Samsung May Not Care About Customers....But They Make Good Phones!

As you probably remember, I posted a blog post a couple of weeks ago about how I felt cheated that I bought the Behold II because Samsung said that they would be upgrading nor supporting the phone at least up to Android 2.0 (phone hasn't even been out a year!) and now have said that they will not. Well, I'm still not happy about it but I now have a resolution that I can live with. T-Mobile agreed to sell me a better phone at a low discount. At first I was upset that the best Phone I could get from them was a Samsung model, but I have to admit that it's a great phone and now I can do all things that I need to do with the Phone that I could not do with the Behold II - such as make real good use of Bluetooth! So I thank God for allowing me to find a solution. It's not the solution I wanted but it is the solution I needed.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Amazon Deal You Can't Refuse: Samsung Vibrant for a Penny (pocketnow.com)
• Samsung Vibrant A PennyPhone On Amazon (informationweek.com)
• Samsung Behold II Owners Consider Lawsuit Over Android 2.0 Snub [Android] (gizmodo.com)

The Real Story of the Arrest of Nabeel, David, Paul and Negeen

Here is a great summary of the event last June where four Christians were arrested in Dearborn, Michigan during an Arab cultural festival because they shared their conviction in public when asked.


The Real Story of the Arrest of Nabeel, David, Paul and Negeen

Apologetics 315: D. A. Carson’s The God Who Is There MP3 Series

Here is audio series in which DA Carson innocolates people to the "God Who wasn't There" video with reasons whty you can be sure that God is here and you can know Him. Thanks to Brian Auten for posting this!

Apologetics 315: D. A. Carson’s The God Who Is There MP3 Series

YouTube - Atheist Experience show messes up bad on TV

This was hilarious to me! A 13 year-old poking holes in atheist arguments like an expert. This kid reads. Love it! Who says God can't use young people? Well
done! Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no excuse for not being able to see past silly arguments.



YouTube - Atheist Experience show messes up bad on TV

Online Videos - Rev. Tony Costa vs. Osama Abdallah

Here is the link to an interesting video where Christian Tony Costa debates Muslim Osama Abdullah. The debate is over the question; "Is the Bible the Word of God." I liked it. But nothing new. It is a good summary of the debate from bother perspectives.

Online Videos - Rev. Tony Costa vs. Osama Abdallah

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Matt Slick of Carm.org

I really enjoyed this interview Brian Auten made with Matt Slick. He gave a lot of great advice. I've heard him before working with David Wood and I was impressed. The thing that amazes me about his testimony is that he claims that that he was tricked into an alter call and it worked. No wonder he has a reformed perspectives. I would also like people to hear what he said about how he approaches evangelism. I also like his use of both Presuppositional and Evidential Apologetics.

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Matt Slick of Carm.org

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Dr. Laura Schlessinger quits radio - "special interest people" (read: n*ggers) blamed

I found the following clip from a blogger who is...um...angry about the Laura Schlessinger debacle over the past few days. She showed herself as a racist and inconsiderate woman who seemed to forget that marrying outside your races should not make you fair and reasonable target for racism. Just when I thought that maybe she was just off her meds that day, she showed up on Larry King Live. Y'know...damage control over her being fir...er...choosing to leave radio. Just when you think you've seen everything.


THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Dr. Laura Shlessinger quits radio - "special interest people" (read: n*ggers) blamed

Debunking Christianity: "Biblical Christianity Is Bankrupt"

John Loftus introduced the following link: Biblically Christianity is Bankrupt

That's right, so argues Michael Dowd, a liberal author of the book Thank God for Evolution. I agree with his criticisms most emphatically. Check him out. When Christians are done tearing into each other all I have to say is that I agree with them all. And I agree with the non-Christian religions too. What's left after these religions tear into one another? Atheism. Get the point.

I want to write a fuller response to Dowd and to Loftus. I want to make it clear that I know Loftus is raising another point in addition to the points the Dowd is making in his blog post. I want to deal with Loftus first.

Let us first define what "Biblical Christianity" is. John Loftus does not really define what he means in his post but Dowd does.

Biblical Christianity that does not integrate our best evidential understanding of the universe and human nature is doomed precisely because it is wedded to unchanging scripture. It suffers from what I call “idolatry of the written word.” No longer does it link together what young people learn in church and what they learn in their science and history classes at school—and on the Discovery and History channels at home. As well, biblical Christianity’s strongest lifeline for claiming continued relevance is seriously frayed—although only those who track scientific advances in neurobiology, infant psychology, and the social instincts of apes and monkeys may be aware of this perilous condition. 

I disagree. The fact that the scriptures do not change is why it's powerful for basing one's life and practice on.  There is no reason at all not to have a world view based on the Bible without integration of evidence regarding science and history. Some will say that we have so much evidence that shows the Bible to be wrong, but when I study and look at all the evidences I come to the alternate conclusions.When I have done so I have only seen the Bible supported not broken. I would endorse "Sola Scriptora"  or "Scripture Alone"  as a non-negotiable characteristic of  Biblical Christianity and a good way to understand what is and what is not Christian. Anyone who depends on just the Discovery or History channels (to say nothing of public school) is going to get a woefully inadequate view of reality. I don't think at all that people should be shielded from opposing ideas or viewpoints. I say "Bring it".  The Bible can take it. Don't just take a single side but look at and judge all sides. Your soul weighs in the balance, best to be sure...really sure you are taking a view you can live with.



Dowd further wrote:

What is that frayed lifeline? It is the intertwined strands of two crucial religious functions: first, the matter of where we acquire our moral compass, and second, how we come into right relationship with reality, or “get right with God,” when we have fallen from the path. As to the former, we moderns come to the Bible with a culturally evolved moral compass by which we carefully pick and choose which passages to preach and study and teach our children. We do not get our morality from the Bible.

The reason we do not consult the book of Exodus when dealing with a disrespectful teenage son, or the book of Leviticus for parenting advice when a daughter loses her virginity, or the book of Numbers for how to handle Sabbath breakers, or the books of Deuteronomy or Revelation when needing guidance regarding family members who choose a different faith, is because murder is no longer considered a moral option. 

Dowd is definitely familiar with "Christainese". He uses many of the words but He doesn't really understand the Bible. I wanted to point out the above quote because it shows he does not know what he is talking about. Many folks speak to the prescriptions for parenting advice when a daughter loses her virginity,  how to handle Sabbath breakers,  regarding family members who choose a different faith in Ancient Israel as Murder. But this isn't true. These were capital offenses...not murder. Feel free to disagree about if the punishment fit the crimes or not, but don't claim moral superiority. Our society is far from superior now that almost anything sexual goes (as long as its consenting adults for now). He's right,. We don't get our morality from the Bible. That's why we are in this mess.



We need to preach and study and teach from the whole Bible! There is a context to those so-called "problem texts". And many of them are descriptive of what happened and not prescriptions. The other issues are understood to apply to ancient Israel in terms of the ceremonial laws and civil punishments.

Debunking Christianity: "Biblical Christianity Is Bankrupt"

Debunking Christianity: How To Be a Biblical Scholar

Image by Brent Nelson via FlickrYou know the most interesting thing about John Loftus' blog is that he writes so many assertions that the Atheist supports of John agree with and hardly ever challenge him. In fact the attitude seems to be that everyone already knows the facts and if you don't then you will come to the same conclusions or if you read Loftus' books you will get the evidence and be led to the truth of his conclusions. That's some bitter Kool-aid to swallow. Recently, he posted an article in which he tries to argue that the Bible is not reliable. Here is a quote:

You see, Christians take the biblical texts as if they are a divine history of their faith for the first millennium or more without attempting to discern the context for these documents. There is a discernible development to their intellectual history and it looks completely like the evolution of a faith, not a divinely revealed one.
Here's a meager comparison. It would be like reading a history of the United States that was partially written during the Revolutionary War without referring to why early Americans revolted in the first place (i.e., the context), and partially written during the Stock Market Crash by a rich author, without any context as to what caused the crash in the first place.
There is a complete lack of historical perspective in the periodically written texts of the Bible. Add to that the extraordinary claims or "wonders" we find in it and there simply is no good reason to believe them.

I have to admit that most people have never bothered to study the context of the Bible. He does have some valid points that the Bible is composed from several viewpoints. We are talking about 66 books, over 40 different authors, 3 continents, different cultures, various genres, three different languages, and most of Authors could not have known one another given it took 1500 years for them all to be written. Loftus' meager comparison is indeed meager. If someone from today were to read such a history of United States it would indeed be a confused mess. However the Bible is different. Each book was written with a specific audience in mind and the contemporary readers of those documents would have known and understood the context of those writings. Centuries removed it takes more study to get an understanding of those contexts.
However I disagree with Loftus' conclusion. And I'm not the only one. Many people have studied the contexts of the scriptures - historically and culturally - and come to the conclusion that the Bible is a coherent whole telling the same story - God redeeming His people and glorifying Himself. It's His story. I recognize that there are different opinions. Some people I've spoken to on Loftus' blog (and some scholars) even deny that we can know anything about history conclusively. If they're right then Loftus' comparison is even more meaningless.
I've got to disagree that there is a lack of historical perspective in the Bible itself. The lack of historical perspective is because of those who read the Bible out of its' own context and try to superimpose their own views and prejudices. Loftus makes the suggestion that all the other texts like the intertestamental text indeed gives a equally valid but different views of Christianity. However the intertestamental texts, like the Apocrapha, is not about Christianity but they are in a Jewish context. I do agree with him that one must study early Christian literature to understand what earlier followers of Christ thought and taught. Thing the 27 books of the New Testament all predate the gnostic and Christia n apocraphal texts. I've read many of them and they contradict the New Testament in fundamental ways. Given the New Testament was first and early, it makes sense that it better represents the teachings of Jesus and the first century church. The next point of contention that is raised is that message found in the New Testament is not coherent but contradictory. I disagree.
I invite anyone who disagrees with me and would hold that New Testament contradicts itself to put their evidence on the table in plain sight and let's discuss the texts in question and see if there is a contradiction if viewed from a historical and cultural context.

Debunking Christianity: How To Be a Biblical Scholar

Every Jot and Titttle

You may have noticed comments from Ryan Anderson on posts on my blog. Recently he has asked a couple of great questions that deserve more fully answers than just comments. He wrote these in context of comments made by me. In challenging the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible, he commented:

Yeah, but I can't imagine an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god would write the truth on our hearts with various intensities or not all for some people. Nor one that would write different laws for different times and cultures. 

I responded as follows.

The laws varying according to time and place are a different matter. Look at the practical laws concerning harvesting. I live in a city. Was that law written for me? The ceremonial laws were for ancient theocratic Israel meant to point to Christ, why do you think they should apply today given that Messiah has already come?  

To which replied:

I'd be curious to know where you find scriptural support for the idea that there are divisions in the law, such as ceremonial law, dietary law, etc..
And even if you find some or stretch something else to accommodate yourself, you are still stuck with the very inconvenient line about jots and tittles. Surely even the parts about the harvest are included in every jot and tittle

Ryan claims to have been a Christian yet he seems to have forgotten all the places where the ceremonial laws are directed to the people of Israel and not all of humanity. However instead of focusing on such passages, why don't we look at how Paul dealt with his question. I'm amazed how often it comes up because it should have been put to rest 2000 years ago. To follow the ceremonial laws would mean to become a Jew. From the beginning there were those thought to be Christian means you must also be a Jew.  Paul dealt with this head on.

¹⁵Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. ¹⁶The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. ¹⁷What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. ¹⁸For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
 ¹⁹What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. ²⁰A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
 ²¹Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. ²²But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
 ²³Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. ²⁴So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

- Galatians 3:15-25

Paul affirmed the Law not set it aside. IT has it's place but  Jesus fulfilled the Law. The New Testament is very clear point. I did ask Ryan the following question:

how do you explain those who become born-again who were not raised as Christians or in a Christian context?

His answer:

Missionaries? Also, probably the same way I'd explain Christians leaving the faith or becoming Muslim, Buddhist, etc...

He is making my point for me. It is silly to argue that the only reason people are Christians is because they are raised in Christian families. He said: "I think the "pull" of Christianity for today's westerner is that western civilization has been steeping in the story for 1650 years. Probably the same reasons Muslims like Islam."  He just admitted that isn't the case.

Hank Hanegraaff - Does God Harden Hearts?

Hank Hanegraaff has offered an answer to the following question:

If God wants all people to come to Him, why does He in both the Old and the New Testaments harden their hearts? Or, as 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 says blind the minds of unbelievers and veil the Gospel to those who are perishing? So in essence Chris is asking: Why does God blind people’s hearts? Why does He veil the Gospel? Why does He harden people’s hearts, after all He wants people to come to Him, why would He do that?

I really respect Hank Hanegraaf and I agree with most of his answer. Indeed God does not deserve blame for those who are blind to the gospel message. I'm disappointed that he brought up Pharoah hardening his own heart without dealing with the scripture where God says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. The passages cited in Exodus 4:21;7:3;9:12;10:1,20,27;14:4,8,17 are ignored.
I think what is ignored is the fact that our hearts are hard by default. God has to change us so that we can yield to the message. We resist by dI alsefault.

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

If the Bible is right about the minds of sinful people (and I know it is) and everyone starts out this way, I don't see how anyone can ever be saved outside of a sovereign act of God.

7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died
for us.
9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! - Romans 5:7-9

I also totally agree that the gospel is not hidden. It's in plain sight. And I also agree that it is Satan that veils the Gospel because that is what the text says.

3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. - 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

Also people who don't want light, don't want light because they can't want it. The final point is that God is in ultimate control. The enemy can't veil the truth unless he is allowed to do so. I mean we can't seriously consider the devil more powerful than God when it comes to revealing or veiling truth. Therefore howcome some people see it and others don't? I don't know. God does know. I don't understand how people miss it. But I do understand how we make it.

1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. - Ephesians 2:1-10

God has good reason for everything He does - decrees and allows.

Hank Hanegraaff - Does God Harden Hearts?

Apologetics 315: Alister McGrath on Atheist Fundamentalism MP3

I think Alister McGrath makes great points regarding how atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens  treat Atheism as  a fundamentalist religion, and seem oblivious to that. I'm grateful to Brian Auten for posting this interview.
Apologetics 315: Alister McGrath on Atheist Fundamentalism MP3

Debunking Christianity: The Psychological Pull of the Christian Story

John Loftus recently wrote a post about why he believes Christianity has a pull on the hearts and minds of people. He wrote:

There is just something about the Christian story that makes me want to believe it. I know of no other story like this one. In fact, when I watch music videos of the Christian story I feel its psychological pull on me, and I'm a former believer who has rejected that story and became an atheist. So how much more does the story have a great amount of psychological pull on the hearts of others, especially believers, whose faith is confirmed whenever they ponder it.

It is interesting that he thinks that the pull is because the story gives us hope and things we want to believe. Yes, the part about he further we wrote i think is a valid point.

We want to believe we can be forgiven for things we have done wrong. We want to believe there is divine help when in trouble. We want to believe there is life after death too. And we want to believe we are so important that God would take notice of us and redeem us. Yes, we are that important, such selfish bastards that we are. Yes, Yes, Yes. God, the creator of the universe cares for me, Lil 'Ole me, enough to become a baby and die for me, and enough to help me through life and welcome me into his presence.

If I understand the Lofus the problem he has with the "story" of Jesus is that he does not have enough evidence to convince him that it is true. If you press most atheists you find that their reasons for rejecting the story is just as emotional as Loftus accuses Christians of being in accepting it as true. I have a different theory for why the story is attractive. The Bible tells us what the issue is in Romans 1:18-32.

 ¹⁸The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
 ²¹For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
 ²⁴Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
 ²⁶Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
 ²⁸Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³²Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Debunking Christianity: The Psychological Pull of the Christian Story

The Dunamis Word: We Are Crying For You Juanita II...What A Mess!

I really appreciate District Superintendent Pastor and Elder Harvey Burnett for calling attention to this bit of news I missed. I mean just when you think someone has been shown for what they truly are they would either repent or at the very least sit down somewhere, they return unrepentant and supposedly "better than ever" - repackaged for mass assumption. I don't think any woman should be beat by their husband. It's wrong under any circumstances. The problem I have is that Juanita Bynum has proven herself to be a false prophet and is hooking up with people we know are not interested in being Christ-like. I would direct you to Pastor Burnett's comments and to the comments on the blog article.




The Dunamis Word: We Are Crying For You Juanita II...What A Mess!

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Hastings Rashdall on Moral Law

Here is a great quote I got from Brain Auten's blog.

"On a non-theistic view of the Universe...the moral law cannot well be thought of as having any actual existence. The objective validity of the moral law can indeed be and no doubt is asserted, believed in and acted upon without reference to any theological creed; but it cannot be defended or fully justified without the presupposition of Theism."

- Hastings Rashdall

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Hastings Rashdall on Moral Law

Should France Payback Haiti's "Independence Debt?" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

I had already heard that Haiti was forced to pay France money to make up for it's loss of Haitian resources when Haiti took its independence. According to this article, there has been a suggestion for France to give the money back. I doubt that it will happen. Then again I was wrong about there ever being a black president of the United States. I hope I'm wrong about this too. My gut tells me you can put this with the "40-acres and a mule" promise my fore-parents never got. This brings up a more fundamental questions about the "debt" France collected from Haiti: Why did Haiti pay it? I mean they had already kicked the French off the island. What did France have on them that the Haitians decided it was less trouble to pay them rather than fight? I mean the United States didn't owe England money after the Revolutionary War. From Wikipedia:

In exchange for French recognition of Haiti as a sovereign republic, France demanded payment of 150 million francs (modern equivalent of $21 billion). - External debt of Haiti

I'm still left with the same question. Most countries at the time refused to recognize Haitian independence. There must be something more. Ahah! I should have known...basic intimidation and extortion. Classic.

Haiti’s legacy of debt began shortly after gaining
independence from France in 1804. In 1825, France, with
warships at the ready, demanded Haiti “compensate” France
for its loss of a slave colony. In exchange for French
recognition of Haiti as a sovereign republic, France
demanded payment of 150 million francs (modern
equivalent of $21 billion). Haiti was forced to choose
between paying this exorbitant sum, about five times Haiti's
annual export revenue, or facing a bloody military clash
with the French fleet. - Fact Sheet - Hatian Debt

Also remembering how in 1825, France was desperate. They just very recently failed to take over Europe and I am certain that they were out of funds. So what do they do? Extort money from Haiti for a "crime" 20 years after the fact. Yup, France should give the money back...with interest.

Should France Payback Haiti's "Independence Debt?" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Presuppositional apologetics vs. Atheism on the Unbelievable radio program

I think that Presuppositional Apologetics is really unassailable. It highlights that without God we cannot explain anything. One of the examples that I thought were really truly epic is the point that you have to assume your own existence to assert it. That is circular reasoning. This is definitely an epic discussion between an Atheist and a Christian. I agree that you can't make sense of logic and existence without presupposing God's existence. Sye expertly shows why presuppossitional apologetics works!

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Presuppositional apologetics vs. Atheism on the Unbelievable radio program

Iron Sharpens Iron: David Wood: PART 2: The Islamisation of America: Why Christians were Arrested in Dearborn, Michigan

Three of the four Christians who were arrested in Dearborn, Michigan at a cultural festival for Muslims. They were not antagonizing anyone only making themselves available to dialogue with Muslims at the festival regarding Jesus and Christianity. The interview is really interesting. Take a look at the link.


Iron Sharpens Iron: David Wood: PART 2: The Islamisation of America: Why Christians were Arrested in Dearborn, Michigan

60 Questions Muslims Don’t Like To Be Asked!

I found the following link on the internet. I think the list of questions are valid. However it has been my experience that not all Muslims avoid questions or fear scrutiny. I think it's unfair to assume that they are stupid. They are not. Unfortunately, many Christians avoid hard questions and truly expect you to do what they say without question. This is not the model put forth in the Bible, and I would call such a church a cult. I'd like to see some Muslim answers to these questions although I have my own answers from a Christian viewpoint.

60 Questions Muslims Don’t Like To Be Asked!

Man-Thing and Marvel's Other Monsters to Menace 'The Superhero Squad Show'

Here is some exciting information:

In an interview with The Comics Continuum during Comic-Con, Marvel Animation's Cort Lane broke down what viewers can expect from the upcoming "This Man-Thing! This Monster!"

"Me and Tom Kenny [The voice of Iron Man, Captain America, MODOK and others] are big fans of the '70s monster titles and so we built a whole solo adventure for Iron Man that features Werewolf by Night and Dracula and Man-Thing and Ellen Brant, and when he saw that script he went crazy."

According to The Continuum, Dave Boat (the voice of Thor) will voice Dracula and Man-Thing while Nina Dobrev ("The Vampire Diaries") will guest star as Ellen Brandt and Rob Paulsen will guest star as Jack Russell.

Man-Thing and Marvel's Other Monsters to Menace 'The Superhero Squad Show'