Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Casting Cleopatra: Angelina Jolie Is The New Go-To "Person of Color"

Danielle Belton has done a very interesting article about how Angelina Jolie has been tapped to play Cleopatra in the upcoming movie based on her life. Belton explains the fact that people disagree on how Cleopatra looked and her skin color. I with Belton that Cleopatra was not Caucasian. She had Egyptian and Greek blood in her. No way she had blond hair and blue eyes. I think it is sad that Hollywood studios don't believe an actress of  African descent can be enough of a box office draw to play Cleopatra. I predict that in 30 years they will have actors not of African descent play Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. I don't think that is a good idea. It's almost like people think the best way to solve racism is to ignore race. I think that is why we have talk of Spider-man being played by a black man or Wonder Woman being played by Beyonce'.  I think we can respect each other's racial differences without ignoring them.

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Casting Cleopatra: Angelina Jolie Is The New Go-To "Person of Color"

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Jesus is a Muslim: The Lords Prayer by Imam Khalid Yasin

I recently found this posted on thegrandverbalizer's blog. In the Video, Imam Khalid Yasin makes the claim that Jesus never claimed to be God and tries to make the Lord's Prayer an example of why Jesus is not God. Here is the original video.




Instead of taking the points of the video in the post, I'd thought I'd let Jame White do it. I would love to see more information about how Muslims would answer Dr. White's apologetic. I find it way more compelling than what Imam Khalid Yasin presented. I don't see how he gets all of that out the Lord's Prayer. Doesn't seem to fly.








Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Jesus is a Muslim: The Lords Prayer by Imam Khalid Yasin

Black SuperHero Blog: President Obama offers 'shout out' to THE 99

In case you have not heard, there is a comic book series called The 99. It's a team of young people from all over the world whose powers are based on the 99 attribute of Allah. There will be an animated series soon. President Obama recently spoke about the creator of the series in the following clip. You can read more about the 99 on my other blog: Favorite Media - the 99. There are couple of free things out and I have not seen the series yet so I won't comment much until I do.





Black SuperHero Blog: President Obama offers 'shout out' to THE 99

Related articles by Zemanta

• Comic book publisher praised for reflecting 'tolerance of Islam' (cnn.com)

Atheists Fulfill Scripture: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” / “Why Does God Hate Amputees?” | True Freethinker

Mariano is brilliant. Here is a great article he has posted that deals with theodicy. My favorit e point he raises is extremely quotable:

Their non-sequitur is to expect, or demand, that God be as singularly interested in that which is of ultimate concern to them as are they. God must “care” about our physical bodies and heal them on demand or else God is not “love” and if God is not love then God is not—see: "Love" and "Hate" - Defining Terminology.

I know for sure that this is the wrong attitude to take of life and of God. Isn't it arrogant to presume to tell God what He ought to do and to suggest a parameters as to what form God's love should take!? I mean in any realtionship no one want to hear: "If you love me, you would..." No one likes it because we know there is now an attempt to manipulate us. Bad move. Unfortunately, it works on many of us. No way does it work on God.

Atheists Fulfill Scripture: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” / “Why Does God Hate Amputees?” | True Freethinker

Atheism and Science - Is There a Relation?, part 1 | True Freethinker

Mariano has written a great post discussing the relationship between Atheism and Science. They are not as close as people try to make them out to be.

Atheism and Science - Is There a Relation?, part 1 | True Freethinker

Related articles by Zemanta

• The rise and rise of atheism | Rachel Holkner (guardian.co.uk)
• Smart Men Cheat Less [Can't Argue With Results] (gawker.com)
• The Arrogance Of The New Atheism (oliverwillis.com)
• Embracing Evolution, But Not Dawkins (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Pantheism

In continuing his awesome series on giving the terminology of theological terms, Brian Auten posted a definition of "panthesism" last Tuesday.  God cannot be equated with the universe because God has always existed and the Universe came into existence. Further, God transcends the universe - time and space - matter and energy - and keeps it together..Therefore it cannot logically follow that you can be a Christian and a pantheist simultaneously.

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Pantheism

Apologetics 315: Arguments for Theism MP3 Audio by Peter S. Williams

Brain has posted a great lecture by Peter S. Williams who lays out the evidence for supporting "theism" - belief in God and explaining why atheism is untenable.  Really worth listening to,

Apologetics 315: Arguments for Theism MP3 Audio by Peter S. Williams

On Jesus Deity and Emperor Constantine | True Freethinker

Image by wallyg via Flickr

Thanks, Mariano, for pointing out this video.




On Jesus Deity and Emperor Constantine | True Freethinker

Response to Jeff Schweitzer: Why Free Will, Prayer and an Omnipotent God Are Mutually Exclusive

Two commenters on John Loftus's blog have challenged Christians with the following article. Anyone who reads my blog knows that I am very interested in the questions and discussion that make up the bulk of  this essay. This is important because of all the arguments against Christianity, this is the strongest one and considering how quickly it collapses under its own weight of presuppositions and errors that just tells you how much evidence the atheist worldview really has. To be fair this essay by Jeff Schweitzer is one of the best summaries of the problem of evil I've seen a long time. Flawed logic but states the arguments well. His words are in black text and my comments are in red.

Religious morality has maintained a powerful grip on the human psyche for two millennia through the concept of "free will." Without the notion of free will granted by an omniscient and omnipotent god, religion would run into an immediate and insurmountable conundrum. Humans would be automatons, doing god's bidding with no choice. By definition, with no free will, all actions by all people would be a direct expression of god's will. That would clearly pose a problem, with war atrocities, rape, torture, genocide, and the full repertoire of human debauchery reflecting poorly on the almighty. No religion would tolerate such a grim view of the creator, so there must be a way to reconcile the reality of ugly human behavior with an all-powerful, all-knowing god. David Hume nicely summarized this tension between a kind god and the unkind reality of human existence, saying, "Our natural terrors present the notion of a devilish and malicious deity: Our propensity to adulation leads us to acknowledge an excellent and divine. And the influence of these opposite principles are various, according to the different situation of the human understanding."

Judging by what is written, the author must be talking about "Libertarian Free Will", He neglected to give a concise definition of what it is he means when he uses the term "Free will". What I  mean when I use the term is that one who has Free Will has the ability to make decisions based solely on what one desires without outside prompting or direction. It is my understanding that Schweitzer is latching on to the philosophy that there is "tension between a kind god and the unkind reality of human existence" that needs to be reconciled. I'm further understanding that he refers primarily refers to Judeo-Christianity given that all religions have something to say about human suffering  but not all religions believe there exists an omnipresent and omnipotent God. For example, Buddhism has no supreme deity.

Here is the central dilemma: religion must somehow explain the existence of evil in the presence of god, an endeavor known as theodicy. Despite heroic efforts, all attempts at theodicy have failed completely. The bottom line is clear. In a world that knows evil, an all-powerful god responsible for all creation must be evil. That interpretation is unavoidable and certain. But given that many people will wish to dispute the claim, I will show next how no other conclusion is possible.

I agree with Schweitzer's  definition of "Theodicy". I disagree with the conclusion he gives. Schweitzer makes his conclusion clear: "In a world that knows evil, an all-powerful god responsible for all creation must be evil. That interpretation is unavoidable and certain" He promised to prove this beyond all doubt. It's important to recognize that this line of argument often lead to denying God's existence because of the perceived contradiction of God's existence and the presence of evil. The problem is that does not fly because the flawed understanding of who God is and what good is.  Let's watch his argument fall apart. 

Some who oppose the notion of a brutish ugly deity propose that god did not intentionally create evil. If so, that begs the question of evil's origin if not from the hand of god. In one scenario, god allowed evil to flourish as an unintended consequence once his newly-minted Adam and Eve started roaming the earth; in another, evil sprang to life without god's permission, as a rude cosmic surprise. Both scenarios would give god a pass on being evil, but would at the same time mean he was not omnipotent. None of the three scenarios is looking too good for the big guy. Let's review: in the first case, an all-powerful god must be evil since evil exists and god created all, including evil; in the second case, god's work got beyond his control, a mistake not typically associated with an all-powerful thing; in the third case, god not only does not control our fate, he is incapable of peering into the future, a decidedly un-god-like attribute.

Schweitzer describes three scenarios based on different ways of  understanding who God is. I'm going to argue that the only way to understand the character and nature of the Judeo-Christian God is to look at what the Bible says about Him. Schweitzer describes God as all-powerful and all-knowing. I'm sure he got that understanding from the Bible. That being the case his understanding of God's nature should square with what the Bible says. Each case falls apart because it does not describe the God of the Bible.

Case 1: God is suggested to be evil. but James 1: 12-15 says:

¹²Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
 ¹³When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; ¹⁴but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. ¹⁵Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. 

Therefore God cannot do evil nor can he be tempted to do evil. People do evil because of the evil desires of our own hearts. 

Case 2 Suggests that the world God created is out of His control. Isaiah 45:7-10 says

 ⁷ I form the light and create darkness,
       I bring prosperity and create disaster;
       I, the LORD, do all these things.
 ⁸ "You heavens above, rain down righteousness;
       let the clouds shower it down.
       Let the earth open wide,
       let salvation spring up,
       let righteousness grow with it;
       I, the LORD, have created it.
 ⁹ "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker,
       to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground.
       Does the clay say to the potter,
       'What are you making?'
       Does your work say,
       'He has no hands'?
 ¹⁰ Woe to him who says to his father,
       'What have you begotten?'
       or to his mother,
       'What have you brought to birth?'

In case it was missed: God is saying he controls everything. There is no verse in the Bible talking about how God is limited.

Case 3 says that God "not only does not control our fate, he is incapable of peering into the future, a decidedly un-god-like attribute." The thing is the Bible disagrees. Acts 17:24-28 says:

²⁴"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. ²⁵And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 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.' 

This shows that God more than controls our fates. He had our fates in His hands before He first made anything! Also look at Ephesians 1:7-12 says

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.

Religion solves this conundrum the old-fashioned way: by making up an answer with truly contorted logic. The answer in this case is free will, but only for human beings. Somehow, when god gathered his last strength to make people, before taking a one-day vacation, he decided, unlike with beavers or parrots, to give his new creation the ability to choose a path not preordained by god. This divine grant of free will solves the dilemma because people can choose to be evil without implicating god. Whew!

I notice a hint of smug sarcasm. Undeserved sarcasm.  When God rested on the seventh day of creation, it wasn't because He was tired. "Rested" only means He stopped creating not that He was tired. I disagree with the standard idea that Free Will solves the problem because people do not choose to be evil. Evil is default. We are not good people who sometimes make mistakes. We are fallen sinners who are sometimes blessed by God to do good. We are not free of on our own. We are enslaved to sin. Breaking one commandment means breaking them all. Therefore it is silly to think that free will solves the dilemma. We do evil because we want to do evil. This means that we have will of our own only it's not free. The Bible does not teach that we have free will with mean that God is not implicated. Read Romans 5: 18- 21:

 ¹⁸Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. ¹⁹For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 ²⁰The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, ²¹so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We are not free without Jesus. We are enslaved to sin. Here is another passage that puts it even clearer Romans 7:14-25  says:

¹⁴We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. ¹⁵I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. ¹⁶And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. ¹⁷As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. ¹⁸I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.^[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. ¹⁹For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. ²⁰Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
 ²¹So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. ²²For in my inner being I delight in God's law; ²³but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. ²⁴What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? ²⁵Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
      So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Unfortunately, the idea does not hold water. Even the briefest examination lays waste to the claim that free will was or could be granted by an all-powerful god. The idea is an absurd oxymoron: the very act of granting free will would destroy the power do so. Let's see why by looking at the combination of free will, evil, and prayer in the presence of an omniscient god.

I agree the idea does not hold water. The Bible does say that God is all-powerful but it does not say that God granted us free will. I mean if we had free will then we ought to be able to choose to be sinless - making Jesus' sacrifice and suffering unnecessary. If there had been a better way to fulfill God's purposes don't you think he would have done it? Schweitzer then claims to show that granting free will destroys the power to give free will setting up a contradiction. I disagree because again there is no free will but let's humor him for a few minutes.

We can start with prayer. If god has a plan for everything and everyone, prayer could not affect his behavior. If he changed his plan according to a prayer, that would be an admission that god's original plan was flawed, making him fallible. If only those prayers that fit into god's original plan are answered, then the purpose of praying is defeated. With preordained fate, prayer could not change any outcome, which is the very purpose of a prayer.

I agree that prayer does not affect God's behavior. Prayer changes us not God. When we pray according to God's will we get "Yes" or "Wait". When we pray for something contradicting with what God was going to do, God says "No." Many people are teaching that God is obligated to do what ever we want if we ask  with enough faith. I think that Schweitzer thinks that this is something Bible believing Christians thinks. It's not.  Look at: 1 John 5:13-15

 ¹³I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. ¹⁴This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. ¹⁵And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

A more proper view of prayer can also be found in Matthew 16:18-20

¹⁸And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. ¹⁹I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." ²⁰Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Look at the part of binding and loosing. In the Greek it really says  "has been loosed in Heaven"
and "has been bound in Heaven." This means that we are only saying what God has already said.

"Ah-ha!" you might say. "The trick is that god gave mankind free will -- that allows for the legitimacy of prayer." But prayer cannot work in the case of free will, either. If we have the power to choose our own destiny, prayer has no role to play. If I pray to god for a certain outcome, just the act of praying is an admission that I do not determine my fate; I admit my fate is in the hands of god, that god can change the outcome of my life, making the notion of free will moot. The idea of free will is religion's version of having your cake and eating it, too. You can have a god who already preordained everything, and you can pray for a different outcome anyway, and you have free will to change your destiny. The wishful thinking that a pastry can be consumed without being depleted is no more viable than the notion that free will and prayer are compatible.

Prayer is legitimate but not the idea that you can use it to change your fate. We pray to communicate with God not to change his mind. It's supposed to be a two-way conversation. It's about to be more like God - conformed to the image of his son (Romans 8:29).  God wants to change us so that we can see more clearly not to confirm to our skewed understanding of reality! Isaiah 1:8 says:

"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

God is not looking for us to tell Him why He is wrong. He wants to give us the gift of seeing the truth as it is. Schweitzer's argument fails because he does not understand what the Bible teaches about prayer.  

An argument often provided to counter this line of reasoning says that god knows what every person will choose beforehand, but the person does not; the person is still making a choice. How oddly tautological. Whatever we choose, our choice is according to god's plan because we chose it! But if god already knows what we will choose, already knows the outcome of every choice, that is not free will, only the cruel illusion of free will. The choice was already made at the beginning of time, meaning there never was any choice.

God does sometimes decree something and people involved just make decision on their own fulfilling that decree. For Example King Cyrus of the Persian Empire returned the Jews from Exile 70 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. God takes credit for the Babylonians destroying Jerusalem and for Cyrus ending the exile - centuries before the events. Look at Habakkuk 1:5-11 and Isaiah 45:13. Some other times God restrains us from sinning. Sometimes we think it was our idea to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing  but sometimes God tells us it was him preventing us from doing the wrong thing. I've personally experienced that but it's also in the Bible where King Abimelech was kept from sleeping with Abraham's wife Sarah although he did not know Sarah was Abraham's wife (Genesis 20:1-20). Still another scenario is that God uses the evil that we do to get profound good. For example when Joseph's brother sold Joseph into slavery, Joseph told his brothers over 20 years later after he became the second most powerful man in Egypt: Genesis 50:19-21

¹⁹ But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? ²⁰ You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. ²¹ So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.

The good that was being accomplished? - Saving the known world from starvation.

Another common argument is that free will allowed humans to fall from god's grace, without impugning god's character. That is simply defining away the problem without solving anything. If god is all-powerful, he could have created a species of humans who chose to use the gift of free will only for good. That his creations chose to behave badly means that such behavior was either god's original intent, or that god is not all-knowing.

I agree that God could have chosen to create us so that we would never sin. But God didn't. Why? I don't really know all the reasons why, but one thing I am certain about it was because God had You in mind. He had me in mind. He had in mind everyone who has or ever will existed. And our existence in our current state - genetically and environmentally - is contingent on the fact that everything you have ever experienced had to happen when and how they happened or you would not exist. The same is true for everyone else. If the people in the past had not lived and died when and how they lived and died you would not be here to ask such questions. God has purpose for everyone. And everyone fulfills that purpose. God knows who is going to disobey him and how. There is no way to predict how He will react in every situation because God keeps his own counsel. Sometime God chooses to extend his mercies other times He punishes. What we know for sure is that if a person repents, God will not ignore the person or say "no" to them.

Perhaps a benevolent god created a world with evil, but he chose to do so for good reasons. He created evil but is not evil himself. Assuming this logic, some argue that evil and suffering are necessary in order to know god. Well, that is simply another example of solving the problem by defining it away, and ultimately contributes nothing. Since god is all-powerful, he could have just as easily designed the world such that suffering was not required to know him.

Schweitzer is paying "Monday morning Quarterback". Of course God could have chosen to create a world without suffering. However you would not be in it. Neither would I. For some reasons that we cannot yet fathom God has chosen to do things this way. Schweitzer's argument fails because he failed to prove that God did not create a world where evil was possible. Being all-powerful also means that God gets to do things the way He wants. Isaiah 45:7 says:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Let's look at a real case of evil, that of Slobodan Milošević and his choice of genocide: only three scenarios are possible. One, god knew beforehand the choice Milošević would make and did nothing to prevent the outcome; two, god knew beforehand but could do nothing to change the outcome; or three, god did not know what choice Milošević would make. From these three possibilities we must come to a conclusion that is irrefutable, undeniable, and logically immune to any counterargument. In a world in which evil and suffering exist, god is either all-powerful and is responsible for that evil and suffering, through design or neglect, or god is benevolent but not all-powerful. Nothing else is possible, other than the obvious conclusion that god does not exit. With evil in the world, an all-powerful god cannot be benevolent. Whether god's power is diminished either as an original state of being or as a consequence of voluntarily relinquishing his power to human free will, the effect is the same. If god is benevolent and not culpable of evil, he has no control over evil. If god is not evil, he cannot alter our fate. No amount of twisted or convoluted logic can change that immutable conclusion. Saying "God works in mysterious ways" or "We are humble enough to admit that we will never understand god" just do not cut it.

Schweitzer misses another possibility: God is responsible for everything that does and does not happen - making Him responsible.  In Isaiah 45:7 God even claims responsibility. The point that is missing from his 3 possibilities that God could have stopped Milošević but did not because of  God's over all purpose and goals to do the most good. Schweitzer equates God being responsible with God being accountable. Accountability means that you are beholden to someone. Someone has your leash. Who is God accountable to? Himself. Not to Schweitzer. Not to you and certainly not to me.God is not limited by our will. Milošević is responsible for his actions. God did not make him do any of the evil he did.  Same for Hitler. Same for anyone including you and me. We do evil because evil is in us not because God makes us do evil things. The only thing keeping us from being worse than we are is God's mercy.

That conclusion yields an obvious and terminal problem for prayer. If your baby is seriously ill, you pray to god for her recovery. Why? If god is all-powerful, he would already know the fate of your baby, and your prayers would be for naught. Whether you prayed or not, your baby's fate is already sealed, pre-ordained, for better or worse, by the all-powerful god. Plus, since an all-powerful god must be evil, since he is responsible for everything in the universe, including evil, he might take joy in your suffering, since he allowed so much grief to visit the human condition long before your child became ill.

Several problems here. God is not just responsible for evil but for everything good too! Prayer isn't about trying to change the baby fate but for strength to deal with whatever God's decision is and trusting that God will do what is best for you and your baby. The Bible explicitly says that God does not take pleasure in our suffering. 2 Peter 3:9 says

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Not saying that people perish against God's will because "not willing" does not mean God does not allow people to perish. It means that He isn't taking joy in it. 

Alternatively, if god is benevolent, he is not responsible for the evil and suffering in the world, meaning he has diminished powers since forces exist in the universe for which he has no responsibility and no hand in their creation. You would be praying to a being without the ability to control human fate, rendering the prayer useless. If god has no control over evil, praying to him to stop evil and suffering makes no sense. Prayers to an all-powerful and evil god are futile; prayers to a benevolent god are useless. You might as well pray to the tooth fairy. At least with the tooth fairy you get a dollar under the pillow.

God does stip evil and change fate. I'm certain He has done it in everyone's life and you did not realize it because you would not have been able to tell because you don't know what the other options were in every situation. God is in complete control. Sometimes He does not stop evil because of his own purposes.

The flip-side of human free will is also important to examine; that is, does god himself have free will? If not, can god grant what he himself does not have? An all-powerful god is all-knowing, meaning god knows all of his future actions, and all of the choices he would make. Here is the rub: god could not change those choices, otherwise his earlier knowledge would have been wrong, meaning god would not be all-knowing! All-omniscient god therefore has no free will to choose actions, since all actions must be preordained. God becomes an observer of his own omniscience since all knowledge of the future precludes any changes to that future. Any god with free will would have to be imperfect, and would by definition not be all-knowing.

This is an amazing mess in logic. Why would want to change his choices if his choices are always right and perfect? The other thing is God is not bound by time. Causality means nothing. He does not look down the corridors of time because there is no future from his point of view. Transcendence trumps Schweitzer. Free will does not work like our will where causality and  experiencing life moment-by-moment makes no sense from God's point of view.

So an all-knowing god, who cannot possess free will, cannot grant something he himself does not have. But a bigger problem remains. Free will implies a future with no predestination. A god who knows all, about everything past, present, and future, could not create any free will that would prevent that knowledge of the future; the very act of creating free will would destroy the fact of omniscience.
The notion that an all-powerful god granted humans free will is one of the most egregious examples of religion's absurdity. But the situation becomes positively surreal when people believe that praying to an all-powerful god can alter the outcome of events according to the entreaties of the prayer. Holding three mutually exclusive ideas at the same time is a sign of insanity.

In conclusion, this is where Schweitzer really fails. God does possess free will in that He can literally do what ever he wants to do. God has not given humanity free will. Therefore omniscience and omnipotence of God are all logically intact. Schweitzer argument was summed up: "The notion that an all-powerful god granted humans free will is one of the most egregious examples of religion's absurdity." Agreed. Good thing the Bible does not teach that. People who would push Schweitzer's argument further to argue that there is no god are proving that a particualr god does not exist and I concur,  but that god is not the God of the Bible..

Jeff Schweitzer: Why Free Will, Prayer and an Omnipotent God Are Mutually Exclusive

Fundamentalist Theologian, Richard Carrier, Speaks Out About the Resurrection | True Freethinker

Mariano has written a great post reminding us about a time where Lee Strobel spoke with Richard Carrier regarding the Resurrection of Christ. His essay is in light of the following video. I suggest watching the video and reading his essay.




Fundamentalist Theologian, Richard Carrier, Speaks Out About the Resurrection | True Freethinker

Truthbomb Apologetics: Article: God-of-the-Gaps or Best Explanation? by Kenneth Samples

Chad has pointed to a very enjoyable article written by Kenneth Samples. It is very interesting. He answers the objections that many atheists level at Christians that we argue that just because science can't explain something than God must have done it. It's unfair. It's not true and Samples explains why believing God is not dodging questions or stifling scientific inquiry. I know atheists loathe this point but it's no less true: Without God there is no science. The scientist Johannes Kepler described science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him." I think that this is the best description ever.  Johannes Kepler is the one credited for starting to systematically looking at planetary motion. His work was later extended up by folks like Isaac Newton.


Truthbomb Apologetics: Article: God-of-the-Gaps or Best Explanation? by Kenneth Samples

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: What was the religion of Abraham?

I read another interesting  post from thgrandverbalizer on his blog. In this article he examines what Religion Abraham had. He makes the arguments that Abraham was not a Jew or a Christian because Abraham predates both Judaism and Christianity. I agree....partly.  Abraham did not have the law but he still made blood sacrifices to atone for his sins. How do we know this? When God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, Abraham didn't respond with "What is a burnt offering?" This is evidence that he was familiar with this aspect of worship. Abraham and God also made a a covenant over a slaughtered a heifer, goat, ram, dove, and a pigeon in Genesis 15 as a guarantee of the promises given to Abraham. The need to atone for sins through blood sacrifice to take away guilt and stay judgment. is evident before the law was given through Moses and is binding on everyone.

The grandverbalizer quoted the following from the Qur'an:

“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; rather he was an upright man who had surrendered to Allah (Muslim), and he was not of the idolaters.”( Holy Qur'an chapter 3 verse 67)” 

 

The suggestion seems to be that Jews and Christians don't submit themselves to God. I totally disagree. The thing is that describing Abraham as a Muslim is a tad of an overreaching conclusion. Did Abraham follow the  pillars of Islam? Did he ever once go to  Mecca? Nope. Therefore if you are going to use the ithe given logic that Abraham as not a Jew or Christian, then Abraham was not a Muslim either. So if you were going to label Abraham's religion  what would it be? Abraham was a believer. That is  how he was made righteous.

 ¹What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? ²If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. ³What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. - Romans 4: 1-3 

 

Paul quotes from Genesis 15:6. Abrahm was righteous because hebelieved in that God promised him. He didn't just promise him Isaac, God promised that through Abraham and isaac all humanity would be blessed.

God said to Abraham in Genesis 22: 17-18:

¹⁷ I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, ¹⁸ and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." 

 

Notice "offsrping" is singular! Some translations say "seed". God was referring to one particular person - Jesus. How can I prove that? Jesus said it.

 

⁵⁶Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
 ⁵⁷"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
 ⁵⁸"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" - John 8:56-58

Jesus' coming  excited Abraham. It was  Abrahm's belief that god was going top do what god told him He was going to do that made Abraham righteous. This is how we are saved today. Not of works.  I'm not saying that Abraham understood all of this as much as we do today but he did know that God would provide the sacrifice Himself.

 ⁶ Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, ⁷ Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
      "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
      "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
 ⁸ Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together. - Genesis 22: 6-8

That sacrifice was Jesus Himself.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: What was the religion of Abraham?

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Paul Copan

Paul Copan was interviewed by Brian Auten from Apologetics 315. It is very interesting. Copan talks about Apologetics and an upcoming book discussing the morality of God in the Old Testament. He was good enough to give us a sneak preview. He talks about slavery and the destruction of the Canaanites. I like what I've heard so far and I would like to read more. He bring up points I haven't thought of yet. This is a great interview.

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Paul Copan

Related articles by Zemanta

• Facebook Apologists Miss The Point: Facebook Isn't The Future [Voices] (voices.allthingsd.com)

Apologetics 315: The Golden Rule Apologetic by Bob Passantino

Brian has posted a brilliant essay by Bob Passantino. The article is about how to apply the "Golden Rule" to how we do witness and how we do Apologetics.The principles and points raised are timeless. I totally agree with his points We can't ever treat people like we don't want to be treated and more than that we must do for others what we want done for us. I'm amazed how often people think the negative form of the Golden Rule is equivalent to what Jesus said but it isn't. He phrased it in such a way that we can't just passively not harm others but we must work to have a positive impact.
It can be really hard not to mock another's viewpoints or belief when they disrespect your own.  I think that sometimes when people push on you, you have to push back so that they know you are serious. This isn't always what we need to do. It can be used to make a point, get attention, and not to just smooth  a bruise ego. I find that discussing Christianity on John Loftus' blog - Debunking Christianity - does bring up a lot resistance. People who disagree with me often resot to name-calling and speaking meanly at  me because they disagee. So much pain and suffering and they dismiss the only way they can be free. However they have convinced themselves that God is not real and they don't need Him even if He did.exist. One example of how heated it's gotten is after Bronxboy47 had said very horrendous things to try to rebut my arguments.At one point he said that the Bible does not make sense and then makes the following argument:

On Satan's Fall From Grace

To speak of the unprompted emergence out of nowhere of a malice so unfathomably deep as to reject one's maker and attempt to sabotage his creation, is to postulate yet another uncaused cause. We are told the angels have free will. Free will to do what? To reject and rebel against an omnipotent God? That would be sheer and utter folly, and the angels damn well knew it. And yet, we are asked to believe that, nevertheless, some made the choice to rebel. Now I ask you, how brain damaged would you have to be to make a decision like that? 

Grace,

And please don't answer me, as Marcus would, that don't have brains! 

But what I said in response was:

BronxBoy47, Why shouldn't the angels be that stupid? I mean you are.

I realize that some might think that's heavy handed but I wanted to drive home the point that he is saying that it's stupid to rebel against an omnipotent God, yet that is what he himself is doing.  I've realized the best way to handle things so I don't end up getting so frustrated that I say something I'll regret later is to step away and then come back. It's not even that they have great compelling arguments, it's that one can take only so much stupid in a single setting.




Apologetics 315: The Golden Rule Apologetic by Bob Passantino

How long did the Hebrews live in Egypt? - BibelCenter [apparent] contradictions

I was recently  challenged on the point that some think that the Bible gives contradictory information about how long were Abraham's descendants in Egypt before the exodus. They ask was it 400 or 430 years? I found a great website that explains the discrepancy. It's interesting to me how if you only speak English and know nothing about life and culture in Abraham's and Moses' times there is no way you can understand what the text is saying. What I don't get is the protest that if this is the turth and the word of God that you shouldn't need to gain any special knowledge to understand it. We don't teat any other text that way. For example if you buy a new cell phone, do you really think you can use all the features on it without studying the manual? How much more do you think you need to know to fully understand a book eras removed from your experiences? Context and getting out of the text what it really says instead of what I think it says is important. We need to ask what is the author communicating? What is being said?  It's not asking those questions that lead to erroneously perceived contradictions. If am reading something in the Bible and in my opinion there is a conflict, why would I assume the bible is in error and I am not?

How long did the Hebrews live in Egypt? - BibelCenter [apparent] contradictions

Debunking Christianity: Step Outside the Box and See it for What it is

Recently John W. Loftus posted an article on his blog that I think shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian. He asserts that people are Christians because they have been indoctrinated because we are raised as Christians. If Loftus is correct than we would never expect people who were not raised in a Christian context or culture to ever become Christians. And only people who learn about psychology and anthropology and science would leave Christianity. The problem is that there is too much examples of how none of these things are true. How do you explain people like William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel? They were atheists and became Christians. I was raised in church my whole life. Although I've dedicated my career to science and engineering, going as far to earn advanced degrees in physics, engineering, and computer science, and yet I just don't see any evidence that would prove that the Bible is untrustworthy. Loftus himself tried this argument against David Wood in his debate with him earlier this year to which Wood responded that he had been an atheist and was raised an atheist. As long as people like Wood exist, Loftus' argument can't be valid.

Let's step it up a notch, and ask what about people like me who are Christians and were raised as Christians? We all come to God the same way. We have to agree with God that He is right and we have to make the committment to God for ourselves. My father and mother choosing to live lives serving God means nothing for me and my life. It means they get the blessings and rewards but not me after the point in which I had to decide for myself if Jesus is what He claimed to be and if the Bible is true. After researching other religions and examining the Bible throughout my life I find that it more than measures up. Are there things in the Bible that I would change? Yes. This is why I am accountable. But I can't reach that standard on my own. Neither can you. Because it cuts through everyone's excuses and calls us to a higher standard than anyone of us can live on our own, this is evidence that the Bible is true.

John Loftus wrote:

Christians ought to learn about the influences in their lives that cause them to believe as they do. They should study a bit of psychology and anthropology that describe how we think and how foreign other cultures are to one another. I think doing so will cause them to be skeptics. For skepticism is an acquired trait through the process of learning about these things. Doing so will cause Christians to begin to see their own inherited religion as the box it is. I'm a skeptic in part because I have learned through the sciences that I should be skeptical. Skepticism is therefore an acquired virtue. People who are unaware of the cultural influences that shape their thinking have not yet developed this acquired virtue. It requires a certain distance from ourselves and our cultures. But only through skepticism can someone see the cultural box as a cultural box. Until you have the courage and the will to be skeptical, you don't even know you're in one.

I disagree that holding fast to the Bible and its revelations is choosing to be in box. No, rather, holding on to Jesus is breaking out of the box that you don't know just how deep you in. When a person gets saved they have an epithany. They realize just how wonderful and holy God is and then you take a look at yourself and for the first time in your life to you see you as truly are. All apostates and people who walk away from Christianity all have in common that they have not had that experience. When you realize how hopeless in sin you are - drowning your own crap - and crying out to Jesus and He helps you out of it - giving you a new heart and a change of mind. If you have not experienced it you cannot understand it. However, I love the testimony from Isaiah. I didn't have the experience He had where He saw God's glory and he immediately understood his place. I didn't see God's glory but I had the same realization. This is why I understand Isaiah's gratitude for salvation. Isaiah said in Isaiah 6:5 -

"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty."

This is exactly how I felt when I got saved. It's not about what you do but what God does for you. It's about the purpose for which God made us not what we think or what we want. Christianity is not supposed to be a religion engaged in fear and manipulation where you try to live a life good enough to convince God to let you into Heaven. Christianity is not about you getting to live any kind of way just because you prayed the "sinner's prayer" at some point but there is no change in their character. Loftus says he understands Christianity but he misses these fundamental points. The proof is his poor showing in his debates against D'Souza and David Wood. Apostates like Loftus merely trade one box for another and they don't even realize it. They think they are free but even more hopelessly enslaved. Christianity is not inherited....it's a gift that not everyone gets.


Debunking Christianity: Step Outside the Box and See it for What it is

Iron Sharpens Iron: James R. White: Integrity in the Ministry: the Ergun Caner Scandal and Modern Evangelicalism

James White was interviewed on Iron Sharpens Iron  regarding this fiasco with Ergun Caner. I think Dr. White is correct. in what he has done and it is Dr. Caner who could have diffused all of this by just telling the truth. Leaders and Teachers must be held to a high standard. This particular is a great summary of what Dr. White's point of view is at this point and what has happened and why. Dr White did  try to give Caner a chance to come clean about his actions with Dr. White not publicly calling him into account.

Iron Sharpens Iron: James R. White: Integrity in the Ministry: the Ergun Caner Scandal and Modern Evangelicalism

Prove “god” | True Freethinker

When one tries to witness to atheists, you may encounter some resistance. One challenge is that they claim that they can claim that there is no God because you can't prove something does not exist. They therefore conclude that theist are burdened with proving there is a god. They think they have won the argument. However, I beg to differ. I have blogged several answers to this challenge but i think the latest one I've seen from Mariano bears looking into. He makes several good points and he does successfully shows that when people throw up this argument it's gotta be out of desperation. You can't make a claim and then pretend you don't have prove your claim. Mariano answers this challenge by actually explaining and interacting with the question about whether or not the question is even logical. It's a brilliant piece of reasoning.

Prove “god” | True Freethinker

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Walk on Water: The Wisdom of Jesus

I ran across a post I had to share from  Islam and Christianity A Common Word. It's a book shared that shows the wisdom of Jesus in a Muslim Context.

I'm kinda of confused. I have heard some Muslim apologists contend that Jesus and all his earliest followers were Muslims but I can find no evidence that they followed the "5 pillars of Islam".

As for the book, man y of the saying sounds like re-wording of what is in the Gospels themselves. They seem to oral traditions of what Jesus said. I'm not sure if they are written down anywhere else and I'd assume that they are. I'd like to know what we should do with saying that can be shown to conflict with what Jesus actually said in the Bible. These are the two that bothered me:

Jesus, the son of Mary, e said, “God has
given me the power to give life to the dead,
sight to the blind, sound to the deaf; but
He did not give me the power to heal the
fool of his foolishness.”
(al-r®z¬)

I realize that someone might point out that I have a problem this one because it asserts that Jesus said He can't do something and as Christian I have too high a view of Jesus to be comfortable. It's deeper than that. The scriptures teach that when Jesus saves us from sin and death that he is indeed saving ups from our own foolishness. He frees our minds and souls so we can be reconciled back to God. This is the whole point to being a Christian. Jesus is making a denial of this fact here but it's no where in the New Testament.but instead contradicts what we know the Bible says Jesus came to earth to accomplish . And He did it too.

And the other saying that gave me pause.

Once someone asked Jesus, “How are
you able to walk on water?”
Jesus replied, “With certainty.”
Then someone said, “But we also have
certainty!”
Jesus then asked them, “Are stone, clay,
and gold equal in your eyes?”
They replied, “Certainly not!”
Jesus responded, “They are in mine.”

I think the question we need to ask is why did Jesus walk on water? To get to the other side! Okay, all kidding aside I'd answer that question thus: To prove His Deity. I've blogged about this point before but I think TurrintinFan put it best in his article: Water-Walking God.


Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Walk on Water: The Wisdom of Jesus

Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert Kiyosaki

If you have ever heard of Network Marketing, Robert Kiyosaki always comes up. He wrote a book and gives presentation that many leaders in Network Marketing think is a great approach to building businesses. He explains using the lives of his father (who tried to make money in traditional capitalism - his poor dad) and the father of his best friend who was a self-made millionaire through building his own business and mentored him - his rich dad). The lecture is humorous and enjoyable. The thing is that Robert stresses hard work but instead of trusting God he talks more about trusting in oneself. Whenever God is left out of the equation I think that there is a problem. In Christianity, the word of faith movement and doctrine teaches much of the same things - they just tack God on but devoid of his sovereignty and power. I suggest that listening to Kiyosaki is not a bad thing but you have your discernment turned as high as it can go.




Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert Kiyosaki