YouTube - "Hell No! You can't!" . . . "Yes, we can." - Countdown

Image via CrunchBase

I could not resist. This funny! The video even puts the mash up into context. Hilarious!



YouTube - "Hell No! You can't!" . . . "Yes, we can." - Countdown

Resurrection Debate: Gary Habermas & Mike Licona vs Robert Price

Here is a great discussion for Easter. The Infidel Guy & Robert M Price vs  Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. It was fun seeing Price being challenged. Habermas does a marvelous job showing how many Price makes some horrible assumptions that makes it hard for him to understand what Christians are saying. Price is definitely on the fringe. Even most skeptical scholars accepts the Paul really wrote some of the stuff that we attribute to him and Price says Paul wrote none of them. Another thing that got me was he said that in Greek "Phileo" and "Agape" from John 21 are synonyms!!! I admit that I don't read Greek, but I have never heard anyone not make a difference between what those words really mean. It was really interesting.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/Infidel_Radio_01-17-07_pt1.mp3


http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/Infidel_Radio_01-17-07_pt2.mp3

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/Infidel_Radio_01-17-07_pt3.mp3

George Bush shakes hands of Haitians, and wipes hands on Bill Clinton's shirt

Okay, I admit it. I may be making too much of this. But there is footage of Ex-President George Bush shaking the hands of Haitians and then wiping his hand on Bill Clinton's shirt!!! My question is does he do that with white people too if the issue is that he's afraid of germs? I have no idea. The footage could have even been doctored or taken out of context, but if is true...makes me wonder if Kanye West was right.




THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: George Bush still doesn't like black people, or their Haitian germs

Why is God Hidden? (Pascal) | Faith Interface

Here is quote from Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) about why God is not obviously revealed to everyone.

God has willed to redeem men and to open salvation to those who seek it. But men render themselves so unworthy of it that it is right that God should refuse to some, because of their obduracy, what He grants others from a compassion which is not due to them. If He had willed to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened, He could have done so by revealing Himself so manifestly to them that they could not have doubted of the truth of His essence; as it will appear at the last day, with such thunders and such a convulsion of nature that the dead will rise again, and the blindest will see Him.” It is not in this manner that He has willed to appear in His advent of mercy, because, as so many make themselves unworthy of His mercy, He has willed to leave them in the loss of the good which they do not want.
It was not, then, right that He should appear in a manner manifestly divine, and completely capable of convincing all men; but it was also not right that He should come in so hidden a manner that He could not be known by those who should sincerely seek Him.
He has willed to make himself quite recognizable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart. He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.

I respect Pascal a whole lot. He was brilliant! I disagree with him on this point because none of are seeking God by default. God seems to have to nudge us...otherwise none of us would seek Him. The thing is God does not nudge us all to the same degree at the same time.


Why is God Hidden? (Pascal) | Faith Interface

YouTube - Biden to Obama: Health care reform 'a big f**king deal'

Image via Wikipedia

When will people learn to not make comments they don't want a room full of people/television audience of millions to hear next to a microphone? We gotta make sure to think before we speak. Case in point....




YouTube - Biden to Obama: Health care reform 'a big f**king deal'

Brennon's Thoughts: Is There Trauma in Sovereignty? A Response to James Swan

Image via Wikipedia

Brennon has posted a response to a post from James Swan, in which Swan argues that libertarianism does not  give an adequate answer to the problem of evil. You can read Swan's original post God and Evil: The Trauma of Sovereignty. The issue under question is about if God is responsible for our sins and suffering. I think Brennon selected the perfect quote that sums up what he argues against:

When non-Reformed people argue against the Reformed understanding of sovereignty, I have to immediately ask them how they also avoid their own argument. If we apply their argument against their own position what happens? They similarly believe God created all that is, and knew the beginning from the end before He created. If I knew in advance that a person was going to get in their car by their own choice, and while driving down the road strike and kill someone, and I let them do it, I share responsibility. It's actually a severely culpable responsibility because I knew and they didn't. When God chooses to create knowing full well what evil will happen, and creates anyway, I don't see how a non-Reformed person can avoid the same charge they place on us (emphasis his).

I think Swan makes a valid point and although Brennon makes a valiant attempt to explain why the point that Swan is making is not a problem for libertarianism I just can't buy it. Brennon gives three possible responses.that he believes refutes James Swan.  I've got some comments to make. 

1. Even if you reject the problems the grandfather paradox brings up, God still may have morally sufficient reasons to allow free will and have known the sin and have still created humanity. Let's apply this to the Mr. Smith car accident analogy. Say that I do know that Mr. Swan will have an accident and kill someone if I allow him to freely take my car. But perhaps I also foreknow that beyond the car accident there is an unspeakable good that will come about as a result of the car accident. Imagine that I knew the person he killed was going to try to kill the president. Would it still be wrong that I allowed him to take the car? It doesn't seem so. It seems that the reasoning behind my decision is morally sufficient to justify allowing Smith to take the car, resulting in the accident.

This is what libertarians could argue about God's decision to create free people He knew would sin. We could argue that God, in eternity past, decided to create creatures with libertarian free wills knowing they would sin in order to manifest a far greater good, namely the glorification of God! He knew He would save those who freely choose Him showing us His grace, mercy, righteousness, and love by redeeming us from those sins. I would argue He created the world in which the optimum amount of free creatures would freely choose Him.

This is the argument that I keep hearing from JP Moreland and William Lane Craig. The problem is that it does not answer the issues raised in Scripture that we see that God does not just ordain events but also decrees them. I want to quote something from the Swan's article Brennon quotes:

In Genesis 50 we find Joseph, whose brothers sold him into the evil of slavery, who lied to their father breaking his heart, claiming Joseph was dead. In front of his brothers, years later Joseph states, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." The two statements in Hebrew are in direct parallel. Joseph's brothers meant evil by their actions, but God intended the same actions for good. The text shows one action with two intentions. This same principle can be found in Isaiah 10: 5-12, where God uses Assyria as an instrument of judgment on the rebellious people of Israel, and then holds Assyria responsible for her sinful attitude and desires against Israel. The text shows one action with two intentions, a sinful intention and a holy intention.The most important example of compatibilism though is Acts 4:27-28. Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews all sinfully join forces to crucify Jesus. Yet God's predestined the entire event for his holy purpose.

 I have never heard libertarians answer these points that Swan bring up.

2. One of God's main purposes in creating humanity was to cultivate a personal relationship with them. If He has determined all that we do, then the relationship is one sided, and therefore a sham much like a puppet show. It appears that for there to be genuine relations between people, it requires both parties to be able to choose not to be in the relationship. That could be the rationale behind God allowing freedom, and therefore the possibility of rebellion.

I would argue that its impossible for an unregenerate human being to relate with God. Unregenerate sinner are spiritually dead, remember? Completely unable to obey  or even respond to God. All we can do on our own is rebel.

 ⁵Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; ⁷the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. ⁸Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.  - Romans 8:5-8

It's interesting to me how people are quick to give us the freedom to reject a relationship with God, yet no thought seems to be given that God could choose who to be in relationship with of God's own free will. We act like God has to put out the same amount of effort to save everyone. I wonder why that is?

3. God is sovereign, and there is a demonstrable difference between our relationships with other created beings and God's relationship to us as Creator. Since He has sovereign rights over His creation, He has the right to create free agents, allow them to sin, and hold them responsible for those sins. So while it may be wrong for us to allow a helpless person to be murdered, it is not wrong for a maximally good and righteous God to allow His sinful creation to be killed, especially since He is their judge before and after they die (and since He has morally sufficient reasons to allow this sin as shown in #1).

Number three sounds almost Calvinistic (except the free agents) part. It amazes me because I have heard people claim to be Arminian and yet refute the bulk of number 3. I have a problem with "free agents" because none of us are even almost free until Jesus frees us.

I think this sufficiently shows that Mr. Swan is mistaken in his assessment. It shows that his analogy doesn't actually show what he wanted it to show, and the problem that seemed to arise in the form of the problem of evil isn't actually a problem at all for libertarian Arminians. But the determinist is still stuck with the problem in spades. If God has made necessary all events that happen, then sin is included and God actively causes sin. He becomes the active agent behind sins. The problem is still there and I don't think it can be resolved without holding to libertarianism.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that these show Swan mistaken at all. None of the points really answer the problem. I think determinism answers the problem with the bulk of number 3. I think reality may be explained by the the point that God can arbitrarily do whatever God wants at any time.Sometimes God allows us to just do what we want. Like how Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. Or how they crucified Jesus. Both events were decreed by God, but God didn't make the transgressors do those things. Sometimes God changes our minds so that we do and not do things as God has decreed and predetermined. The Kings of Persia show that in how God used them to end His people's exile. They thought they were in control, but God tells us He did it although the Kings did not know it.  And sometimes God forces us to do things without touching our will at all and we know He is forcing our hand. Just ask Jonah.


Brennon's Thoughts: Is There Trauma in Sovereignty? A Response to James Swan

Monergism vs. Synergism on the DL Today

Today Dr. James White  and Dr. Michael Brown debated Calvinism as promised. It was awesome Brown is a non-Calvinist  but he isn't an Arminian either. Although I don't agree with Brown on how he understood the scriptures they talked about both were awesome.  I liked hearing these. Today they discussed John 6, Romans 8-9, and  Ephesians. 1. I cant's wait for next week.

Monergism vs. Synergism on the DL Today

The Merged Gospels (Matthew Mark Luke John)

There is now a book where all events found in the 4 gospels have been placed in chronological order. I've seen similar books but nothing exactly like this project.

*This is not a paid advertisement .





The Merged Gospels (Matthew Mark Luke John)

Red Sea Crossing Discovered. Artifacts & Evidence

Many skeptics say that there is no evidence of the Book of evidence. Some people disagree.  I found a great article linked below that explains some of the evidence. I realize some people dismiss Ron Wyatt as a crack pot and not everyone agrees with his conclusions, but I think that we need to look at his evidence ourselves. I look for conflicting arguments.



Red Sea Crossing Discovered. Artifacts & Evidence

Debunking Christianity: Nightline Face-Off: "Does God Have a Future?"

John Loftus has posted a video that shows a discussion that aired on Television. It wasn't most of a debate. Samuel Harris and Michael Shermer wanted to argue that the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is irrelevant and need to be forgotten. Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston agree! They disagree that religion and spirituality need to be cast off. Exclusivity of truth needs to be destroyed,according to all of them. I really disagree with all four of them!   When it comes to the Bible and God's sovereignty thay agee with one another. I wonder why they Christians, Jews, and Muslims were excluded from the conversation?

Debunking Christianity: Nightline Face-Off: "Does God Have a Future?"

Debunking Christianity: What is the Difference Between an Education and Indoctrination?

I recently read a post by John Loftus on his blog about the differences between being educated and being indoctrinated. I find that I agree completely with his viewpoint. Knew I'd find something on his blog worth supporting.

As I have said before, if a Christian reads through my book and his faith is strengthened then it did him no harm. In fact, it did him good. If however, reading through it destroys his faith, then that faith was not worth having in the first place.

Become educated. If all you ever do is read Christian apologetics books in response to the arguments of atheists like me, then you are not being educated. Here's an example of what I mean. Look at my friend Dr. Norman Geisler's review of my book (the former self-published edition, Why I Rejected Christianity), and what I wrote about his review. There is no comparison between reading his review of my book and reading it yourself, as I've said before.

Again, become educated, not indoctrinated.

I find the post interesting because on one hand, Loftus argues that its wrong to present information from one side and not present the truth that many intelligent people interpret the information differently and why they see it that way, yet many atheist refuse to even discuss intelligent design and think that it should never be taught in our schools. By Loftus' and my own definition of indoctrination - Macro Evolution is not being taught to our students, they are being indoctrinated. To be fair to Loftus, I don't know if he denies ID should be taught along side macro evolution.in the classroom, but I know a lot of atheist don't think it should be. Who is indoctrinating whom?

Debunking Christianity: What is the Difference Between an Education and Indoctrination?

Line of Fire » Blog Archive » March 23, 2010: Brown vs Buzzard pt 2

Image by Zombie Inc. Wholesale zombies for over 20 years via Flickr

This was a great discussion. I liked it better than the first one. I think Anthony Buzzard is sincere. I just totally disagree with him when it comes to the deity of Christ and the Trinity. I think his sticking point is that He argues that God is a person and not just a being. This leads him to reject the pre-existence of Jesus. and reinterpret a lot of scriptures in a way no one in orthodox and historic Christianity understood. This one is definitely worth listening to.

Line of Fire » Blog Archive » March 23, 2010

Memorable Keys to the Greatest FEAT in History

I've found this great page from the Christian Research Institute that allows you to read a short book by Hank Hanegraaf that explains and defends Jesus' Resurrection.. You can even buy a print copy if you want.  I like this. It concisely explains the most importantly part of Christianity.

Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: The Satanic Verses

This was an interesting debate. It's over a specific text in the Qur'an (Surah 53) that apparently came from Satan not Allah that Muhammad spoke. Rashid attempts to prove that there are no Satanic verses and David Wood argues that it is really a part of Islam casting suspicion on the whole text. Listen to Rashid's argument about why the Qur'an is more reliable than the Bible. He used the same faulty arguments against the Bible that has been refuted (look at the other posts on this blog on his debates). This debate is definitely about that  reliability of the Qur'an because if Muhammad had delivered a text from Satan that disqualifies him as a prophet. I think David wood was able to prove his point without lying about the reliability of Qur'an while Rashid said things about the Bible that I know is not true.











Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: The Satanic Verses (Part One of Four)

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: DavidW on Gnosticism and Calvinism

Rhology.has posted a very interesting article discussing the relationship between Gnosticism and Calvinism - in other words no relationship at all! The post does a good job in explaining the differences views on predestination.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: DavidW on Gnosticism and Calvinism

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Unicorns and Dragons in the Bible

Image via Wikipedia

Dr. Mariottini has given us a great post giving us two important links regarding mythical creatures in the Bible. The KJV translates some words as "unicorn" and "dragon" but neither of these are given modern translations. These are great information. I mean did the writers of the Old Testament have the creatures depicted below in mind? Nah. Read the links below.


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Unicorns and Dragons in the Bible

On Unicorns, Rhinoceros And Wild Oxen

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - President Obama Signs Health Care Reform Into Law

I wonder what legacy will we see behind this? I like the idea of some people who need medical help who hopefully will be able to get it.



Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - President Obama Signs Health Care Reform Into Law

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason

Greg Koukl was interviewed by Brian Auten of Apologetics 315. It is awesome. I've grown to really like Greg Koukl and his ministry. He offered great advice to any one for witnessing and studying and engaging with the culture. I really liked this interview.

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason

Iron Sharpens Iron: Martin Fromm: Jews With No Temple: Where is Their Sacrifice? Where is Their Hope? (Christ Our Passover)

Image via Wikipedia

On a recent interview from  Iron Sharpens Iron, Martin Fromm was interviewed and presented why as a Jew he accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. It is really interesting.  He says that if you honestly search the Old Testament, you can to no other conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah Jews have been looking forward. He explains it really well. I love it. We see that without a Temple and the sacrifices Jews don't have a way to follow the scriptures as they have been laid out without a Temple or Blood sacrifices. Fromm also pointed out that the Messiah had to come before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD because we would have no way to apply the prophecies to validate His identity. Awesome!

Iron Sharpens Iron: Martin Fromm: Jews With No Temple: Where is Their Sacrifice? Where is Their Hope? (Christ Our Passover)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lamb of God (anointedplace.wordpress.com)
• DNA of Jesus-era shrouded man in Jerusalem reveals earliest case of leprosy (scienceblog.com)

YouTube - Bible Prophecies About the Advent of Muhammad

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a lecture from Adan Rashid in which he tries to show that the Bible foretells the advent of Muhammad. I am amazed that he says that now that we have the Qur'an we don't need the Bible. Rashid spends quite a bit of time in the video trying to show a tradition Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible.  He ends up arguing that the Bible is proof that Muhammad is what the Muslims say heas and that he had to get his knowledge from God because he could not read and did not have access to other books that he is accused of copying.  I agree. Had he had access to those books, then maybe the Qur'an would not contain errors in describing the same events the Bible does or Christian theology. Then Muhammad turned around and taught that Muslims should revere the Torah, the Prophets, and the Injil (New Testament) and had he know how different his message was I doubt that he would have told his followers to read and understand them. If a Muslim is going to obey Muhammad, then he/she can't throw out the Bible. so what does the Muslim to do to reconcile this? Some ignore it, others like Rashid attempt to reconcile the Bible and the Qur'an bytrying to find events and persons from Islam in the Bible text. How well does this work?




Unfortunately, not very well. I'm not an Islamic scholar and I am willing to give Rashid some credit because he was attempting to cover a lot quickly. Let's look at two of the Bible passages he cited and see if his exegesis can bear any weight.

Isaiah 29:12

12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I don't know how to read."

Rashid said that this passage is referring to Muhammad because the prophet could not read. He interprets the scroll as the being the Qur'an. Two problems that jump out at me is I thought Muhammad dictated the Qur'an and was not handed a scroll. The other problem I have is context. The chapter is about punishment on Israel. Does Rashid really want to take verse 12 out of it's context and apply it to someone who it is not addressed to? Guess so.

Isaiah 42
Jews see the first part of this chapter as talking about the promised Messiah. Christians say it is Jesus. Rashid is arguing that it's talking about Muhammad. He seemed to focus on verse 1 - 9 so i will too.

6 "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,

7 to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

How does that describe Muhammad. There are no recorded miracles of Muhammad healing blind people...but Jesus did.

Using

4 he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his law the islands will put their hope."

Rashid argues that the passage refers to Muhammad because at it height Islam reached the peninsula on which Spain and Portugal sit. He said that that a peninsula is the same as an island and that's not true. This just does not work. You will also notice Rashid creatively uses geography to show his point. That is also a stretch.

I noticed that Rashid's audience does not know the Bible and he basically expects them to accept him as an authority, but I hope that they look themselves to see if he is correct...because he's not.

YouTube - Bible Prophecies About the Advent of Muhammad