I heard of a great article by Nadra Enzi about black superheroes in fiction and real life. I thought that it was an insightful view point.
Black superheroism is an “ism” I’ve practiced alongside many others. My brand is costume optional but focuses on exceptional characters and cultures within the Diaspora. Icons like Toussaint L’Ouverture and Paul Robeson join generational standards like “being twice as good to get half as much” and “give a brother a rope and he wants to be a cowboy” as models for against-all- odds success. It’s really another name for Black Exceptionalism; the art and science of excelling within racially hostile societies. We have superheroes in fact and fiction from whom to draw strength.
I've been having a discussion with Chuck O'Connor in the comment section of the one of the comment sections of John Loftus' blog posts - link at the end. I posed several questions to Chuck O'Connor that he was gracious enough to write answers of his own. I pasted his answers and making my own full responses. The points and has comments are in black and my remarks are in red.
Marcus,
"1. Can you point out an example and show why it showing deceit and dishonesty?
Ted Haggard operating as the President of the Evangelical Churches Association all the while snorting crystal meth and fucking men while demonizing homosexuals.
In asking for example, I wanted to bring up the question why does it matter. How does what Ted Haggard's sins - for that is what deceit and dishonesty are - sins - invalidate Christianity or bolster atheism? IT doesn't.
2. What criteria are you using to judge truth and honesty?
A person says what they mean and they mean what they say. They don't demonize a minority while ingesting illegal drugs and paying men for sex.
So? Agreed Haggard is wrong.. So what? How does that validate your atheism? It doesn't. If you could show that Haggard is only following the commands of the Bible instead of outright rebellion, you'd have a point. But the Bible condemns him just as much as it does the homosexual and all who practice sin.
I mean if morality is subject and truth a matter of preference how did you come to your conclusions? And what standard are you using to make your judgements? That is a strawman argument. I never said that.
So there is an objective, higher standard? Many atheist disagree. If you agree with me that morality and truth are objective, then where does it come from? I made an assumption not a straw man argument. If you don't agree other atheists than I apologize for my mistaken assumption. I should have given you more credit.
Where did that standard come from? The standard comes from living in a democracy where respect for the individual, transparency of information and the rule of law win out.
A standard that in no way can be said to be universal or perfect. Respect for the individual? Seriously? Yes, things are better but no where they ought to be. Rule of law? More like who can afford the most justice gets justice. These: "respect for the individual, transparency of information and the rule of law" are far from universal. This answer is far from answers the question. Nazi Germany would not accept your standard. What makes us right and them wrong? Communist China is beginning to agree more and more but what makes them wrong and us right? Saudi Arabia and whole bunch of nations disagree with our moral standards and lack of moral standards. What makes us right and what makes them wrong? As for those things that everyone almost universally agrees are right and wrong (adultery and theft for example), where did that come from?
3. Accusing Christians of lying or deceit is accusing us of being sinners. So?
I never accused you of being a sinner. I don't believe sin exists. It is a mythological concept that has no relevance outside of primitive justice customs. It is a byproduct custom of ancient religious people looking to create order in barbaric times.
Lying and deceit are defined in the Bible as sins. Sin is rebellion against God at the core - transgressing God's standard. It's just as valid today as it was when Adam disobeyed God because neither God or those standards change.
The Bible says the same same thing.
The bible is a book of ancient myths.
In order to assert this, you have to show that a story in the Bible did not happen...not that you don't believe it could happen. You are making a claim that the Bible says things happened but they didn't. Can you prove that? You could say that the burden of proof is on me to prove that it did happen, but if you are claiming it didn't you can't just say that without proof. The best you can say and be honest is that you don't know for sure.
We know. We agree. That is why we trust Jesus and ride his coattails because we know we are not good enough on our own. We agree it is wrong to lie. Why do you say it's wrong to lie?
I don't say it is only wrong to lie. I illustrate the lies of Christians to implicate their hypocrisy. They "ride the coat-tails" of the divine yet do not behave in an accountable way for their own behavior. Always blaming a mysterious supernatural "sin" state that allows them to absolve themselves without changing. It is your pretentiousness and that I judge.
See? I never said that you believe that lying is the only morally reprehensible behavior one can engage in. I used it because it's the most ubiquitous. Everyone lies and knows its wrong. "Sin" is not a scape goat to use to absolve yourself. It is name given to that part of all of us that fails to toe the standard that our conscience knows is there. Sin bring condemnation not absolution. The Bible challenges us to change not give us an out. When I talked of "riding Jesus' coattails", I was referring to the fact that none of us can do enough to balance the debt we owe because of our sins...not that you get to live any kind of way you want and get off scott free. If you continue sinning constantly in practice. that proves that you are in Christ. Chuck accused me of suggesting he believes something he doesn't, hasn't he done the same to me here? Yup. What kind of Christians does he talk to? What Bible is he reading if he thinks that is what Christians think?
I say it's wrong because it reflects poorly on God and it's disobedience.
How does the lies of a finite being impact an infinite omni-powerful character in any way at all? Your theology is incoherent.
This question means that Chuck does not understand who God is or what sin is. God is infinitely Holy. Anything that isn't Holy is an affront to God's being. Chuck's understanding of humanity and God is incoherent, not my theology. Look at it this way: When your children commit a crime, it reflects on you, your person, your teachings, and your character. It hurts you. This is exactly the same thing with us and God. God is personal and relates with us...like how a parent relates with their child.
4. How do Christian sinning invalidate or falsify the Bible?
Christians lying doesn't falsify the bible in any material sense it simply falsifies the claim christians have when they state an authority to revealed morality within. If the bible is magic it seems that its efficacy is variant and can't be seen as predictable or real.
Christians are not claiming an "authority to revealed morality within." I am arguing that the revealed morality is written on our own hearts and seared into our consciouses and in the Bible. Even if a person does not have all of the revealed truth..we are responsible for what we do know - for what we do have. Where does Chuck get the idea that the Bible is magic when it says that we should have nothing to do with magic? Just because people cherry pick, twist, and subvert scripture does not mean that it's not predictable or real. It is consistent and makes sense if you let the text speak for itself and not read your own biases into it. One sure way to tell if you are applying bias is to see if you can find a passage that refutes what you just assumed the text is saying.
One more thing Marcus. I was a lay-minister, missionary and evangelical christian for the past 7 years. I know the bible and your superficial theology. I practiced it.
The last thing I have to say about Chuck's comments is that apostasy is proof that he doesn't understand the Bible, my understanding of, and that he did not live it consistently. If he was truly born again, God will reclaim him and if he was not, I hope he will be in the future. The way Chuck describes sin or salvation is not the way the Bible does. As for my authority to say such thing, another way is to ask the question: "Who died and elected me and other born-again Christians to the right and position to have salvation and proclaim the Gospel? Jesus! And He validated it with His resurrection!
I've had an occasion to listen to John Loftus' debate with David Wood regarding the question of does the presence of evil invalidates the existence of God. Loftus wrote some comments that can be read here. And David Wood's comments can be found here. I was really disappointed I expected something new from Loftus that I never heard before but nada.What I saw is what I always see when atheists try to object to the existence of God using the existence of evil. The thing is that just doesn't add up is that the way they describe God does not describe the God in the Bible. The thought is that if there was a God then there would be no evil - no one would hurt anyone else and there would be no suffering. When I look at the world, I notice that if there were no war...no crime...no evil...none of us would exist. I mean if there had been no slavery in the United States, me and everyone I know would not exist. Had there been no WWII, my parents most likely would have never met. Further, for the sake of argument, if God decided to annihilate all evil in an instant, every single person would cease to exist. It would be over. If I decided to kill all evil people, I would have to start with myself. No one deserves death more or less than anyone else. Truth is the Bible more thaan explains why there is suffering. The Book of Job discusses it in great detail. For God's answer look at Job starting at chapter 38. And Jesus said in Luke 13:1-9
1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or 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? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." 6Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?' 8" 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "
I'm sorry that PZ Meyers has had poor experiences debatingChristians. If what he has said is true about that radio program where he debated Geoffrey Simmons then it was wrong. That doesn't make his atheisticevolution correct however. I'd love to see PZ Myers Debate Stephen Meyers in a public, moderated debate complete with cross examination.
I recently watched a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Shermer. I was great! The debate topics was "Is Christianity Good for the World?" Shermer tried to apply all of arguments to religion in general, basically handing the debate to Dinesh on a platter. I though D'Souza did an awesome job going after Shermer and pressing him on key points. In effect neither of their arguments were new, but always interesting. Morality and it's source always comes up in discussions such as these. Shermer and the like-minded are ready to equivocate problems with accepting homosexuality with slavery, racism, and sexism as backward ideas that need to be rejected. The thing is the Bible never condones slavery, racism, or sexism...and the fact that we as a society reject these repugnant evils now means that we are now more in line with what the Bible says more than that now we are doing better than the Bible. Shermer cries out that he doesn't see anything wrong with homosexuality or gay marriage. He doesn't see the harm. Duh! That is why we need God to tell us what is right and what is wrong because we can't see the big picture.
I was particularly offended when Shermer said that Christians reject homosexuality because of only one Biblical passage and refused correction saying that it doesn't matter. Those other passages explain why gay marriage is harmful and why we need to avoid homosexuality for own good. Dinesh did not get a chance to address this fully because I believe he was trying to avoid being side tracked.
I've always thought that comic books were a great medium for art and storytelling as well as education. The first place I ever read the word "exacerbate" was in a Incredible Hulk comic book back in High School by Peter David. Comics Alliance has posted an article about a documentary putting comic books in a historical context! Here is a blurb and the trailer.
Here's CBL's official synopsis:
"Comic Book Literacy" emphasizes the positive attributes of a misunderstood medium. The film features appearances by comic book writers and artists such as Paul Dini, Scott McCloud, Terry Moore, Joe Quesada, Jim Salicrup, Gail Simone and Art Spigeleman as well as historians and scholars who discuss the role comics play in education in both an historical and contemporary context.
Anthony J. Carter was interviewed on Iron Sharpens Iron.He offers insight as to how he got saved and became reformed. He spoke about black Christian culture in America and provides some great insight. He was quoted to have written:
As our guest Pastor Tony so profoundly put it, "...our service--yes, our worship and allegiance--is not first to the black cause, though noble it may be at times. It is not first to the Reformed cause, though grand it may appear to be. It means that our service is to Christ first and last, now and at all times. If we can serve Christ while sincerely serving an African-American cause, then let us do it. If we can serve Christ while promoting a Reformed agenda, then by all means let us do so. But if Christ is in conflict with the black cause or the Reformed agenda at any point or at any time, then may we have the courage to say, 'Away with blackness and away with Reformedness--give us Jesus and Jesus only'. It means that we must understand that Martin Luther King Jr. gave his life that we might vote, but Christ gave his life that we might live. Frederick Douglas gave his life that we might be free from slavery, but Christ gave his life that we might be free from slavery to sin and death. We are black; there is no mistaking that. We are Reformed, and make no mistake about that. But these two distinctions have revelance only insofar as they are understood in light of the fact that we are Christian. C.H. Spurgeon said, 'I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist; I do not hesitate to take the name of Baptist; But if I am asked what my creed is, I reply, "It is Jesus Christ"'..."
Amen, Amen, and Amen! Listen to the whole interview at the link below.
Dr Hugh Rossdebated Dr. Victor Stenger about God's existence and the creation of the universe on the radio program called The Things That Matter Most. I think Ross went too far in granting that the Bible allows for multiple universes. I don't see it that way. Besides that Ross was on point. I hate that Stenger just resorted to the many-worlds defense and poor design to argue against Intelligent Design. I mean it seems that this is all the other side has to use. They also discussed what "nothing" really is.
I came across a post from John W. Loftus about a video that I had found and posted on this blog last week. He doesn't mentioned this blog by name so I don't know if he became aware of it from here, but be that as it may. Let's step through his response. My comments are in red. I want to make sure that I don't misrepresent him or take him out of context in any way.
I titled this post the same as others so people can see my response to a video floating around about me by the same title.
This is a cut and paste job from an interview I had with the program The Things That Matter Most, along with Pastor Dave Schmelzer. After this aired the director of that program emailed me and said she didn't think the hosts were fair to me, and many agreed...so typical of many Christians. I critiqued Pastor Schmelzer's book right here.
I often hear this accusation but never really see any documented evidence of such behavior. However I have experienced name calling and profanity directed towards me just because I disagree. It seems that name-calling is the only resort people have when they have no real good arguments to use.
In any case in the interview I said "seemingly absurd," as in beyond the range of what we can understand fully. But this does not allow Christians to drive a whole truckload of assumptions through that small crevice because of Ockham's Razor. Otherwise so can any religious person do so with opposing religious conceptions.
Actually I would like to know what assumptions Loftus is referring in that above paragraph.
Christians who post this video act as if they are completely and utterly ignorant of existential literature or even the book of Ecclesiastes.
Might he be referring to me? Let's see if he backs up why we don't understand existential literature or Ecclesiastes.
That anything exists at all “seems absurd.” I am at least honest enough to admit this. Christians parade through the streets like the naked Emperor claiming to know that an three-in-one God exited for all eternity who never learned anything new since he always knew everything, and never made a decision since all decisions were eternal ones, and never had a new thought since thinking depends on temporally weighing alternatives. Honesty demands humility with regard to why we exist and they certainly cannot depend on an historically conditioned interpretation of a set of canonized texts called the Bible for the answers when they shared the same answers as all of the other religions of that time except that they had a different name for their deity.
So who's trying to "drive a whole truckload of assumptions through a small crevice"? IF you look, Loftus is behind the wheel. He makes the same mistakes about the nature of God that people like Dan Barker make. Namely setting up a straw man argument describing God's nature and then refuting that. The Bible shows that God is triune in that He is one being in three persons. When God told Moses his name from the burning bush, the Hebrew shows us that God not only does exist, but that God has always existed, and God always will exist. God created time. Therefore He exists outside of it. Any temporal analysis of His decision making and will breaks down. The Bible clearly teaches that God has predestined just about everything. He brought the alternatives and decides which reality manifests and which ones don't.
3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. 11In him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:3-14
As for the discussion of the reliability of the Bible. Loftus fails to explain why you can't trust the Bible and how it says the same thing as other religions.
We have three choices: 1) Something, anything, has always existed; 2) Something, anything, popped into existed out of nothing; or 3) the existentialists are right that our existence is fundamentally absurd.
At least I can agree with Loftus on choices 1 & 2, but 3 is often restated as the universe being a shared delusion or illusion.
The Christian conception of God is absurd. They just won’t admit it. They cannot harmonize the trinity within itself without denying orthodoxy by reducing it to tri-theism or to a unitary God, nor can they explain the incarnation, nor how the death of Jesus can possibly atone for sins. Several divine attributes like divine simplicity, omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are internally problematic and lacking evidence. Discussions of divine simplicity will bring them to an utter agnosticism regarding to what their God is like, or force them to accept some absurd consequences. Go ahead by trying to define these divine attributes. I dare you. Then try to harmonize them when it comes to the problem of intense suffering around the globe, or even the certainty they have regarding their faith.
Loftus so far hasn't even defined the Christian God as the Bible reveals God. And he can't admit it. The Trinity teaches that there is one :"what" - being - and three "whos" - three persons. Loftus and others are confused because when we project our human experiences the revelation breaks down. For a human point of view there is not difference between "person" and "being" in describing human existence. We use them interchangeably. But face it: if someone asks you what you are, the answer is different than to the question of who you are? There is no internal problem. Three persons can share the one being.
The divine attributes are difficult if you go beyond what the Bible says. This is a failed and refuted argument because of course because of God transcendence, we can't even begin to understand what God is without His direct revelation - in part this is what the Bible is for. All of these attributes are described "Omnipresence" just means that God exists everywhere and every when simultaneously. "Omniscience" means God knows everything - complete knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. "Omnipotent" means that God is all powerful, there is nothing beyond God's power. "Omnibenevolence" just means that God is all good. He never makes a mistake. He never does wrong. Some object because they think that means that God would never have to allow anything bad to happen to anyone. This is not what the Bible says. God is not obliged. to do anything. He has chosen to give us mercy the vast number of times while we live. And when disaster does come God has a reason and does not owe us an explanation. Ask Job if you disagree (I mean read the book the answer is there.
The simpler explanation is preferable, and science offers us clues. Paul Davies, Quentin Smith and Victor Stenger have all come up with scientifically acceptable answers.
I got to admit that my background really isn't in philosophy, it's in Physics. And Last I checked the model of an eternal universe - meaning without beginning or end - has been rejected. And what the current model is that everything - matter, time, energy, and space - came out of nothing. - a quantum singularity from a quantum fluctuation. However we agree with that...people who reject God can't explain where the singularity came from. To :Lofuts, :"scientifically acceptable answers" means denying that anything supernatural as a tenable explanation despite any evidence. I've heard of these men but I have seen many physicist , even those who reject God, still agree that a point there was nothing and then there was everything.
I wrote a post of Tim Staples' debate on purgatory with James White. Read it at: Debate: James White vs Tim Staples - Debating Purgatory. In the comments section I made the challenge for anyone to find evidence that people in ancient times understood "purgatory:" the way Tim Staples does - as a process not a place. Mike R has been kind enough to give me an answer. Let's analyze it.
Mike R said...
Here you Go Marcus, From well before the reformation. Clearly this is a reference to a process, not a place. Straight from Cyril of Jerulalem in the 4th century. It is described as a process, not a place. "The Apostolic practice of praying for the dead which passed into the liturgy of the Church, is as clear in the fourth century as it is in the twentieth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogical Catechesis V.9) describing the liturgy, writes: "Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar." St. Gregory of Nyssa (P.G., XLVI, col. 524, 525) states that man's weaknesses are purged in this life by prayer and wisdom, or are expiated in the next by a cleansing fire. "When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil." About the same time the Apostolic Constitution gives us the formularies used in succouring the dead. "Let us pray for our brethren who sleep in Christ, that God who in his love for men has received the soul of the departed one, may forgive him every fault, and in mercy and clemency receive him into the bosom of Abraham, with those who in this life have pleased God" (P.G. I, col. 1144). Nor can we pass over the use of the diptychs where the names of the dead were inscribed; and this remembrance by name in the Sacred Mysteries--(a practice that was from the Apostles) was considered by Chrysostom as the best way of relieving the dead (Homily 41 on First Corinthians, no. 8). "
First I'm glad that Mike saw fit to run down a reference however it is not clear to me where the referenece is form. I'll five mike the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is a real reference. Because Mike focusedm on Cyril I will to. The quote says:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogical Catechesis V.9) describing the liturgy, writes: "Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar."
Mike claims that Cyril believed that purgatory was a process not a place. Therefore because someone who lived centruies before the reformation believed it was a process like Tim Staples, then Roman Catholicism has an unbroken and historical theology concerning Purgatory, right? Not so fast. First The challenge was to show that John Tetzel and Pope Leo X thought of purgatory was a process and not a place...I know for a fact that they did say purgatory was a place. Another thing Cyril's words don't exclude a place...I mean where is the Altar in "his holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar". Where is the altar? It must be in a place somewhere. Okay So now we have Cyril, Tetzel, and Leo disagreeing with Tim Staples about what purgatory is?! And they can't a be right. Unbroken tradition? Not really.
As a black Christian, I've got to ask why don't more black people agree with the reformed position and doctrine? As I study and learn more about the reformed doctrine it definitely answers questions I have been asking my entire life - things concerning the nature of God and human free will. The one point in 5-point Calvinism that I have issues with is "L" - "Limited atontement". I'm just having issues with going that far. The other four make sense to me. I really enjoyed this interview with Dr. Roger Skepple on Iron Sharpen Iron. Not only does he explain how he came to accept Reformed Theology, but he also deals with the Biblical texts that are usually raised against Limited Atonement. I liked how he talked about it. follow the link below to hear him out.
John W. Loftus has posted an announcement of his upcomming debate against David Wood. It takes place on March 13th. Lofus has debated David Wood before asnd I plan ot review that debate soon.
Scott Lively has been on three programs on Iron Sharpens Iron. He was on to discuss Homosexuality and how Christians should respond. One of the programs covered his book called The Pink Swastika which is about the part homosexuals played in Nazism. All three programs were very interesting. Check out the link below to all three programs. I'm not too sure if I buy his argument that Hitler was gay...or had homosexual relationships, but I think he presents very compelling arguments regarding how Christians should respond to agenda of gay activists. One important argument he made was that we can't demonize homosexual and ignore condemning heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage. I agree...it's all sin and God hates fornication and adultery every bit as much as he hates sodomy. He hates the sin not the people. The other book that Lively wrote and discuss is a textbook on the history of the gay civil rights movement and how society is affected. He offers the book free or for purpose on his website. These are great resouces.
Paul Maier was interviewed about the historicity of Jesus. I think I posted some of it before. Maier gives proof of evidence that Jesus existed outside the Bible. This is a great interview.
I really enjoyed this interview of James Spiegel on his new book from Apologetics 315. I think Spiegel is right. People reject God because they don't want to be accountable or beholden to him. I think I will read his book.
Here is a video from Penn and Teller's show. It was on ShowTime so it does contain some profanity. In this episode they attempt to prove that the Bible is wrong - inconsistent and false! Michael Shermer and Paul Maier are interviewed kind of in a faux debate. Penn most definitely hates the Bible and insults believers every chance he can. Shermer is given more time to make his points than Maier and I don't think Maier is given the same weight. Some ideas brought up in the show arew definitely the same tired drum but not new. It is asserted over and over again than we have no evidence for the Jews in Egypt or the Exodus. Or Adam. Or Noah. Contrary evidence was not presented. For example it was remoarked that it made no sense for Noah to be able to gather up two of every kind of animal and put them on the continents we know they live today. Forgetting that in Noah's time, there was only a single continent and that Noah brought the ancestors of the animals today. For example, Noah did not bring 2 Saint Bernards and 2 dobermans, he brought two dogs that were the common ancestor to each of them. Onm point Penn brought up was how horrible that God killed the firstborn of Egypt. He seemed to have forgotten that the Egyptians had murdered all the male Hebrew children when Moses was as baby. It was justice. Egypt had it coming.
The equivocation between Jesus and Elvis was funny...in a pathetic way. Penn and Teller threw out all the evidence for the reliability of the Gospels. But at least they did say that there is enough evidence to accept that Jesus historically lived and was crucified. Unfortunately, they also try to argue that there were other messiahs at the time of Jesus. Shermer throws out Apollonius as an example. I did a post comparing truly if our ideas of Jesus came from Apollonius here. Not a good argument at all. And as for Jesus' miracles being demeaned to being like the magic acts of Penn and Teller, I wanna see them raise a man from the dead who was dead 3 days - or do a single healing miracle. No? Didn't think so.
Christopher Hitchens shares his views on why the Ten Commandments doesn't makes sense. Watch his pontification below with my comments following.
Okay, Let's take his points one-by-one. You can read the ten commandments at Exodus 20:1-22.
1 & 2. The first and second commandment does not mean that no images should be made...just none with the purpose of bowing down and worshiping them. This is what "graven image" means. Hitchens is trying to say that the commandment is against art, but we know it can't mean that because God commanded sculptures and art in the Tabernacle and in the Temple.
3. The third commandment is about reverencing God. It about not cursing with God's name. Alleging that we don't know what the command means is silly because you know why you have God's name on your lips.
4. Keeping the Sabbath is described as worshiping only on Saturday, but many Christians worship on Sunday because of the fact that Jesus rose on the 1st days of the week and the sabbath was meant to mean something symbolic and it was never applied to Gentile believers outside of theocratic Israel. I will be making a fuller post on this later.
5. Hitchens seem to be okay honoring father and mother. Finally we agree on something.
6. Hitchens points out that after being told not to kill, Levites were commanded to kill apostates. The problem is that the commandment is not to murder. Not all killing is murder. When the Levites killed those who were not loyal to God it wasn't murder it was justice.
7. The seventh commandment against adultery, Hitchens tries to mitigate it in saying that it's not as bad as murder (shows he knows that the 6th command was against murder not killing), theft, and perjury). He clearly doesn't think adulterers should die for cheating on their spouse. Thing is God Hitxcdisagrees.
8. Hitchens has no problem with number 8. He even goes as far saying that stealing if frowned upon nearly all societies. The "elephant" in the room of course is why? Why is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong because we all think it's wrong or is it objectively wrong? It's objectively wrong because it's a sin against God to steal because everything belongs to God and it is he that gives you everything you have. If someone takes it from you, they take it from God.
9. Hitchen actually seems to like this one. The 9th commandment is about how we should not lie on anyone. Hitchens seems to think it's talking about in a court of law. It is, but it's also broader than that. God is saying to not lie on anyone at anytime.
10. Hitchens offers three objections to the 10th commandment against coveting another person's possessions.
a. He says the commandments equivocates wives with cattle. I disagree because to say that would mean that you think its okay for a woman to covet another woman's husband. No way. On top of the New Testament explicitly states that a husband belongs to his wife and a wife to her husband.
b. He objects because God is punishing us for a thought crime. This is nothing new. Jesus said that if you lust after a woman in your mind you have committed adultery. It's fair.
c. God did not put covetousness in us because God neither tempts us with evil, nor is he tempted by evil.
Hitchens claims that these commands are inconsistent but he provides no evidence then he rewrites the ten commandments for the 21st Century.
1. "Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity of color." The Bible agrees!
2. "Do not even think of using people for personal property." The Bible agrees. Slave holders in Ancient Israel were not to think they owned slaves as property. Neither were Christians in the New Testament.
3."Despise those who use violence or the threat of violence in sexual relationships." The Bible agrees. Considering that sexual relationships are just supposed to be within marriage, and the Bible specifically describes how husbands and wives should relate to one another, there would not be violence.
4. "Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child." Of course the Bible agrees.
5. "Do not condemn people for their inborn nature." Sorry doesn't work. Some people steal...that is their inborn nature. Some people lie incessantly...that is their inborn nature. So should we not prosecute thieves? Or people who lie in court? Sin is sin. Just like you can be delivered from your inborn nature of stealing or lying, you can be delivered from Homosexuality. No sin is worse than another.
6. "Be aware that you too are an animal and subject to the whim of nature." So? How does this help us be more moral?
7. "Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus." The Bible agrees you don't wanna be a false prophet or teacher.
8. Most definitely a joke.
9. "Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions and terrible sexual repression." The Bible agrees that extremists are bad and warns us against being that way.
10. Be willing to renounce any God or any religion if any holy commandment contradicts any of the above. Hitchens failed to show how the 10 commandments contradict any of his 10 commandments.
John W. Loftus was a guest on the radio program "The Things That Matter Most". In it we get to see the contortion Loftus has gone through to deny God's existence. It's shocking to me that he has gotten to the point that at the beginning it really wasn't "nothing" but positive and negative energy canceling out with a 60% chance that the universe would come into existence on it's own. WHAT? Scary indeed.
Here is part 2 of Dr. Claude Mariottini's insights into the Book of Job. He did an awesome Job. He really mines the text for all it is worth. Face it, the fundamental question of the book is "Why?" Why do good people suffer? Why is there evil? Some folks say that the book dodges the question, yet God does answer only no one really likes the answer. It's a gift of God to accept the answer and say "Amen!" - "So be it!!" I've got to quote Mariottini a couple of times because it so so poignant.
The theology of Job’s friends was not all wrong, but neither was their theology right enough to explain Job’s suffering. Notwithstanding their words of wisdom, Job’s suffering continued. Thus, in the end, human wisdom could not bring the healing or the answers Job was so desperately seeking.
I think Mariottini has hit the nail on the head as to what God's purpose in all of this this is...in part. I've come to the same conclusion.
God’s purpose was not only to heal Job, but also to instruct him. God asked Job several rhetorical questions which were beyond human capability of answering.
God not only instructs Job but us. I for one would rather read and understand these lessons rather than experience them as Job did. Job's response is the same response we should all have.
At the end of God’s encounter with Job, Job humbly repented of his presumption, that he could contend with God. He also repented of his pride in seeing only himself while failing to recognize that God’s purpose for his life was much more than he could understand. He bowed in recognition of his insignificance before his sovereign Lord.
There is one theological point that I think is really important to point out. Some people have tried to argue that the concept of physical resurrection is alien to the Hebrew Bible. This is not true. I was reminded of this because Mariottini quotes the passage and it's one of my favorites from Job.
25 I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. 26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
- Job 19:25-26
I cannot emphasize it enough. Job's redeemer is our redeemer - Jesus Christ!!!
I heard of a great article by Nadra Enzi about black superheroes in fiction and real life. I thought that it was an insightful view point.![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v_m4JmPCYiEe5mCJtgJsmVcxMBQoPtcEBgh1RnsOg1uyXTvv_ca4PgeJpLp5D7Wd-B-glSUATRPLW_w8ZuVLMzNFyvonB9g9Sub2AxAthzz-i3RzSRH_7rpR-QXPJlGjTMEHLx1HcwwaWF2CVcFKvs=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vEaNSjSK5SnYT6ghf05-JFGVin0Tgs9HlL5fZTGkP7oTjUjLxkHsYFbAFIhF0k6u04bKReZMYM9D6-_p3b1CsoiILiBsuMOUoZoeYIHhURaLrSR2-m_4V6jLGR8JDyYiDv2JLBZ1jTY9ele57ZyH-j=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tcxQRHlL-DjlH5moLbPKQtqdD48xkF2kQk9muZL09hUSzQ05jWT6BYsV8-nlRdRChCmCd6ruPtbku16w74uzaeDekbrWNResR_TCH3ETcY7Hba8JJ06yRbk1vc0veMMpqNnLtQkfXbJE1frxiq3Fg=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u0vqCAlqMFNY4kBp4o6ZV2qtaWsvBR7Rmw370Z5-6tA4vntcyYHZ4NeB5Ki2d7h14_jl_ui9fq48PfrGzwpw7r6ov_FzDQExai7_b6v7jeTopHeV83QL9fj3v3f_ImYgfMtuWzUSulPEOT6r_ONqi0=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vqG7Bk7alr53LWSw6mObbDTMLkjGVZlrNFm_hmnI5jNqyDUEgSEXYayNnoRrXAlIFVoEiusaJM-Ufatl9FtOyVPRCgPTgIblpCnhZFjoMv8CUPn1bjoeByvhFb3kckz4r4XtTGGqeiMSxiFFT0nfZk=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uBp5BUxO0wUjFZZymqWlFnPYXTiePqmTULQICldnub4OKYHCXSp2Fji7bdhwbIVqHxp4TtDEN5R_HaQ4KA6EEIoH0OYQu38dLhGvn9slrqxG1Ejz__FOZEEPKlw-TFwXgDe59vA50l7sKxo6B12pqZ=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tODW-ptzUesXYDAbjoh_9TcHGz7rbvX4e-eitEDko7zlk0TZdh5pVwzt3_9ptVn3obD_bv77NLrP9HpyUHB7GmwwgRNg94VUMIvsg5Sf6gsCoxFIF0GxRZ-xTj_fSte6Khk1Ldk6s3FmlI5QX7NdLQ=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tsvjUpYNUWwiRjlrYj59-lBOtjOnfognpJcsa-DXkxPXyqaEtbMEyOQ-BEFgCsGxstsys8OAgBJIzH-HsWYCt5mC5hzQ6qna2GdUCQnp0RQkD5nV2zX4YOvFw2sU0VNrEUVDSRG62i3La4lQ2qJvBl=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uRdQxu7nYBe9sI_xBBm2BkxKFCqb95fnMnP9G96PqJzh5KBtAxRVhmEJeRuFf64xZl2faaWATdAXDVS-YK7VsfAoXI9QPRUS7h8eDcZrUNzIHh-6Ujy_KlcwCPUaTOgUEbixqwwsvdftKiQ6tef6nk=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vUhowLNhrF86cK5cvwMuViaTMKUZxK2NpMu5PRmM5YuU0ASKUFqxDdUM6jp6TrtKQHoCD61IhD7AgIPm5-rJu3jnMZIosFBvcHK7YqfNkNhZaZ1EX9PziG9Uyssnf6plvXSzLWl-Be5UBbK8a1ZXY=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sAHSih-4I4MsY9P4Lq5jjgSiCXkq_rZ3YnwSrgbp3j7mjSj2FTB9iHCo0ialCz-iEmCerkuk6eUwdLCpWGGC1icMJvbr-2sv3mxQYlCHFbYgrjYsk9jmpHvurfLrF_ZzqijRArIzLBUFaozIsQjnM=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tIet5T9GhuQvADk372eUN-ZmPEC_oHoDGy3yeDM2Tdr47thpEgPMLxS2HNpUigZfKXddjF6iwtzV7ZxUO6Ll7ciLRRnsdyEEpaDE6cdzYusnPDgkK6v8vN3FOUq1MuuxHSCd0WV6wJlD3UxSWbzL18=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tphFWlgAZ-xrlodiFKYkCVrwwyRRRVk0u_Hvt-rc_kwy1yrtWwk8xt0eWz9AK4jO_scNRGlk8F38BAyWV6HWNU8ZnfomCi6CRA4BfMorC1uNjWrMumyaAdXxkvRz8h8e1-TUJvvBdTZOZVLuwJMuRd=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uPFIvqP-Ou7StBaJ2CUHWJI0Y2nTEenWWtzhFgZdd-tXieVB957DuxazRqZwACPotKIESwykjBxk8tTWfZqG2LZWC_ft4PYhuxOFhDELoQGpUr3KEydRvE_nxQ8tkHz-lnVr6XrTMiF3p4lBgSMa-0=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ubOtwHx0osPQrjBDGlseTXJVw1ziex8BZAip11jmn5sbalHAD1pwjiuyjwgzMDPey7lzaapFMlv684pWnxWy69p6le1WFKmKybqcQ4f3dxBm96gicDU7Zz4tYE_KggDuq6HZK33e20Kz_vAfKfxxl_=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_thxkRel5rN9_IyHGYBrDBNnY3XO0IIeQkZPfbKcW3F67HyoDBkI0ogWxxiezliHM39LWvv95E03BthQGxwZxEMUgW-By4fnwCG9Uwun_jBlf-lb4-rjwOjZK1wsYMPJYTW4_BupRVF5XmyX0MTPeH8=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ukogQ-LPp4YnW-BP2bWRGBkEyKpxjdOdaQTlNGCod1DbZRMJNTFTL1CotsHP9DW0Z-rSYLru6ABv6FhVbKaxaSYWqR2h7X-WOC1iBLU1bvYxVAxgBgsrbauQ48bSfNPmSlHBjvlVpkOpPhSwcTpaPo=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sZN2YGdcfIvGU0bvRcLWlHM51vmKFP4UfEqr-OFVrTpOh_X0CzQR8Ud3h9u5vVfcvHtbwNYlxEQHjalelIZ6t0eBugwu5KEBKDGMeWoHFw5jBhEDRcUG8PGvSvDq_H7I518I0ilwuAqlyXjL6ynqTc=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tY6vTrykolRAotwCfcgJSk-YCWGUqtgysL5f4Ghln8x_OMKa8_z5Uj2uv4gxFzQt2pQH26G5D4GBwYtSj3VU38eWYwcS1rA0gsQGTEzDzx0gLRACWms0KHu36Wp_VOjuqvXqxxEZAdT0y16UhcbX-O=s0-d)