as we gain understanding, alter conventional morality for the better: i.e. slavery, stoning (in more evolved societies), females as property etc. all eliminated from the list of acts considered pious, moral, or loved by the god(s).

Beechbum obviously believes that the Bible condones treating women as property but it doesn't. As for slavery, the Bible neither condemns or condones slavery as institution because the slavery practiced in ancient Israel is nothing like the slavery of Africans and native North and South Americans. In no way were the Israelites were supposed to think of their slaves as their own personal property nor could they treat themselves that way. Stoning was no different back then as firing lines, electric chairs, and lethal injection that we have today. Capital punishment is still with us.

Like the choice of which side of the road we drive on in the US as opposed to, say, Britain for example is a case where civil law is enacted to instill a convention throughout a populous that is neither right nor wrong, just excepted and practiced. Morality is the practiced conventions of a society, excepted by the majority as good and right for all, which is why societies are evolving toward the betterment for all in free societies, but stagnate into degradation in dictatorial societies like tyrannies or theocracies where a dictator or an oligarchy chooses (decides) what is right or wrong. This is also the proof anyone would need to verify that these United States are not in any way a Christian Nation, for the same reason that morality is a product of the majority's experiences as a practiced convention, allowed to flourish, grow intellectually, pragmatically and in freedom's vein as opposed to the dictates of an oppressor, dictator, oligarchy or patriarchal god(s). In other words, this country is based on actual morality, not the dictated precepts of a stagnant, logically inept tradition.

Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue. It is no way that can be equated with the thought that  adultery is wrong and stealing is wrong. If Beechbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay. Remember when it was against the law to live as a homosexual? Just because a majority of people say something is right, doesn't make it right. Hitler and many others have done all kinds of things that we find reprehensible. But why? What right do we have to say that we are right and they are wrong? We all agree that it is wrong for me to come up to you, kill you, and take everything you have  even if you can't stop me. Why? Is it wrong because it is wrong or because we agree that its wrong?  We know it's not the latter because then you have to say why "your good" is just as important as mine. As a Christian I have a simple answer: God says your good is just as important as mine because he created both of us in his image.

So, to the question; can one be good (moral) without god(s)? The answer is an emphatic yes! Now, the glaring question is, Can one be good (moral) with god(s)? I think I have given ample reason to doubt that very assertion, also emphatically.

Not so fast. Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is. If I think that stealing your car is good, then why would I be wrong? What if I could convince the authorities that it was my car and not yours? Would I still be wrong? According to Beechbum, no. Do you really want to live in a world like that? Didn't think so. Be glad that there is a God. . 

Alas, I understand, totally disagree with, but understand the fears of people who espouse their concerns that without some central authority, all is permissible. They forget that the reason our Founding Fathers and this country's Constitution is the crowning achievement of the age of the Enlightenment is because, "We the People" are our Government "We" have replaced the central authority and "We" decide right and wrong, that is morality.

Maybe it's because Beechbum does not live on the continent, but he seems to have forgotten that the government is organized into a representative democracy because they thought that the common man was unable to govern themselves. The checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches were put in place because they didn't trust people to not become power drunk or abusive.  Trust had nothing to do with it. There was an elitist attitude coached in "We the people". They really meant "US" (meaning they). I was three-fifths a man back then!  And they could have never conceived that there would ever be a black man in the highest office in the land a scant 233 year later. Looking at all that I don't want me or any other human being determining right and wrong because it will not always be in my interest. It's far better to follow after God's interest and trust Him, because we sure can't trust our elected officials.  We need to pray for them.

Twitlonger: @_7654_ @zaloomination I brought up Euthyphro's Dilemma - Socrates' question: "Is what you're

Original Sin on Trial

I came across an interesting article written by a lawyer arguing against the doctrine of  "Original Sin".  His argument is that according to the American Justice System, common sense, and justice it is unfair for God to hold us accountable for the disobedience of Adam and Eve. He makes some point that are, at first blush, thought provoking.  I have reproduced his essay below with my comments in red.

I am a former Christian and a lawyer.

Did he mean that he used to be lawyer? Oh well.
 
Soon after becoming a Christian, I struggled with the concept of original sin and its moral implications. According to Christian theology, man is born into this world with the stain of original sin – the sin committed by Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God’s direct command and ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The consequences of original sin are two-fold. First, man is doomed to spend the rest of eternity in Hell, unless he accepts Jesus as his savior. Second, man is a slave to a sinful nature that he cannot escape during his lifetime, although accepting Jesus is supposed to curb the "lusts of the flesh".

The term "original sin" does not explicitly used in the Bible. But the doctrine is taught and while this essay's author does a fair job in explaining what the concept is he still falls short. Since the author seems to enjoy quoting Romans (read down further to see what I mean), I think Romans 5:12 -21 is awesomely bette

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned — for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.


But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.


Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.


The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The promise isn't to just curb our sinful desires but to be free to to do right and to be ju0stified despite our sin. The gift is forgiveness.
.
Here is my question: Would the charge of original sin and the imposition of the sentence of death on all people born after Adam and Eve stand up in an American Court? I think this question is a pivotal one, because the foundation for the need of a savior in Christian theology is based on original sin. I have explored this question with many Christians and I have never gotten a satisfactory response. Most Christians say that God is God and He can do what He wants with us because we are His creation. But, is that an acceptable answer? Others will say to me, “Well, God’s ways are not ours, so we have to believe that He is just and moral in charging us with original sin.” Still, others will say, “Well, no matter who was in Adam and Eve’s shoes, they would have disobeyed God, so we all are guilty.”

If these are the only answers this man has gotten to his question then no wonder he is so smug. I think the question he poses is two-fold.. The imposition of death isn't just talking about hell or dying but its the reality of living fallen, incomplete lives, riddled with sin and suffering. Doing evil to ourselves and others day in and day out without remedy or cure. No hope or forgiveness. That is what Jesus delivers us from. Therefore for clarification we need to ask is the punishment being unfairly applied or is the part being born into sin the part that is unfair?

I will address each of those popular responses later, but first I want to explore the concept of original sin within the context of our criminal justice system. When a person commits a crime, the prosecutors will usually submit their evidence of the crime to a Grand Jury, who will weigh the evidence, including testimony from witnesses and investigators and then either hand down and indictment against the suspect, or refuse an indictment. If an indictment is handed down, the accused is formally charged with the crime and then arraigned in court. There, he can plead “guilty” and go straight to sentencing or plead “not guilty” and demand a trial. If he is convicted and there are no accomplices, then he and he alone bears the full burden of guilt. He is sentenced to a punishment, whether it be jail time or death and no one else shares the punishment.

Agreed

If you apply the facts of God’s case against mankind in the doctrine of original sin to our criminal justice system, you can immediately see that it does not fit. According to the doctrine of original sin, God holds everyone born after Adam and Eve wholly responsible for Adam and Eve's sin. He punished Adam and Eve and He also punished all of their progeny. Is that just? Imagine if we held the children of a murderer responsible for his crime and punished his children the same way we punished him. What would we say about a system of justice like that? First of all, from a legal standpoint, the prosecutor in our American criminal justice system would never get the indictment against the children of a murderer, unless they were involved in the murder in some way. Secondly, from a moral standpoint, it would be considered barbaric and inhumane to punish the children of a murderer, if they had nothing to do with the crime itself.

Stop the bus. Let's rewind for a moment. It's not right to equate us being hell-bound because of Adam's disobedience as the same as punishing a child as a murderer because his/her father is a murderer. The author is presupposing that we go to hell because Adam disobeyed. No. People go to hell because of their own sins not Adam. Table the discussion of if it's fair for each of us to be sinners from birth and just grant that given the first 5 chapters of Romans, we are all sinners and deserve to go to hell on our own merits.  Read Romans 3. It's not about Adam it's about us.

But Christians refuse to look at the doctrine of original sin through the lens of justice and fairness. Why is that? Why can’t they see the glaring moral implications of holding everyone responsible for the sins of two people? As I said above, the most popular answer that I get in response to my objection to original sin is, “God is God and He can do what He wants to us, since we are His creation.” This is exactly what the Apostle Paul said to similar criticism of the concept of Predestination in Romans, chapter 9. When Paul's controversial doctrine of Predestination was challenged, Paul replied, "Does the clay pot ask the potter, 'Why did you make me this way?'" I have always wanted to respond to Paul, "If the clay pot could talkm you better bet it would ask, why".

God allows us to ask  "Why?" That does not mean He has to give us an answer.  Or an answer that we want. "Sovereign" truly means that God can and does do however He likes. And sometimes He reveals the answers to our questions and sometimes He does not. The thing about dumb, blind clay pot is that compared to God we are just as weak, dumb, and blind. Just be glad that He has chosen to save some of us He didn't have to.

Back to my point about the "God is God" response: Is God above acting moral? Can He circumvent the very moral laws that He imposes on us? I have a huge problem with that. It is one thing if you create an inanimate object, like a clay pot and then decide to destroy it because you do not like it. It is another thing if you create an independent being, with a conscience and emotions and then decide to destroy it because you do not like it. It seems very hypocritical that God would be able to treat us differently than He commands us to treat one another. I doubt if executing the children of a murderer for the crime committed by their father would be considered just under any circumstances. After all, isn't our system of justice is derived from the concepts taught in the Bible?

God does not destroy anyone because He does not like it. The author talks like humanity has some intrinsic value that means that God must do what we think is best. No such thing. Who says that God is acting immoral? He's not. Again how do you know that God is acting immoral because He is doing things in away you wouldn't. God does not execute children of murderers for what our father  Adam has done. No everyone's sin is on his own head.

The word of the LORD came to me:  "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
       " 'The fathers eat sour grapes,
       and the children's teeth are set on edge'?   "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die - Ezekiel 18: 1-4

If I go to hell it won't be for the sins of Adam or my daddy, but my own.  In the same way I won't get into heaven because my daddy believed God (and He does). I must believe and follow Jesus for myself or I will not be going to heaven. Same as everyone else..

The next response I always get to my objection to original sin follows the one I just talked about above. Christians will say, “Well God’s ways are not our ways and we just have to believe that He is just and moral in charging us with original sin.” And I have to hand it to them, there are specific verses in the Bible that support their response to my objection. However, do you really believe that there is some hidden moral justification for original sin that only God knows about? And even if there is, why would He withhold that from us? I challenge anyone reading this to come up with a valid, moral justification for holding the children of a murderer responsible for their father’s crime. You cannot do it. Trust me, I have tried.

Of course you can't because that scenario is not in the Bible. And yes God has not given us all the pieces to the puzzle of reality. There are things do not know and we may never know.

The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
- Deuteronomy 29:29

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:11-13

Another response I get from Christians to my objection to original sin is this: “Well, no matter who was in Adam and Eve’s shoes, they would have done the same thing, so we all are guilty.” Think about that response for a minute. If no one could have resisted the fruit, then that means we lack free will, which raises even more questions of fairness and morality. If no one could have said to the serpent, “No, I think I will just eat something else”, then that means God predestined the fall of man. How could God hold us responsible for doing something that we are unable to resist doing? Believe it or not, the Apostle Paul addressed this very question in the same chapter 9 in the Book of Romans.

Something very important. The serpent did not make Adam or Eve do anything. They willingly chose to disobey God. Now Eve was completely tricked. But Adam understood what he was doing - rebelling against God.  Their wills was not violated and neither is ours when we sin. We sin because we want to. That is why we deserve hell.

Paul was asked by someone listening to his Predestination sermon, “Who can resist God’s will?” In other words, the person was asking how is God just in punishing us for doing what He willed us to do. And do you know that all Paul could muster in response to that very thoughtful and compelling question was, “Who are you, O’ man to question the motives of God?” That was it. I call that the “Wizard of Oz” response to the moral objection to Predestination. “Who are you to question the great and mighty Oz”, said the Oz to Dorothy and her companions. Paul’s response is no response, in my opinion. Of course it is wrong for God to hold someone responsible for something that He willed them to do.

The Bible Disagrees with you.

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

- James 1:13-15

Original sin makes a mockery of our concept of justice and fairness and would never pass muster with us, if it was a rule that we enforced in our criminal justice system. But for some reason, God gets a pass and Christians just accept that God can do what He wants, even if it means doing something that violates His own concept of morality. Christians approach original sin from a biased point of view – God gets the benefit of the doubt. But at some point, you have to draw a line and begin to question foundational issues like original sin. I understand that there is room to argue over things like the Immaculate Conception, women in the pulpit, faith versus works, and other issues that do not implicate basic moral principles. But when the very foundation upon which a faith like Christianity is based –original sin – implicates those principles, you cannot just ignore it and give the Maker of the faith a pass. For if you do, then the faith itself becomes meaningless.

The entire argument is what is referred to as a "straw men argument". A characature of "original sin" is defined and refuted. Original sin refers to the taint all us have giving us the propensity to sin. God does not need a pass because no innocent man or woman is being punished for something that they did not do.

All have sinned fallen short of the glory of  God. - Romans 3:23

I agree that this is an important issue and foundational. It goes with faith verses works. because we are saved by faith in Jesus to do good works. Salvation from hell and good works are the byproducts of our faith not means of our salvation.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
-Ephesians 2: 8-10

Original Sin on Trial

Apologetics 315: The Four Gospels and the Other Gospels: Is Our Canon Right? - MP3 Audio by Richard Bauckham

There is an excellent lecture I listened to from Apologetics 315 blog. It is a lecture by Richard Baukham in which he gives the reasons why it is good history to believe and trust that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John should be in our canon and other "gospels" are not for good reasons. I highly recommend this for anyone interested in beginning to study the canonization of the gospels.

Apologetics 315: The Four Gospels and the Other Gospels: Is Our Canon Right? - MP3 Audio by Richard Bauckham