Apologetics 315: Phil Fernandes vs. Robert Price Debate MP3 Audio - Is Jesus the Savior?

Here is a great debate from Apologetics 315. I think that this gave me more respect for Phil Fernandez. It took guts to go into such hostile territory: The Infidel Guy. The host was really biased towards Robert Price. Fernandez did great - clear and concise. Price does not believer the Bible is factually true. His arguments and Richard Carrier are similar. Price comes out nicely and he did not seem like horrible person. I found the whole thing very interesting. At the outset it seems like one who would deny Jesus' existence was crackpot, but Price is not easily dismissed. Price is wrong, but we can't just dismiss him. He twists scriptures and assumes that they can't be trusted.

Apologetics 315: Phil Fernandes vs. Robert Price Debate MP3 Audio - Is Jesus the Savior?

Brennon's Thoughts: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions vis a vis God and the Human Will

Brennon recently posted a great post about "Necessary and Sufficient". I am putting my comments in bold. Brennon's words are not bolded. In discussing these matters with Brennon I am crystallizing my understanding. Let's see if we can force it further.

One particularly notorious determinist and I are discussing our different views on God's relation to the events in creation. He thinks that God has made any and every even that happens necessary by divine decree. I hold to libertarianism and think that God created free creatures whose actions are causally distinct from God in some circumstances.

I agree that our actions are causally distinct from God. I don't understand where does the Bible say we are free creatures while we are are dead in sin - slaves to sin. We are not free. If we were free the we could say that we  can choose never to sin.

I claim his view seems to implicate God in all sin. He asserts that I don't escape this problem because since I believe that God foreknows all things, He foreknew that the only way sin would happen would be to create free creatures, and that implicates God in their sin. As I argued in my response to James Swan (found here) this is not the case. It is logically inappropriate to transfer the responsibility for the sins of independent creatures to God simply because He foreknows them.

It's not just not that God foreknows  everything that can and does happen. God does not stop certain acts. If he can stop an action but doesn't, then how is it inappropriate to ascribe some responsibility to God. We also know that God takes credit for some of the bad things that befall people for judgment. 

 ⁵ I am the LORD, and there is no other;
       apart from me there is no God.
       I will strengthen you,
       though you have not acknowledged me,
 ⁶ so that from the rising of the sun
       to the place of its setting
       men may know there is none besides me.
       I am the LORD, and there is no other.
 ⁷ I form the light and create darkness,
       I bring prosperity and create disaster;
       I, the LORD, do all these things. -Isaiah 45:5-7

 And  God takes no responsibility for other events. 

  ³⁰ " 'The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the LORD. They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. ³¹ They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind. ³² So beware, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when people will no longer call it Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter, for they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. - Jeremiah 7:30-32

Therefore I don't think we can make a hard fast rule about what God is responsible for and what God isn't responsible for. 

Consider this example that I used in response to this: If no one invented the airplane, then 9/11 wouldn't have occurred. Hence: 9/11 causally depends on the invention of the airplane. Therefore Wilbur and Orville Wright caused 9/11.

The problem with this example is the Wilbur and Orville had no way to stop 9/11 and God could have.  therefore how could  God not be responsible?  God had a purpose.  We don't know what all of that purpose is and therefore we can't blame him or charge Him with error because we don't know all God had in mind. We need to trust God..

Or consider this example: The inventor of the automobile probably foresaw the potential tragedies that could come about from smashing a couple tons of steel into someone, but he obviously thought that the greater good that would come from having such a convenient form of transportation was worth it. He likewise can't be blamed for the negative future consequences that occurred because of the automobile's invention, even though he knew they most likely would occur.

Again the inventor of the automobile could not stop any of those consequences because he has no control over what people do with his invention. However God can and sometimes does intervene. God is under no obligation to intervene when and how we think he should. God is good and everything He does is good because all things work together for the good of God's people. (Romans 8:28-29). 


I think a better example is Iron Man (although fictional). Tony Stark invents amazing and powerful weapons and takes it upon himself to make sure his creation are stopped from being misused to hurt other people.  I think that is what God does. When there is suffering and pain, God allows it, although he has the power to stop it,  to bring about purposes  out of the council of his own will.

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 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. - Ephesians 1:7-12

This is where recognizing the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions come in. The creation of free creatures is only a necessary condition for evil. Those free creatures did not have to sin, but in order for them to sin they would have to be free. On the determinist end, however, God's decrees become the sufficient condition for sin. All that is needed for necessitated creatures to sin is the simple decree made by the determiner. The determiner is therefore the responsible party, since they are the one who has made all these events necessary, even sin.

Again, where in the Bible does it say that we are free? It says we are only free in Christ (Romans 5;6;7;8). Adam did not have to sin. But that is not true for us. Added to the fact that we have scripture pointing out that sins and events are necessary in order for God's will to be fulfilled.

²⁶From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. ²⁷God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ²⁸'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' - Acts 17: 26-28

This does not mean that  we don't do things against God's will, only that God's will ultimately be the reality that we experience because all things will conform to his will. I would say that make everything that God has determined necessary and sufficient.

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.- 2 Corinthians 2:9

Brennon's Thoughts: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions vis a vis God and the Human Will

Monergism vs. Synergism Debate Part II

Today, James White and Michael Brown did the second part of the debate. Dr. Brown and Dr. White discussed: Luke 13:34-35 (Deut 5:28-29) Ezek 18:21-32 (Jer 3:19-20; Ezek 22:30-31) I John 2:1-2 (2 Pet 2:1). This is awesome!

Mon ergism vs. Synergism Debate Part II

Gary Habermas on Jesus of Nazareth

Here is great video in which Gary Habermas answers questions about his methodology and why the Resurrection is a good answer for the historical data that we have. It's really great!



Gary Habermas on Jesus of Nazareth

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - President Obama: Gettin' Stuff Done Whether You Like Or Not!

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Here is Jon Stewart's take on most recent events!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Tenacious O
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - President Obama: Gettin' Stuff Done Whether You Like Or Not!

Apologetics 315: Is Christianity True? Essay Series Foreword by Chris Reese

Here is the forward to the online collect of essays being made available by Brain Auten of Apologetics 315.

Apologetics 315: Is Christianity True? Essay Series Foreword by Chris Reese

Apologetics 315: Essay Series: Is Christianity True?

I have been blessed. Brian Auten of  Apologetics 315 is putting together an ebook and a series of articles written be many bloggers about why Christianity is true. Brain asked me to contribute an article. I am thrilled to be involved.  Follow the link to his blog to see a list of all the bloggers  and the titles of their post.

Apologetics 315: Essay Series: Is Christianity True?

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Craig vs Carrier - Redux

This was an interesting debate. William Lane Craig was a great as always. I like his Resurrection arguments. I have to admit that Richard Carrier is completely wrong. My only criticism of Craig is that I wish that he would spend more time defending the Bible when his opponent challenges the Bible's validity. Carrier spends his time arguing that the Gospels are merely symbolic fiction. I can't see how he is making a solid case at all. The most egregious to me is equating the Lazarus in the parable of "Lazarus and the rich man" in Luke with the Lazarus Jesus raised from the dead in John. He says the man in the parable is a fiction to prove a point: that dead person coming back from the dead would not be believed. Then Carrier argues that John made up Lazarus so that a man can come back from the dead negating Luke. Many problems with this. "Lazarus" was a common name...why assume that they were supposed to be the same person? Why assume that the Lazarus in the parable was made up? A parable does not presuppose a fictional story. The two men were very different. Lazarus in the parable was poor. The Lazarus who was in John was well-to-do...he had money and influence. Another point is we have no idea what Lazarus said or talked about when he came back. Ib did a post on this before but now I will post the video to go along.









Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Craig vs Carrier - Part 1

World War II - German Sniper Training Film

Cover of Sniper Training

How did the Nazis train their snipers? With a propoganda laden training film of course!




World War II - German Sniper Training Film

Charlie Rose - Bill Maher / Christopher Hitchens

Image via Wikipedia

I found this episode of Charlie Rose's program where in a single episode he interviewed both Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens. Maher's segment dealt with politics, culture, and comedy - especially the war in Iraq. Hitchen's segment dealt with the war in Iraq and Atheism. The interviews were done while Bush was still President. Nothing new or exciting in the interview, just more of what we have come to expect from these guys.




Charlie Rose - Bill Maher / Christopher Hitchens

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Barack Obama signs Student Loan reform bill, and Negroes are happy

Image via Wikipedia

Barack Obama has signed into law reforms and measures intended to help poor people afford college and help those of us trying to pay back student loans! Not everyone is happy about it. They complain more example oif the government trying to take over. The problem is this was a major problem. What else could have or should have been done? I don't know what is going to happen when the government passes a law i don't like or disagree with, but i'm sure it will happen soon.

In both speech and substance, Tuesday's event offered a preview, casting the healthcare law as part of a bigger Democratic plan to help American families against monied interests who have profited in their time of economic distress. Just as Democrats fought the insurance companies to reform health care, the president said, they put an end to the role of banks in the college loan process.

"We can't afford to waste billions on giveaways to the banks" when American competitiveness depends on the fortunes of its students, Obama said.

The White House estimates that the changes in the lending program will general $68 billion in savings over the next 10 years, money that can be used to help expand the Pell Grant program.

The new law will also put a cap on college graduates' annual loan payments, so that they only have to pay back 10% of their income.

Here is a humorous take.



Obama signs student loan reforms into law
THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Barack Obama signs Student Loan reform bill, and Negroes are happy

Iron Sharpens Iron: Derek Thomas: Union With Christ: In Eternity Past, Historical Reality & Eternity to Come

I found this particular episode timely, considering that it's almost Easter. This reminded me that the reformed position offers a lot to help to understand what happens to a person when God saves them. this was a great interview.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Derek Thomas: Union With Christ: In Eternity Past, Historical Reality & Eternity to Come

Is This the Real Face of Jesus Christ? - ABC News

There was a documentary that aired Tuesday, March 30th that chronicled a year-long project analyzing the image on the Shroud of Turin and using computer animation to make a 3D image of the man. Many people believe the shroud is what Jesus was buried in and the image is Jesus.  I liked the program. It covered the history of the Shroud and the science behind the project.







Here is a trailer for the program

The Real Face of Jesus on HISTORY 3/30
Uploaded by HistoryChannel. - Classic TV and last night's shows, online.


Is This the Real Face of Jesus Christ? - ABC News

YouTube - The Dawkins Delusion

Image via Wikipedia

What if the logic that Richard Dawkins uses in his book The God Delusion were applied to himself. This is a great parody video! What if Richard Dawkins does not exist?




YouTube - The Dawkins Delusion

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Prophet Muhammed (saw) and Blackness

Here is an interesting post about African Americans and Islam. I will just offer the information contained and just comment no question God used Islam and black Muslims to bless this world.





The Prophet and Blackness

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Prophet Muhammed (saw) and Blackness

Debunking Christianity: Christopher Hitchens on Real Time: The Pope is a Criminal

I watched the following exchange on HBO. I intended to make mention of it but John W. Loftus beat me to it - posting it on his own blog. It's basically Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens gloating that the sexual misconduct of priests in the Roman Catholic Church was more wide-spread than was previously thought. I'm not surprise. This became inevitable as soon as celibacy for priests and nuns was made policy. I wouldn't be surprise if there was something similar in convents. I agree with these guys that it's horrible. Terrible. And the pope and all clergy should be held accountable for allowing it in those cases that they could have done something.

However, isn't it interesting that atheists who are crying foul and using this as a platform for attacking all Christians are making flawed assumptions. They say that this scandal is made possible because of how churches view sex as evil and teach unpractical and silly teachings. They contend that there is nothing wrong with extra-marital sex as long as all involved parties are okay with it. They claim homosexuality is good and that no one has the right to tell you what to do with your body.

I've got to point out that no where in scripture does it state that giving up marriage is going to get you closer to God. It actually countermands the command to be fruitful and multiply. Also the failure of a few men and women to do the right thing does not mean the right things is wrong and no one is accountable.

Further, Maher and Hitchens' position strikes me as hypocritical just because they prefer to be with consenting adults, yet they would deny others the "right" to be happy if they prefer children. What makes one preference abominable and the other righteous? I agree children are not to be sexual partners but so is anyone who is not your spouse who must be a member of the opposite sex (the definition of marriage). I can appeal to an objective moral standard that does not change - the same standard Jesus used in Matthew 19. By what standard is Maher and Hitchens using to validate their ethics? If it's relative then what gives them the right to criticize the Roman Catholic Church?

With the way things are going there will come a day when pedophilia and bestiality will be condones and defended like homosexuality is today. I'll bet they'll even use Hitchen's new catch phrase: "No Child's Behind Left."




Postscript: I posted a comment on Loftus' post pointing out that Hitchens seemed drunk to me. He even had a bottle of something with him when he went on camera (see at 22 secs). He is right about the Pope. I'm not Catholic and have no interest of defending the Papacy. The thing is that gets me is that it shows a problem if you go on TV drunk. I think its disrespectful to the audience to come in public and not be at your best.

Debunking Christianity: Christopher Hitchens on Real Time: The Pope is a Criminal

Debunking Christianity: God, Sex, and the Orgasm

John Loftus posted his "thoughts" about man's accountability for our sex lives.  It's an old line of discussion but I think he makes some interesting errors and has biases that he seems oblivious to. It's instructive to think through his arguments and see if they make sense. His original words are in black, and mine are bolded..

You know you like it. Sometimes all you can think of is having sex. Come on. You know this is true. Sometimes it dominates your thinking. You cannot wait to have it. You fantasize about it. You must have it. It is probably the best natural high we experience.

John is right that is how many of us think of sex. Notice he ssys "You must have it." I have never heard of a single case of a person dying because they don't get to have sex as he points out in the next paragraph.



So why is an orgasm such a powerful motivator? It's not like we need it. We just want it. The power of the orgasm is so strong it motivates some married people into infidelity; some men to rape women; some Catholic priests to direct these urges toward molesting children; and it drives the prostitution and the pornography industries, including child pornography.

From what I understand of Dr. Loftus' worldview he agrees that adultery, rape, and molesting children are all bad and destructive behaviors. He may even agree with me that there are negative consequences for these things. Our society does reject these behaviors but embraces fornication, pornography, and homosexuality...on the grounds that they fulfill people's needs without hurting anyone.  However each of these are also examples of selfishness. Gratifying the desires of your own heart while ignoring God's law and how you are hurting others.

The orgasm just does not look like something that a divine being would create. It is way too powerful of a motivator. The three masters of suspicion, Nietzsche, Marx and Freud all argued respectively that the three motivators in life are Power, Money, and Sex.

The Bible calls these the lust of the eyes, the lust of the heart, and the pride of life. Notice neither power, nor money, or sex are evil in and of themselves. Sex is gift from God designed for a married man and woman to become "one flesh" on an exclusive level that binds them to one another for as long as the both live. It's not just for procreation. 

So why did God make our sex drive so strong? Why didn't he make the the orgasm less pleasurable? The pleasure of the orgasm is just too strong as it is. We all know this. With an evolutionary hypothesis this is what we'd expect to find, for our sex drive is good for the survival of our species. But under a theistic hypothesis it makes no sense.

Just because a tool can be misused does not make the tool evil.  Orgasams in the proper context have no negative consequences. We have problems when we seek to use orgasms  to fill needs that sex was not designed and for and in ways our bodies were not designed for. (An anus is an exit not an entrance.)

If the pleasure of the orgasm was reduced there would be fewer sex crimes, and less infidelity. Or, the orgasm could've been created so as not to be pleasurable at all. God could've made the sex drive to be something of an instinct where we only want to do it when we want children, and then also created our desire to have children periodically. If this is what God had done instead, then with divine commands to populate the world, heterosexual people would only have sex for the purpose of bearing children in fulfillment of his commands, and that's it.

God did not intend sex to be for procreation only...Read Song of Songs. If people would only have sex with their spouse and love them as they should that would eliminate sex crimes,.

Moreover, the urge for sex seems to be too strong for most of us to overcome it. So why would God create us with this powerful urge and then prohibit it except under one set of conditions, a monogamous lifelong heterosexual married life?

Simple...under such condition you don't have children orphaned by one or both parents because of selfishness. Both spouses have their needs met. It is an urge too powerful. That is why we need 
God to help us. If he doesn't, you have no hope to even attempt to live up to that standard.

To masturbate certainly involves lust, does it not? But Jesus is found to prohibit lusting. What about sex before marriage? What's wrong with that?

When two people have sex they are not just joining their bodies but their spirits too. If you don't know what I mean, then you haven't had a real orgasm. When you have sex without the commitment of a marriage you leave yourself vulnerable emotionally, spiritually, physically  (ask John Bobbit) . If a person is marrying you they are saying that they will stick it out with you no matter what. If they are just having sex with you they can get up and leave at any time.

Most people in today's society, even Christians, have sex before marriage.

True, some Christians are disobedient. You let God worry about that.

What about people who will never be married?

God has provision for them. So they won't have children or have sex. What's wrong with that? Some people,I'd wager most people cannot handle that. For those of  us who cannot, I can attest to the fact that God will give you the spouse you need. Some people should never get married. If you are unwilling to do make compromise, concessions, and sacrifices then you don't need to get married or have children....sex then is too heavy a burden for those who don't want the responsibility and the accountability.  

³Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
 ⁴"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' ⁵and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
 ⁷"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
 ⁸Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. ⁹I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
 ¹⁰The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
 ¹¹Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. ¹²For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." - Matthew 19:3-12

What about people who will spend the rest of their lives in prison? [I taught college classes for a women's correctional facility and many of them said that lesbian sex was the best sex they ever had! What's the aternative for them?]

Again if they trust and obey God, they will be all right.  There is forgiveness and restoration in some shape or form .Leave that to God.

What about the few years between marriages for people who are divorced?

Considering that God hates divorce...and marriage is supposed to be monogamous  until either the man or woman dies...I think divorce is off the table if the two people are committed to God.  However given that there are reasons for divorce, we know that people are not mandated to stay single if a reconciliation is not possible.

¹⁵But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. - 1 Corinthians 7:15

 And what best explains the fact that there are many homosexuals in our world? Why would God create this strong urge for them and also condemn such an activity? This too makes no sense on a theistic hypothesis.

Sin - best explains the fact that there is homosexuality. Macro evolution does not. When people go against the standard and direction God has for us all then they are practicing sin. God does not create liars. God does not create thieves. People however are liars and thieves. God does not create people in such a way that we are supposed to be sinners. Just like you can repent and be made whole from any sin so you can be saved from homosexuality.We are saved from sin and death because of Jesus. You don't have to be bound or controlled  by anything decreed a sin. You can be free if you embrace Jesus.

Hell, I'll even bet all this talk about sex will cause some readers to do a search right now for a sex site, even Christians. Say it isn't so. Christian, you search for sex sites. Yet you feel guilty about it. The problem is that any prohibitions that make you feel guilty about this do not come from God.

John Loftus has a point. God is in the process of  freeing us, if you are a Christian. Some things don't just fall off right away...it's a process. 

 ⁶Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:  - Philippians 1:6

You can read John Loftus' original post below!

Debunking Christianity: God, Sex, and the Orgasm

 Mike Felker has posted his own response and I agree with him that this post was "Probably the Worst Atheist Argument I have ever heard".

Evolution News & Views: A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design?

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a great answer about why Intelligent Design (ID) is really science. ID is testable and ID is falsifiable. It is a great answer posted by Casey Luskin.

Evolution News & Views: A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Intelligent design isn't stupid (guardian.co.uk)
• Do You Teach Your Kids About Darwin? (GeekDad Wayback Machine) (wired.com)
• FIRST THINGS CALLS THE "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" MOVEMENT: A miserable failure. "The ID claim is that c... (pajamasmedia.com)
• 25 reviews of Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection (rateitall.com)

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

Dr. Mariottini on his blog explains  titles and names given to God in the Old Testament. These are great,  Some of them I've never considered before seeing his post with much thought. I'm used to names like Jehovah Jireh and a few other popular ones but it makes since that there would be many more.

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

YouTube - Ezekiel 18 and God's Pleasure in Repentance and Judgment

Here is a lecture from James White about how Ezekiel 18 strengthens arguments for God's absolute sovereignty. This is really a great example of how the text shows God's character. It's a really good statement and exegesis.




YouTube - Ezekiel 18 and God's Pleasure in Repentance and Judgment