The Argument for Atheism from Immaturity | True Freethinker

Here is another great essay from Mariano examining who is really being immature when rejectiong or accepting the existence of God. This is a great post!

The Argument for Atheism from Immaturity | True Freethinker

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Phillipians 2:5-7 The Kenosis and the alleged deity of Christ Jesus

Often thegrandverbalizer posts really interesting articles on his blog from a Muslim perspective. Many times these articles seek to explain why Christians are wrong about the Trinity and Jesus' deity. He wrote:

The theological rift between Christians and Muslims exist because of thirty six Greek words in a New Testament epistle entitled Phillipians. I ask you sisters and brothers is it worth it? Do you want this seperation between us to continue because of thirty six Greek works in an epistle not written or approved of by Christ Jesus? An epistle that has ambiguous language that Christians themselves are in much dispute over? The Holy Qur'an has come to call the Christians back to pure monotheism. It is time to come back home.

He says that the words in question are from

Philippians 2:5-7 (New American Standard Bible)

⁵Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
⁶who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,⁷but ^[a] emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Footnotes:

1. Philippians 2:7 I.e. laid aside His privileges

Then he writes something that really baffles me.

So what does it mean when we say that Christ Jesus 'emptied himself' ? Emptied himself of what? The term or word kenosis means 'emptying' or 'to empty'. If he emptied himself of his attributes than he is no longer God because God is not God without his attributes.

That would be like Clark Kent going into the crystal chamber and giving up his Super-man powers. Superman is not superman without his powers he is just Clark Kent.

I'm baffled because I'm not sure he read the footnote. Paul was not saying that Jesus laid aside that which makes Jesus God. What Jesus laid aside was those privileges that comes with that. He humbled himself to the point of death.


Further, thegrandverbalizer wrote:

"Do you have an instance of Jesus healing or forgiving people BEFORE he recieved the Holy Spirit?"

None of the Christians so far have attempted to interact with that question. You can see it here:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/06/sin-forgiving-god.html

Christians don't interact with that question because we don't think that there was evedr a time where Jesus did not have the Holy Spirit, nor any time when He was not God. Paul wrote in Colossians 1:15-20

¹⁵He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Paul obviously believed that Jesus was God. And so did the Apostle John in John 1:1-18

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²He was with God in the beginning.
³Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ⁴In him was life, and that life was the light of men. ⁵The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
⁶There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. ⁷He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. ⁸He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. ⁹The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
¹⁰He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. ¹¹He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. ¹²Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— ¹³children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
¹⁴The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
¹⁵John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " ¹⁶From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. ¹⁷For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ¹⁸No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

So did Isaiah...Read Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I think the disconnect is that thegrandverbalizer does not understand what the Trinity is. I can't fault him for that because i don't think anyone fully understand it. Thegrandverbalizer wrote

This brings us to the argument from Rene Descartes (Cogito ergo Sum) I think, therefore I am)

Rene Descartes speaks of person as the subject of self-awareness and freedom-in brief, person as a conscious and autonomous self.

Is God aware of his own existence?

Does 'God the Father' think?

Does 'God the Son' think?

Does 'God the Holy Spirit' think?

If there is only one mind and one self existence than God is absolutely one and not tri-unity. IF there are three minds and three self existences than without doubt Christians have slipped into Tri-theism and worship three gods.

IS the Trinitarian God one in mind, will, and action? If so, how can this be so? If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in mind, will and action, in what sense can they be three persons If the three act as one and so are one in nature, what room is left to distinguish three persons?

Again the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding on what we are talking about when we talk of the Trinity. Descartes proof for self awareness does not work for God.  God's existence is not causal. Rather everything that exists does so because of God. God exists...period. God's sustains God with God. "I think therefore I am" works for humans but not for God. The closest God can can truthfully say about His own existence is "I AM". (In Hebrew it's closer to say "I IS". The Trinity is not about three distinct beings. God is one being and three distinct persons. The Bible says that the Father is God. The Son is God.  The Holy Spirit is God.  And there is one God. God is self-existent. The divine name contains all of this and more.

Thegrandverbalizer insinuated that Jesus would never had agreed to the high place and standard that we give to Jesus. If that were the case then why did the Jews of His time understand that Jesus was claiming equality with God? Why did Jesus not refuse worship?

What did Jesus mean in the following passage: John 8:52-59

 ⁵²At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. ⁵³Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
 ⁵⁴Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. ⁵⁵Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 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!" ⁵⁹At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Jesus seemed pretty clear about who He is. Why do we doubt the things that He says?


Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Phillipians 2:5-7 The Kenosis and the alleged deity of Christ Jesus

Relationship Ninja: I’m A 23-Year-Old Virgin. How Do I Get My V-Card Revoked? « Crushable

Here is a blog post where a young woman asks for advice on loosing her virginity because she doesn't want it any more. I don't like the advice given. It's not the advice I'd want my children to have. I'd want know why does she want to give up her virginity. What's wrong with it? I know what it's like to have urges and what we would consider needs, but is it a real necessity. I measn people don't die because they don't have sex but they can die because of it. I mean with all the sexually transmitted diseases, it's a risk. Unwanted pregnancy is a concern. Even with protection there is no guarantee that she won't catch something or get something that she had not planned on. Then what about the emotional and psychological ramifications. Should she just find a guy and use him for her own sexual ramification? What does it say about her if she knowingly allows herself to be used even if she is using him that way? Two things that the advice giver wrote that really bugged me we were:

First things first: if there’s one pervasive myth about sex that I’d like to completely eradicate from the face of the earth, it’s that your virginity is SUCH A BIG DEAL that if you lose it to the WRONG PERSON it will RUIN YOU FOREVER.
It isn’t, and it won’t.

I mean she's right that it doesn't have to ruin your life and we should not let it. But can you really argue that if you never had sex with the wrong person that living without that regret would not make your life better? I think it would.

Sex is something you’ll do over and over again. You’ve got plenty of time to practice. And since you’re interested in having sex – and, presumably, not planning on marrying the first dude you sleep with – you can afford to be a little more cavalier.

Can anyone be really cavalier about what they do with their body and who they let into their body? I don't think so.

But while you can certainly hope to find a Prince Charming with a magic peen who’ll make your inaugural romp a thrilling night of whimsy and wonder, just be aware that you’re much more likely to get a variation on the same theme that pretty much everyone experiences during first-time sex: a fair amount of confusion, a bit of pain, and, eventually, a wet spot.

Not a very rosey picture. While that is a theme the advice giver may be used to, it's not what anyone has to settle for. God promises much better for us if we just obey him and treat sex as a sacred gift only for your spouse whom you love and who loves you. No confusion. No guilt. No psychological pain.

Relationship Ninja: I’m A 23-Year-Old Virgin. How Do I Get My V-Card Revoked? « Crushable

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Guest Blogger: Aren't Black Women Worth Fighting For? [By MsLadyDeborah]

I just read a blog article about the Scott sisters - Gladys and Jamie - who are serving life sentences in Mississippi for stealing $11.00! They have already spent 16 years in prison (that is half my life!). The article make the point that had the sisters been black men their story would have been more published and black "leaders" would have been up in arms. I think she has a point. Often black men and black women get into arguments by whom America screws over worse and I think that's pointless. It goes back to slavery where men and women, light-skinned and dark-skinned, were set against the other to keep them from working together. There is no need to keep that going. The truth is I think if given the chance the same thing would be done to any economic disadvantaged man or woman no matter their race. It just so happens to be more likely that such people would be black. This isn't justice. I would like to see justice in this matter. Please read the article and maybe we can get Justice for them. You might need justice next.

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Guest Blogger: Aren't Black Women Worth Fighting For? [By MsLadyDeborah]

Debates: Greg Bahnsen vs RC Sproul - Apologetics Methodology

In a recent video, James White discussed what Biblical Apologetics is and why he uses the methodologies he uses. During the course of the video, he mentions a debate between Greg Bahnsen and RC Sproul in which they debate the differences between apologetic methods. I was confused as to who was arguing for what position so I went and found the original debate online.


Apologetics-ApologeticsMethodologyBahnsenVsSproul13183.mp3


Apologetics-ApologeticsMethodologyBahnsenVsSproul23248.mp3


Apologetics-ApologeticsMethodologyBahnsenVsSproul33945.mp3


After listening to the debates I found that I agree with both Dr. Bahnsen and Dr. Sproul.  Dr. Sproul was arguing for Evidential Apologetics and Dr. Bahnsen argued for Presuppositional Apologetics. It turns out that Dr. James White is on the side of Bahnsen's. I was surprised that White and Sproul disagree on the value of Evidential Apologetics though they both agree and respect one another on many things. Bahnsen brought up a great deal of important points. I think he has a point that we can't answer people according to their folly in that using their logic is counter-productive because without God you can't reason correctly. Nothing makes sense without God. At the same time I think Sproul is right that it's difficult to reach people who do not take the Bible as a literal authority if you can't show that God exists and has the right to hold us accountable without using the Bible. I have been accused of "circular reasoning" more often than I'd care to count. I think both men agree in more ways than they disagree.

I find the weakness of the Evidential approach is that it seems only good to really explain that there has to be a god and not necessarily the God of the Bible. It takes a lot  to make that connection and not everyone is adept to it. And if you are not careful atheist will eat your lunch on that. For example, Christopher Hitchens tripped up Frank Turek a little bit on this in their first debate. The other problem I see is that it does not seem that neither Jesus nor the Apostles used this method.  But I have to admit that it does work to help some understand and believe God's word so I don't think we should throw it away. I think that one of its strengths is that you can appeal to facts and objective truths outside of the Bible to point back to the Bible. However, I think it poorly addresses the "Problem of Evil" and the reality of suffering.

As for Prepositional Apologetics, I think it has the full strength of the Bible behind it. I often find myself leaning on this especially when people are attacking the Bible's validity and veracity. The only problem is that I think Sproul is right it opens one up to the charge of circular reasoning and although people like Bahnsen, Douglas Wilson,  and James White can answer and deflect that charge, I don't think that most people are ready to answer that really well. One of the things it does very well is answer the Problem of  Evil.

At the end of the day I think that both methods are needed in my tool box. I tend to find myself following Sproul's example of using objective evidence to show that the Bible should be believed and yet when the Problem of Evil using the same arguments that Bahnsen uses. Sproul does the same. I heard him do it live last year when he gave a lecture in the Bay Area in answering the question "Why bad things happen to good people?" I don't think either man won this because they weren't really disagreeing on a fundamental level. I think we need to listen to the people we are witnessing to and then based on where they are use the methodology that works best to truthfully give them the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

apologetics links

Christopher Hitchens Undergoing Chemotherapy for Esophogeal Cancer

I was really looking forward to the debate between James White and Christopher Hitchens on August 30, 201. Today, Hitchens announce that he is undergoing chemotherapy to fight a deadly cancer he is suffering from. How does James White respond?

I just learned that Christopher Hitchens has announced he is undergoing chemotherapy for esophogeal cancer. Here is his announcement. I fully expect this to lead to the cancellation of our August 30th debate, though I do not yet have that official word.

I have listened to many, many hours of Christopher Hitchens speaking. I've read his attacks upon my faith, listened to him blaspheme in public, etc. And yet I cannot help but like the man personally, who has such a quick sense of humor and a streak of honesty that I know comes straight from common grace. He has surprised me many times, showing an insight into the errors of his evidentialist Christian opponents that many others lack. Let's pray for Mr. Hitchens that God will use this providence to bring to his mind the many, many times he has heard the truth. His detestation of the Christian faith runs very deep, but as we all know, God is glorified when God-haters are turned into God-lovers. Should God mercifully extend his life, I hope we will get a chance to meet. May God be pleased to reveal to him the Lord of Glory, and turn his heart from rebellion to realize that the one thing he rails against most, that of submission to one's Creator, is the greatest freedom the creature can know.

What???? Could this be gentleness? Humility? Respect??!! Loving? Yup. It is. I'm confused by all the people who condemn Dr. White. I mean this is how I see he always acts. It's the way we should all act even when a person disagrees with us. I will be joining Dr. White in prayer for Mr. Hitchens. It is the right thing to do and I hope God will be giving him mercy.

Christopher Hitchens Undergoing Chemotherapy for Esophogeal Cancer

Who programmed the program? DNA, information and evolution | True Freethinker

I appreciate Mariano for pointing out these videos!












Who programmed the program? DNA, information and evolution | True Freethinker

Must atheists be soft because a negative cannot be proved? | True Freethinker

Image via Wikipedia

Here is William Lane Craig's answer to the canard that atheism doesn't need proof because "a negative cannot be proved".Thanks to Mariano for posting this.





Must atheists be soft because a negative cannot be proved? | True Freethinker

Tawapologetics: Caught in the Matrix: The Power of Worldview

This was an interesting sermon from June 27, 2010. I think that this is an interesting sermon because it uses the Matrix Trilogy to discuss worldview and how the Christian worldview should affect how Christians should live their lives.

Tawapologetics: Caught in the Matrix: The Power of Worldview

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Irenics

Irenics is defined by Brian Auten on his blog. I knew that there was a difference between discussing Christian doctrine and theology who disagree with on finer parts  but not on essentials and debating with people who don't believe at all. I just didn't know that there was a name for it. Brian's website is awesome! 

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Irenics

Answering Muslims: Coptic Girl Escapes Abduction and Forced Conversion

I was appalled at this story.  In Egypt, young Christian women are kidnapped and forced to marry Muslim men and convert to Islam against their will. It been happening since the 1970s in Pakistan and Egypt. I'm glad not all Muslims would condone or agree with such horrible acts. It's a terrible thing that I am certain that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does not approve of. I'm glad Zeenahom (Suzan) Nady Adly got away and right now she is "safe". I think that every one should  be safe and if you are a young woman in Pakistan or Egypt, it doesn't seem like you are safe if you are a Christian.

Answering Muslims: Coptic Girl Escapes Abduction and Forced Conversion

Related articles by Zemanta

• 23 injured in Egypt after Muslims attack Coptic Christians (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Egypt: "We refuse to be Muslim by force" (tea-and-politics.blogspot.com)
• Islam, misconceptions about islam (slideshare.net)

Does the Bible and its God Condone Slavery? | True Freethinker

I've been meaning to write an article regarding slavery and why it's not condoned or commanded in the Bible. I've been meaning to write it for a while. Fortunately, Mariano Grinbank, has written a great article. This article covers everything I intended to say. If you think the Bible is immoral because it condones slavery, you need to read this article. I'll give you the gist in one sentence: The Bible does not condone slavery nor was slavery that was practiced in ancient Israel was anything like the slavery perpetrated against Native Americans and Africans and their descendants. Mariano does an an awesome job explaining why!

Does the Bible and its God Condone Slavery? | True Freethinker

Related articles by Zemanta

• Human Trafficking And Slavery A Modern Abomination (themoderatevoice.com)
• Why Would A Former Slave Praise Slavery? (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey – debate | True Freethinker

Image via Wikipedia

Thanks, Mariano, for posting this clip from the debate between William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey.




William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey – debate | True Freethinker

Related articles by Zemanta

• My Arguments Against God Featured in the Latest Carnival of the Godless (arizonaatheist.blogspot.com)

Debunking Christianity: Dr. Craig: All Other Religious Claims to the Witness of the Spirit are False

It is interesting that the post by John Loftus focused so much on methods of doing Apologetics given that James White spent a lot of time on it last Thursday. (Look at the video I linked to my blog here.) Largely, Dr. White disagrees with the approach William Lane Craig, Habermas, and others are using. His is more prepositional. It is my opinion that we need both approaches because people are so different. The Holy Spirit uses all these approaches and others to call people to repentance.

The post from Loftus brings up a question to William Lane Craig about how do we know we are right and other faiths (ie Mormonism) is wrong. Why can't they make the same claims we can? I liked this post because it considers the question from an atheist's perspective. The atheist says "convince me". Therefore evidential Apologetics does just that - providing evidence that the truth claims of Christianity is true - largely without assuming the Bible is infallible or inspired. As a matter of fact they don't even really address attacks on the miracles and incredible things that the Bible says that are problematic for many people to believe. Men like them don't deny the Bible is true or inspired but they don't focus on it in their debates with atheists.

James White's approach is more like say what the Bible says, defend it, express it and let the chips fall where they may because it is the Holy Spirit that convicts and changes hearts and minds not the evidence or arguments that we present. I think Dr. white is correct. Both approaches agree that there are good evidences and that you are rational and reasonable to trust the Bible, they disagree on where to start. Dr. White's approach does not seem to work as satisfactory in the venue of Loftus' blog because many of the people reject the Bible out of hand without even considering the possibility that it might be true. But White is right, that isn't a Christian's job to to change their mind, only to tell and show them the truth. At the end of the day, Loftus and many of the commentators did not like Dr. Craig's statement:

My knowledge of Christianity’s truth, while supported by strong arguments, is not ultimately based on those arguments but on the witness of God Himself. If, therefore, I find myself confronted with a well-prepared and articulate Mormon who blows away my arguments and presents a case for Mormonism that I can’t answer, I should not apostatize, since I have the witness of the Holy Spirit to Christianity’s truth and so realize that although I’ve lost the argument, Christianity is nonetheless the truth (and I need to be better prepared next time!)...he [the Mormon] can’t justifiably remain Mormon by appealing to his experience, since he doesn’t really have a genuine witness of the Holy Spirit, but only a counterfeit experience.

Reasonable Faith: Q & A with Dr. William Lane Craig

Craig appeals to the witness of the Holy Spirit as his ultimate proof that his faith is not misplaced. On this i think all Christians agree. It wasn't an Apoloigetics argument that convince me of my sin and need for repentance. It helped later to help me articulate and understand what God did for me. The Holy Spirit that worked in me is the same that worked in Dr. Craig that allows me to understand what he means. He is not saying that if he lost a debate with a Mormon that it was proof that Christianity is true. Let's face it: hell would freeze over first before William Lane Craig would loose a debate regarding Mormonism. While I think Loftus would loose such a debate. But for the sake of argument, let's say he did, he would still know Christianity was true because God reached into his life and changed it. I know what that's like. I have never heard a Mormon testify to the same thing.

This is where Apologetics comes in handy. I'm not saying that Dr. Craig would win because he is smarter or a better debater. He would win because the evidence is on the side of Biblical Christianity and not Mormonism. It's not enough to just say one is right and one is wrong. You ought to be able to demonstrate why you have come to the conclusions you hold. They both can't be true. For starters, not a single event or geographic location can be corroborated with the Mormon Scriptures and reality - no evidence at all. Either we can confirm what the Bible says happened and where and when or we can't outright disprove it. i know that is a bold statement, but that is what I have been led to conclude given the information I have. And there is more thatr could be said - much more.

Lofuts ended his post this way:

I liked what Martin said below:

What Craig essentially argued was: "We can't distinguish the water from the poison without evidence or arguments, but *I have* the pure water because it says so right on the bottle (even though all the other bottles say the same thing, and I just happened to pick this one up as a child), so I know this is the water, no matter what evidence you have that it is poison."

The problem is while I did get this gift as a child, William Lane Craig was not raised a Christian. So how does his point matter? It doesn't.


Debunking Christianity: Dr. Craig: All Other Religious Claims to the Witness of the Spirit are False

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Gary Habermas

Brian Auten interviewed Dr. Gary Habermas and it was a great interview. I love listening to Gary Habermas and looking at his work. I think his Apologetics approach is sound and he gives a lot of great advice that I can use.

It is interesting that the interview focused so much on methods of doing Apologetics given that James White spent a lot of time on it last Thursday. (Look at the video I linked to my blog here.) Largely, Dr. White disagrees with the approach William Lane Craig, Habermas, and others are using. His is more presuppositional. It is my opinion that we need both approaches because people are so different. The Holy Spirit uses all these approaches and others to call people to repentance. This interview is very much worth listening to.


Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Gary Habermas

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Kant on the Bible

“The existence of the Bible, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity.”

- Immanuel Kant



Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Kant on the Bible

Dan Barker affirms intelligent design | True Freethinker

Truth is I don't think any rational human being could really come to any other conclusion after looking at the evidence. I mean does it really make sense that all of reality came into existence undirected? If you believe that, I think you can believe anything anyone tells you no matter how silly. I suppose I have to give Dan Barker more credit than I have.





Dan Barker affirms intelligent design | True Freethinker

Biblical Apologetics Defined and Defended

I know that the image on the left shows how some people understand what "apologetics" is. I disagree. Look at how Dr. James White defines "apologetics" and it is way more accurate!



Biblical Apologetics Defined and Defended

John 5:26 and the Nature of Christian Truth

John 5:26 and the Nature of Christian Truth

Are we all atheists? | True Freethinker

In a word: No! Mariano has posted a couple of videos featuring William Lane Craig answering this question.





Are we all atheists? | True Freethinker