Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Council of Nicaea in 325 AD – Excellent Question!

I have been reading a short transcript of Dr. James White answering the assertion made by Atheists, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses stating that the Trinitarian doctrine started at the Council of Nicaea
Pastor Joseph asked:

“Those who hate the doctrine of the Trinity like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims and so many others, claim that the Trinity is an invention, of Nicaea, and maybe Constantine, and it’s a political thing, and none of the church fathers before 325 ever believed in the Trinity” can you address this?,. . . “

Follow the link to read Dr. White's response. You can also see the full video below:

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Council of Nicaea in 325 AD – Excellent Question!

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Council of Nicaea – Pictures and Images can be Deceiving

One of the most often repeated objections that I have received against the Bible is the charge that Christianity as we know it was finalized at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD under auspices of the Roman Emperor Constantine. I have found a great article about why many of these idea are outright lies or misunderstandings. Here is a quote from the article. 

What do many liberals/skeptics/agnostics/atheists (like Dan Brown of The DaVinci Code book and movie fame) , Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and many other people have in common as a mis-perception of Christianity? Sometimes it is just misunderstandings, but sometimes there is deliberate deception and outright lying about what happened at Nicaea. If told often enough, the mis-understanding gets embedding in people's thinking.

You can read this article and gain a great deal of information. It even include some links to some other good articles on this subject by Dr James White and Dr John Piper.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Council of Nicaea – Pictures and Images can be Deceiving

John Polkinghorne - Science & Faith | Faith Interface

Here is a quote from John Polkinghome regarding science and faith. I got the link from a post on Brian Auten's Twitter feed.

“I think of science and religious faith as being two eyes. Both are looking for truth. I can see with more depth and accuracy using both eyes together, like binocular vision, than if I use either eye by itself separately.”
“I’m a very passionate believer in the unity of knowledge. There is one world of reality - one world of our experience that we’re seeking to describe.”
“If the experience of science teaches anything, it’s that the world is very strange and surprising. The many revolutions in science have certainly shown that.”
“Quantum theory also tells us that the world is not simply objective; somehow it’s something more subtle than that. In some sense it is veiled from us, but it has a structure that we can understand.”
“Science cannot tell theology how to construct a doctrine of creation, but you can’t construct a doctrine of creation without taking account of the age of the universe and the evolutionary character of cosmic history.”

I agree with Dr. Polkinghome. I think that if you have view of creation that does not match scientific data then maybe we need to think about what we think the Bible is really saying.

John Polkinghorne - Science & Faith | Faith Interface

THE ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE HIDDENNESS - Is God Hiding or Does He Not Exist?

I've been asked to try an interesting project by professor Paul Rinzler of Cal Poly University in California. He suggested a written discussion using Google Docs where we can both make comments and work together on it. The subject we agreed on is "THE ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE HIDDENNESS - Is God Hiding or Does He Not Exist?" It should be very interesting we have agreed on the rules and have agreed to make the rules fluid and compromise if needed. With his help, I have figured out how to post the document in a blog post (this one in fact, below) such that as we edit the Google Doc the most recent version is displayed here. IF you want to follow the discussion just go to the Google Docs page, linked directly below. I've also pasted the rules we agreed to below.
THE ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE HIDDENNESS - Is God Hiding or Does He Not Exist?




1. We agree on a specific point of contention between atheist and Christian (for instance, the argument from divine hiddenness, whether Jesus was resurrected, etc.).
2. One of us offers the first argument for or against, and the other responds.
3. Each argument that we offer is outlined in the Google Document, indented beneath the specific argument to which it is responding.
4. Each contribution to the document would contain a single, summary sentence as a header, followed by explanatory and amplifying paragraphs.
5. No name-calling nor disrespectful language. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
6. We cite sources and references and The Bible (any translation; or Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic manuscripts) are to be considered a source about what Christians believe throughout history.
7. Calling a Biblical interpretation or source into question is allowed.
8. When one of us wants to stop, the project will stop. There are no restrictions on the maximum number of days to respond as well as the end date, as each of us is merely doing this voluntarily.
9. No opening or closing remarks, as it doesn't serve the purpose of the project, which is exactly to keep track of every single point and counter-point on the topic in a logical fashion. While it is a type of debate, some features of traditional debates would be counter-productive. Instead we will have a short introduction written by both of us, introducing ourselves.
10. We agree to a topic and stick to it. I liked your suggestion regarding God's Hiddenness. We can phrase the topic thus: "Is God Hiding or Does He Not Exist?"
11. The Google document would be publishable by anyone of us on blogs, websites, or print
12. We both have equal access to the document.
13. We will go by first names.
14. Anyone can view the document, yet only you and I can edit it, we can ask others - friends, other online Christians and atheists - to look at the argument and suggest replies and counter-points to what is there. That way, we can tap into the collective wisdom (hopefully it's wisdom) of our respective communities. When someone else makes what you or I think is a good point, then you or I can then add that point to the document (only if we think it is a good point - you still retain control over the Christian side, and I still retain control over the atheist side). If we quote someone else we will attribute the quote to that person.
15. If either of us have an questions about a comment we will send each other e-mail before responding or asking the questions in the post.
Paul Rinzler has been professional, cordial, considerate, and kind in his dealings with me. This has been a much welcomed change in pace. His comments have also been thoughtful, although I disagree. I'm gonna enjoy this.

Apologetics 315: Matt Slick vs. Dan Barker Debate: Is there Reason to be Good Without God? MP3 Audio

Here is a debate posted by Brian Auten that I'm sure anyone could benefit from. I've heard Matt Slick's testimony and listened to how he approaches witnessing. He is a good foil for Dan Barker, whom I don't think is a good debater or representative for atheism, but I think this debate is worth listening to. Follow the link to Apologetics 315 to hear it

Apologetics 315: Matt Slick vs. Dan Barker Debate: Is there Reason to be Good Without God? MP3 Audio

Apologetics 315: Advanced Use of Historical Evidence for the Resurrection: Gary Habermas MP3 Audio

Brian Auten has posted a great lecture by Gary Habermas regarding Christ's Resurrection. Follow the link to hear the mp3!\

Apologetics 315: Advanced Use of Historical Evidence for the Resurrection: Gary Habermas MP3 Audio

Related articles by Zemanta

• Habermas: Communicative Rationality and Action (socyberty.com)
• Evidence for Christianity (brighthub.com)
• Habermas and Europe (crookedtimber.org)

Debunking Christianity: My Response to Dr. Craig Blomberg

John Loftus (Left)  has posted a very interesting post that I believe must be taken note of regarding to speaking with believers like Dr. Craig Blomberg (Right). He posted the following.

I engage Christian scholars all the time and have even allowed a few of them to post something substantive here at DC, including Craig. So after having said he has read my stuff extensively and after both admitting neither one of us will likely change our minds, Craig asked me this:

John, I guess my question for you is, from your perspective, how should people who hold views like you and I, respectively, proceed in conversation, if at all? The consistent pluralist would say that we should each tolerate each other's perspectives. But you and I are apologists, and you are an evangelist ("de-evangelist?") as well. You aren't content to let Christians believe what they want; you positively want to "deconvert" them and show them how and why their views are delusional. I don't engage in much overt evangelism but I certainly want people who haven't thought about the classic reasons for Christian faith to at least give them serious thought. We can't both be right. We could both be wrong. But the more interesting question for me is how, as two persons who both want to be guided by reason but believe that reason has led us in quite opposite directions, proceed from here? Link

Well, Craig, we could always call each other names! Or, we could talk about the weather, the Colts and stuff. But most likely we'll just carry on carrying on. I still think you're deluded. I still think you believe what you prefer to believe. I still think an educated evangelical is an oxymoron, because at this point the facts will not change your mind, which is a scary thought to me.

At this point realize that I no longer write for you. You may want to read what I write since as an apologist you may want to ward off my attacks on your faith, and I may want to read what you write in order to attack a strong man rather than a straw man, but that's the way it goes I suppose.



Cheers, my deluded friend. ;-)

I posted the entire quote because I've always wondered how does someone like John Loftus answer a man like Dr. Craig Blomberg who is neither crazy nor stupid. A man who has done good scholarly work. One who is a recognized world-class scholar. It's one thing to say the things he says to people like me but what about one whom he should be forced to recognize as a peer. I must say I'm profoundly disappointed in his answer. When someone commented on the post that John was not taking the intellectual highground. John Loftus responded:

Wes, I forgot that I can't try a bit of humor here. Sorry you're such a sour puss.

What do you think Craig was getting at? There is no proceeding from here for us. But that doesn't mean it's a stalemate or that we should become pluralists. Nor does it mean I should change my mind about his beliefs. We've apparently hit rock bottom. But cheer up, it is not required of an argument that it must also be convincing to be good. I have plenty of good arguments. That's all anyone can expect from me.

So, Lofuts does not think that Dr. Blomberg is deluded? Obviously he does and I don't see how that isn't supposed to be offensive or name-calling. Seriously, I think Dr. Blomberg is really asking a good question. He's not saying we can all just hold hands and sing "Kum Bah Yah". I'm sure that Loftus would agree with that. I want to know why the facts don't change Loftus' mind? Is it that he does not find it compelling or he denies the existence of those facts. He referred to Blomberg's arguments as being strong. Are "good" arguments also "strong" arguments? What does Loftus means by "good arguments"? If arguments are not convincing, how are they still good?

It is my opinion that an argument is strong if its convincing and based on facts. It should have explanatory power and logical.  A "good" argument is both strong and convincing. Given that, I just don't see how John Loftus has "good" arguments.

Debunking Christianity: My Response to Dr. Craig Blomberg

OK, I Must Agree: Best Video Ever. Academy Award Time for David and Nabeel

I agree with James White. This video is awesome. This little skit is so informative. David and Nabeel managed to not only to rebuke those who would like to think it is okay to burn Qur'ans and to minister to Muslims who don't know that there are different texts of the Qur'an that don't match. Another good reason not to burn Qur'ans is that we can prove that there is a textual tradition for the Qur'an and that it had been changed over many years.




OK, I Must Agree: Best Video Ever. Academy Award Time for David and Nabeel

Samsung Sent Me A Letter

AS I have already posted, I'm not real happy about how I bought a Samsung Behold II and just 4 mos later found out that they will not be upgrading it beyond Android 1.6 when I was counting on being able to running Android 2.0 at least. I sent Samsung an e-mail about it and here is a response I recently received:

Dear Marcus,
We want you to know that Samsung appreciates you helping to bring this matter to our attention. Samsung is immediately releasing the following information to clear up any confusion regarding planned upgrades for the Behold II: "Samsung Mobile and T-Mobile USA are updating the Behold II to Android 1.6 which provides access to Google Maps Navigation, Google Voice Search capability and quick search box for Android. The update also supplies additional benefits including Swype, an improved Media Player, updated core Android applications and improved Bluetooth capabilities. However, the Behold II is not upgradable beyond Android 1.6."
Additionally, we are researching any previous statements made about the planned upgrades for the Behold II to rectify misstatements, if any, that may have been made. Please know we review and appreciate comments, positive and negative, made by people like you, our customer, and we take them to heart. Our goal is to always provide the best possible handsets that not only meet but exceed your expectations, both in quality and functionality.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may present.
Do you have more questions regarding your Samsung Mobile Phone? For 24 hour information and assistance, we offer our new FAQ/ARS System - Automated Response System
.
It's like having your very own personal Samsung Technician at your fingertips.
We thank you for your continued interest in Samsung products.
Sincerely,
Technical Support

Translation: They are going to do nothing to fix my problem. However, T-Mobile did take a step in helping me. I'm not entirely happy with the situation, but at least it is something. I will be posting on that later. Basically this is the same answer I got when I called Samsung and I kept having to bug T-Mobile to get them to do something...even half-heartedly.

President Obama Announces End of Combat Operations In Iraq (Video) - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

Oh great. Most of the combat in Iraq seems to be over...for American Troops. The interesting thing is that Obama is not taking credit for this, and I think that makes sense. Of course if this ends up being a mistake he most certainly will get the blame.


President Obama Announces End of Combat Operations In Iraq (Video) - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

What Do The Gospels Really Say About Jesus?

Here is a video of Dr. Brock teaching about what the Gospels really say about Jesus. He explains how the synoptic Gospels really do show Jesus' Deity not just in the book of John. Don't forget: Only God can forgive sin; control nature; walk on water; and raise the dead. Jesus did all these things...and not just in the Gospel of John.


What Do The Gospels Really Say About Jesus?

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Edgar Andrews

In today's interview, Brian Auten interviewed Edgar Andrews.  Dr, Andrews has led an amazing life: Science and Engineering Professor, Apologist, and Pastor.  He's had a career that any scientist would want to follow. I was amazed and encouraged by the interview. I was further amazed that about 24 years ago I debated Richard Dawkins on the existence of God. Huge! Especially considering that Dawkins does not debates Christians anymore. I've listened to that debate a couple of years ago and I didn't I blog it, but safe to say, it underlines why Dawkins does not debate anymore.  I'm interested in checking out Dr Andrews book Who Made God: Searching for a Theory of Everything.I was amazed to find out that Dr. Andrews commented on a blog article I wrote a few months ago about DNA and Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell. The blog post  and Dr Andrews' comment can be read at Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer? « Biola Magazine. I definitely thanks Brian Auten and Dr Andrews for this interview.
Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Edgar Andrews

Apologetics 315: Alister McGrath & Daniel Dennett Debate: God & Religion MP3 Audio

I really liked the debate. Alister McGrath did a great job answering Daniel Dennet. I don't like Dennet's speculations on how religion has evolved. The moderator definitely seemed to think Dennet's position carries more weight than I think it really has. This particular debate is definitely worth thinking about it.  I'd rather they had audience questions one-at-a-time instead of three at a time. 

Apologetics 315: Alister McGrath & Daniel Dennett Debate: God & Religion MP3 Audio

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Douglas Geivett

Brian Auten interviewed Douglas Geivett and it was a great interview. We learn a lot about Geivett as a person and what philosophy is and how it can be used in Apologetics. It is great to listen to it. 

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Douglas Geivett

Apologetics 315: Why We Trust the Bible MP3 Audio by Darrell Bock

Here is another awesome lecture, Brian Auten posted on his blog. I think it bears listening because Dr Brooks summarizes why its reasonable to trust the Bible and hold it reliable




Apologetics 315: Why We Trust the Bible MP3 Audio by Darrell Bock

Responding to "Gandalf's" Comments on "Debunking Christianity"

Recently I wrote a post about a post John Loftus wrote responding to a comments I left on Friday. You can read my comments on it here. One of the commentators that I have interacted with in the past has posted his own comments regarding me and my actions on the Debunking Christianity blog. His comments are in italics and mine are normal font.

Marcus McElhaney said..."Those "minister" and "prophets" who are doing that will face judgement."

Howdy Marcus.

This is something simply being assumed by you Marcus .You have no such proof to even suggest such a thing "will" happen.Its all about your faith, nothing more.
From the time that I have been reading comments by you, you have whined and cried about the abuses by Christianity and other religions. I still agree there has been much evil done in the name of God and attempts to use the Bible to legitimate those sins. My bone of contention is that it is unfair to blame the Bible for things that people do who are acting contrary to what it says. This underscores things that keep getting confused on the Debunking Christianity blog: The difference between the Bible's content a being true representation of reality and just understanding what the Bible says. How can you meaningfully understand if the Bible is true if you don't understand what it says?
I have already pointed out i dont feel any hate for you Marcus,and i was also being very honest.
But please try to understand pointing straight back to things written in faith books all the time, just isnt good enough for many folks around here, just because it happens to be your personal faith.And you tend to make many folks get a little or even sometimes a lot pissed off about it , when you keep on purposely doing it.
I'm convinced that the majority of the people I have interacted with on the Debunking Christianity blog don't understand what the Bible says, including Gandalf and John Loftus himself. They argue that they do but if they did they wouldn't mishandle and distort what the text says. Again you have to understand what the text is saying before you can evaluate if the text is true. I realize that they hate this point. Thinking that it's being argued that they are not intelligent enough to understand the Bible. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying that they are blatantly misunderstanding what the Bible says on many points and if there is disagreement on drawing out the meaning of passages from the Bible we should be able to discuss them and see what the Bible is really saying. Instead most of the time people on that blog just get angry and I get accused of trying to prove the Bible with the Bible.
They purposely point out to you that this is all you do , and even ask you for something better .But then most often all you simply do is exactly the same thing again and again and again , making discussion with you seem so circular and endless.
This statement shows me that Gandalf and perhaps most others don't really read what I write. More than once I have offered to go through scriptures that I know they are mishandling and I've challenged them to show me why my understanding is wrong. And yet very few have even tried to engaged such a thing. Most of the time they throw up their hands as if it would be pointless because I am closed-minded. It seems circular because they refuse to engage what the text is truly saying. For example many say they disagree with the Bible because it says the earth is 6000 years old and the Bible says no such thing.
Im only bothering to be saying what im saying here in this comment now,because i dont feel hatered towards you, and even realize yes your heart is most likely very much in the right place.And you most likely care about people.
Gandalf has most often been the most hate-filled person I've talked to Debunking Christianity. By that I mean he's been the meanest. To be fair he has already stated that his words and attitude has been born of frustration. That is a lack of maturity. You ought to be able to disagree with someone and articulate why without name-calling and arrogance. Passionate emotion is one thing. But we ought to be better than that. At one point Gandalf was doing nothing but calling me names everytime I wrote anything and I started ribbing him back. Since then he has stopped and so have I.
Im just trying to explain what it might be that helps get some peoples attempts at discussion with you, a little heated at times.And then you can choose to think about it a little or not.Specially if you like to believe you do honestly care about people!
I disagree that telling people that I think they are wrong in how they understand the Bible is not being unloving or uncaring. I do it because I do care. IT seems like to me like Gandalf and several other would rather just believe what they want to believe without being challenged. I expect it to get heated. The Bible says it is supposed to get heated. I am telling people what they don't want to hear. Duh!!!

Maybe you will be using your faith to translate these "heated comments" as maybe being forfilling of bible prophesy etc ,and yes it might even give you a bit of a faith buzz.
This statement shows exactly what I'm talking about it. Either Bible says that people are going to behave like these people are responding on Debunking Christianity or it doesn't. If it does...that's evidence of the Bible's truthfulness. They just confirm what the text says. I'm not saying that this is enough to prove everything in the Bible but I think it should be enought to make person dig further.

But the real truth is peoples comments only get heated towards you ,simply because its not really any honest discussion thats happening here at all.Its only blatant use of your faith indoctrination you attempt! time and time again ,over and over .Like its a stuck record.

The discussion is honest from my side. It's not my fault that people keep saying stuff that the Bible does not say and passign it off as if most scholars agree with them and none do.

And then thats what causes the heated comments !.And no! , we honestly dont need any ancient prophesy to be able to understand there is plenty of good natural reasons for that.No superstitious prophesys needed !!

The problem is that the Bible agrees with you as the reasons for the heated comments. You are fulfilling prophecy.

I simply dont really much enjoy seeing this keep happening to you Marcus.Yes i might be atheist, but that dont simply mean it make me not care about anybody.Just trying to point a few things out and explain how maybe? you might be bringing much of it on yourself. 

That's the main point that keeps being made. No honest Christian thinks that all atheists are blood-thirsty, selfish, mean, stupid individuals - Stalins and Maos waiting to happen. Why should Gandalf think bad of all Christians? He has said that he blames all Christians for what his family did to him and for the evils of this world.

Gandalf also made a comment from antother comment made by keith (his words in bold.

keith said... "Gandolf.


Marcus likes to assert things that he has no proof for.

He actually asserted that 2nd Peter 3:8 has no precedent in Psalms 90:4.

He's funny that way..."

Hi Keith.

I have to say in my opinion i think underneath everything Marcus is very intelligent in many ways.But sadly devotion on things of charisma can make even the most intelligent of us humans, become a little thick about some things.

Its not our intelligence that causes this problem though , its more about the "charisma" and "devotion" that then simply tells parts of our brains to simply shut down.Parts of our brains that usually do deal with scepticism and making calculated decisions that have been properly thought through and so have taken account of matters from looking from "every single" angle.
It's real interesting that Gandalf thinks he can psychoanalyze me but then become offended when I merely point out what the Bible says about the conclusions he says he believes. Funny. It's alright to be skeptical about the Bible and Christianity but not okay to be skeptical about the conclusions Gandalf thinks. It's not offensive to think that Christians have a mental problem but offensive to suggest that many of the world's most famous atheists had horrible relationships with their fathers. Double-standard? You betcha!

While Marcus is very intelligent it seems he cant see its obvious the bible is honestly obviously a terrible manual ! if its supposed said to be devine manual to help us humans.And so Marcus cannot even allow himself to see scripture is obviously honestly not easy to understand at all.
Let's see. So is understanding the Bible like say understanding....Quantum Mechanics? No? Why? I know what Gandalf would say. It's apples and oranges because Quantum Mechanics is true. Well Einstein would have disagreed. He didn't think it was true. And I would say that we don't really understand Quantum Mechanics. Not fully. Not completely. Therefore, just becasue you don't understand something does not mean that it's not true. That is why I end up quoting scripture so much. We have to deal with Gandalf's misunderstanding of scripture before we can even begin to discuss if its true or not. I think a great deal of the Bible is clear. To be fair I've been studying it for years. It was written in a language you do not speak in a cultural and temporal context you can't possibly think you can identify with without putting some time in studying it.
Marcus may very well have some specialist type of magical translation of these scriptures, and even be able to connect them in some majical way , kind of like somebody having a go at deciphering the Da Vinci Code.
Again this why I have to spend the time on what the text says before we can discuss if it's true. Gandalf does not understand it. He just said so.

But then what Marcus fails to understand is this does little to help the average Joe blogs human do the same .Neither does it do much at all to help suggest maybe this bible manual honestly looks like its actually anything that can be said as so very devine.
I've offered to discuss that. And I've had very few takers. The fact that the Bible is of divine origin is testable. This is something we can examine. We can reason this out. Again the challenge is out there.

Because the fact still remains its been a curse on earth thats a right mess and has honestly been the cause of many problems and lots of extreme pain heartbreak and even lots of death.
Is that truly a fact of history? Gandalf and others often assert this idea but there is no proof. I'd be happy to look at the proof. A lot of passion. A lot of emotion, No proof. Give me some numbers and where you have found them.
And so even that fact alone! says this bible is not honestly so very devine , doesnt it Keith.

No it doesn't. Keith is another person that I don't think Keith understands what the Bible means. For example he made the following assertion (again in bold).

@Marcus. In another thread you said that a day to God is like 1000 years.

Isn't it true that God says no such thing anywhere in the bible?

Isn't it true that the quote from peter comes from a mis-interpretation of Psalms 90:4?

That verse reads...

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

This in no way means that a day to God is 1000 years.

A watch in the night is a 3 hour period so why don't christians say that a day to God is 3 hrs?

I have to call bullshit on ya my dude...@ 

Notice Keith's logic. God didn't write the Bible therefore neither Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:7-9

7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Look at the context. When I brought the scripture up, I could have been clearer and I did not think I would have to be this clear. Peter is making the point that God is not bound of time and that he is not bound to our timetable. "Soon" is relative. If God does not measure time as we do...and He does not...then it's a silly argument to assume you know what soom should be. If it takes 20,000 years for Jesus' return then that would still be soon relative to God. Keith then tries to say that Peter misunderstood Psalm 90:4

4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

I quoted the NIV. Keith quoted the KJV. While Peter is making ths same point as the Psalmist about God's timelessness. the conext is different. He accuses Peter of misunderstanding Psalms 90:4.However this shows that Keith understands neither passage.

Apologetics 315: The Meta Ethical Argument for Theism MP3 Audio by Peter S. Williams

Brian Auten posted this lecture a few weeks ago in which Peter Williams lectures on ethics. Very interesting.
Apologetics 315: The Meta Ethical Argument for Theism MP3 Audio by Peter S. Williams

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Credibility of our Christian Faith (by T) (beliefnet.com)
• Is Atheism a Choice? (atheistrev.com)

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Maybe He Needs an Outsider Test?

It always helps to have backup when you are wading into hostile territory. I've been commenting on John Loftus' blog Debunking Christianity. Some people have been, most have been - who have posted comments - have been mean, close-minded, arrogant, and condescending - while accusing me and other Christians of the same attitudes. Fortunately, a scholar like JP Holding is really reading the Loftus' blog. He isn't just ignoring it and refuting things that he doesn't know anything about.

John just committed unintended irony #5,764,382 with this one...
Quote of the Day by a Christian Named Marcus McElhaney

By John W. Loftus at 8/27/2010
" Emory and Greg, I concede that the Bible is indeed confusing...to both of you! Other people don't agree with you[r or] Greg's thoughts on how confusing the Bible is. Maybe you just need to study harder."
This quote is utterly ridiculous to the nth degree. If we study harder then we'd come to Marcus's conclusions, right? Right! With thinking skills like the ones Marcus displays here at DC, no wonder he believes. If Marcus is the example then we need to be almost brain dead to believe.

Uh....but who was it who said in defense of his "Outsider Test" that the main sign of whether you pass is that you come to believe the same things John Loftus does?
The more John talks, the more he helps us out!

I agree with Holding. The more you oppose the truth, the more you actually help.

⁷Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. ⁸For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. ⁹We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is for your perfection. - 2 Corinthians 13:7-9

Thank you, John Loftus.

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Maybe He Needs an Outsider Test?

YouTube - Sam Shamoun vs Shabir Ally (The Unedited Version)

The debate is about the Bible and the Qur'an. This by far is one of the best debates on this I have seen. If you want to see a great summary from both sides of what the arguments are and why this is important, this debate is one to watch.

YouTube - Sam Shamoun vs Shabir Ally (The Unedited Version)

Iron Sharpens Iron: Steve Camp: Are Theological Debates Antithetical to Christian Love?

Iron Sharpens Iron once had a great interview with Steve Camp:

Steve Camp, well known Christian recording artist, writer of a Grammy Award-winning song, theologically Reformed Christian apologist, founder of audienceONE Ministries and pastor of Cross Church in Palm City, Florida (see www.CrossChurch.net), will address the theme: "Are Theological Debates Antithetical to Christian Love?"

I enjoy these episodes on Iron Sharpens Iron because I like hearing what God is doing in other people's lives and congregations. Steve Camp's church seems to be a hybrid between the Reformed Baptist traditions and Pentecostal/charasmatic tradition of which I am very comfortable in. Reformed Baptist worship services, from what I have seen, tend to be quiet, very little music, somber and serious. Nothing wrong with that. I just can't get into that as much. There is very little talk of healing.  Nothing wrong with that either. Cross Church seems different in contrast. Pastor Camp said that they use musical instruments like electric guitars - I'd assume they get loud. Further, he also testified that God just recently healed his eyesight to the point that he no longer needs glasses to read. That is what God does - miracles. I liked how Pastor Camp described his church as "charismatic but with breaks."

Iron Sharpens Iron: Steve Camp: Are Theological Debates Antithetical to Christian Love?