Reformation History on the Dividing Line
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Reformation History on the Dividing Line
Reformation History on the Dividing Line
Where Should I Begin in Reading Van Til and Presuppositional Works?
Where Should I Begin in Reading Van Til and Presuppositional Works?
Jesus in the Public Square: 3 Lectures by Darrell Bock - Apologetics 315
Jesus in the Public Square: 3 Lectures by Darrell Bock - Apologetics 315
Debunking Christianity: There are Honest Christians Who Want Real Answers to Real Questions
Here is an example of what John Loftus thinks is an "honest" Christian is:16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
By Roscoe
It's interesting to me that a Loftus believes that the only honest Christians are people who agree with him. I find a fundamental misunderstanding of what "Faith" is and what "Faith" isn't. Faith is not believing something that one does not have sufficient evidence to rationally believe. I find it amazing how confused people are on this point. I've quoted Hebrews 11:1 ad nauseum trying to get the point across as to what "Faith" is in a Biblical sense. This time I will re-quote something I was blessed to see last week:Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)This review is from: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Paperback)I was a Christian for 26 years, two of which I was on staff with Young Life Ministries, after reading this book I willfully set my "faith" down. This book helped me realize that my God was a myth and that the Bible was indeed a product of man and not God. When doubting Christians ask me what one book they should read, I say without hesitation, Why I'm an Atheist by John Loftus. I currently have two of my Christian friends reading his book and they are stumpped.
Faith is not believing without facts; Faith is trust without reservation.Debunking Christianity: There are Honest Christians Who Want Real Answers to Real Questions
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Rob Liefeld Fills Biblical Plot Hole with 'Zombie Jesus' - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
However, Zombie Jesus may seem somewhat blasphemous given Liefeld's background. He is a Christian and works with his pastor, Phil Hotsenpiller, on the Armageddon Now series of graphic novels, based on biblical prophecy. But as Liefeld told ComicsAlliance, it can't be heresy if it's right there in black and white.My main problem with the story is that it doesn't really accurately tell the story given in the Bible. Matthew 27:51-52 does not say that people crawled out of the ground and started eating people.
"I don't consider this in any way blasphemous or contradicting my faith," said Liefeld, who describes Zombie Jesus as "300 meets Dawn of the Dead with the clock from 24 running." He continued, "The fact of the matter is that the passage in 'Matthew' 27 EXISTS! It's a freaky, crazy, creepy passage. Zombies came out of the ground right after Christ's death and it's kind of glossed over like it's no big deal. I wanted to move on it a year ago when I read it, but I needed time to flesh it out. There are so many mysterious passages in the Bible, and this one may be the biggest mystery of all."
"What I've done is construct a story of how the ultimate battle between good and evil continues following the crucifixion of Christ. There are many players in the saga and everyone is racing against time to protect or devour Christ's remains. Joseph of Arimethia paid to have Jesus buried in a proper tomb and there is quite an exciting series of events as Judas and the zombie horde attempt to keep Christ and his escorts from reaching the tomb. The zombies that attack the city are at first defended by the Roman Centurions who eventually retreat and Governor Pilate decides to sacrifice the population of Judaea to the zombies.
"And then there's Lazarus, the hero of the story, who himself was risen from death by Christ's own hand. His destiny in protecting the sacred body of Christ as well as preserving the garments that touched Christ's blood is played out with the Disciples fighting alongside him. The story builds towards a confrontation at the tomb of Christ before it takes a MAJOR twist. It's Judas, possessed of the devil battling with his army of the Undead versus Lazarus and the Disciples for all the marbles. It's exciting."
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.Many atheists uses this passage to try to discount the whole resurrection because Zombies do not exist. I agree. The Bible does not say anything about zombies. Here are a couple of facts to keep in mind that in the first century, people were not buried in tombs indefinitely. After several years, tombs were recycled and the bones of relative were put into ossuaries. Therefore if the people who were in the tombs when they rose again, they had not been dead for very long. If you look at the art of Liefield, the people seem to look like what we think of Zombies today and they are attacking people. No where in the Bible does it describe anything like. When Lazerus was raised from the dead he wasn't raised immortal, he died again at some future point later. Also when Satan entered Judas Iscariot it was before he betrayed Jesus, not after he hung himself. Also during the days Jesus was buried his disciples were not fighting zombies...they were hiding from the authorities. It is important to remember that Jesus won the battle of good versus evil when He died. It was finished...perfectly and completely. Even the devil thought that, however he thought he won. Had he truly understood the plan of salvation he would not have worked so hard to see Jesus crucified and dead. God played him like a harp. These are important points of the events surrounding the parts that Liefield calls himself "filling in". It really irks me that people think Matthew had zombies in mind like those from our movies. He didn't. These people who were raised would have been known to the inhabitants of Jerusalem at that time.
No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:Jesus rose from the dead Easter morning with all power in his hand. This is what the Gospel is. I'm all for fiction, but fiction that detracts from truth is indeed bordering on blasphemy. I hope Liefield talks to his pastor about this storyline and really prays about it. You see, I find it incomprehensible to be a Christian for more than a year and have never read Matthew 27. And no maybe we don't have as much detail as to who was raised in Matthew 27:52-52 such as what happened to them afterward? Did they go to heaven? Did they stay on earth and live a normal human lifespan? I don't know but I don't think its a good idea to make up stuff that contradict what the rest the Bible says.
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him" - 1st Corinthians 2:7-9
FacePalm of the Day #23 - Responding to Edward T. Babinski
Marcus, Your responses amount to saying, "These were great laws for their day and age." So you have acknowledged ethical relativism, and that it can be found in the Bible.
No. I have acknowledged no such thing. Rape is wrong. Adultery is wrong. The Fundamental principles of the laws have not changed.
Neither did you consider the woman's point of view. Forced to marry her rapist? Really?
Did you consider how other nations did things. A woman who was raped was considered "damaged" and most men would not marry her. What would would happen to such a woman? She would never be a wife and never have the protection of a husband. The law was meant to protect her and make men take responsibility of not just shaming her but potentially destroying the rest of her life. It was also mandated that the man could never divorce her or abuse her. The alternative for the woman? Destitution. Ostracized. Today woman have options that were not available to ancient woman. In no way does the condone or proscribe raping a woman as good thing.
Forced to marry the men who slaughtered her husband and/or whole family, village?
Again this was to protect the woman from being treated as nothing but property and a slave.She could be integrated into society. And she would be married to only one man not men. And where does Edward get that the woman was forced against her will? The Bible does not say that. Again without being married, a woman in those days could look forward to destitution, starvation, and death.
And in neither case is a wedding ceremony mentioned. It was an exchange of property.
Does it take explicitly stating and describing a marriage ceremony to understand that it was really a marriage and not just people living together and having sex? The Bible never uses the term "marriage" loosely. It's supposed to be a sacred covenant relationship between a man and woman; co-equal - because no where does the Bible say a man is superior to or more important than women.
And if the woman failed to please the soldier who slaughtered her people, she was let go. But if she did please him, only then was he obliged to take care of her.
I wonder if Babinski really ever looked at how the other nations treated prisoners of war at the same time, or even today. They used to kill the women if they weren't pleased with them. This was to protect the women. You couldn't just take a woman, use her for sex, and then toss her out without penalty.
And in fact a Hebrew male could have as many wives as he could feed and clothe. And also keep concubines and female slaves.
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.As for the Book of Esther, read chapter 2. "Beauty pageant" is a euphemism. The king was raping every virgin in that pageant, including the Jewish virgin, Esther. God was not incensed though. He allowed the raping, so that the king could discover just how "good" Esther was in the sack. . . for the good of her people. Esther was found to be so "good" that the king made her queen, and the Jews got to take revenge on their enemies, killing 75,000 of them according to the story, all because a virginal Jewish girl was raped by a king and was so good in bed. Is the story true? Who knows? God isn't even mentioned once in that book.
When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. - Deuteronomy 17:16-18
I don't think Babinski has even read the book of Esther. Xerxes did not even know or care that Esther was a Jew. The Jews killing 75,000 of their enemies had nothing to do with Esther. It was not even widely known that Esther was Jewish until she revealed it to show the treacherous Holocaust Haman had in mind for her people. The Jews were defending themselves because on a certain day they were all supposed to be slaughtered and Persian kings could not change a law once it was passed so Xerxes gave the Jews the authority to defend themselves. It had nothing to do with Ester being taken against her will. Re-read Esther.
Ruth of course uncovers Boaz's feet, which is another euphemism for sleeping with him.
Not everyone agrees with that interpretation and even if it's true, Ruth initiated the scene not Boaz. She was in control.
As for Paul, the most he said about marriage was that it was honorable, and it was "better to marry than to burn." "Better to marry than to burn?" They should SING that kind of praise of marriage at weddings. So all Paul admits is that marriage is "honorable" and "better than burning with lust" constantly. Not a word of actual praise.
Um...how is "honorable" not praise? And how does this advance Babinski's argument? It doesn't. More failure.
All that Paul praises is the "spiritual marriage" of Christians to their bridegroom, the Lord. Therefore, Paul made clear that he thought celibacy was definitely a superior choice than marriage.
So what? Paul was saying that he recognizes than not everyone can live without being married. He said that nothing was wrong with remaining single or getting married. If the point is that Paul is saying that it's better not be married because you can focus more on God, then that's true. However he never condemned anyone getting married..
If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better. -1 Corinthians 7: 36-38As for Cain marrying his sister, and in fact all of the children of Adam and Even marrying their brothers and sisters. Nice. More ethical relativism. I guess when they chose who was sleeping in whose beds while still kids, that was quite a serious choice indeed. But of course God being omnipotent could have created a second couple so such a thing need not have occurred. But I guess God just slapped his thigh and said, let 'em all sleep with each other!
I'm always amazed by this. According the theory of evolution, brothers and sister must have had to procreate together to pass on the traits that make us human when we evolved from lower lifeforms right? At one point there would have only been two homo sapiens and I would wager that they were closely related unless you want to argue that a man and a woman independently evolved from lower primates? I don't think so. Close relatives would have had to gotten together in order for things like large brains and opposable thumbs be propagated to further generations. So what is the problem? Even throwing out evolution and just assuming that it was only Adam and Eve, who else would their children marry when there was no other human beings? Me thinks, Edward Babinski is just trying to introduce an argument that has no merit because he has nothing else. God allowed them to do that until He deemed it no longer needed according to His purpose. Any biologist can tell you that now its no longer a good idea and very dangerous for the children. This is how we get very bad mutations and sicknesses. Before the flood, this was not the case because of the genetic purity and closeness to the source.
Clark Kent Takes First Flight in 'Superman: Earth One' Preview [Exclusive] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
"Where did I come from?
What am I doing here?
Who Am I?
What Am I?"
These are basic question everyone should have an answer for. What I want to know is since you did not make you, how do you even begin to answer these? How can natural material processes even begin to answer this questions. Yes, it is very philosophical. To be honest there have been Superman stories like this before and most of the time its presented as if Clark Kent is destined to become what he becomes - a superman - very messianic in quite a few ways. This is actually the premise behind the Smallville television series. I want to see how Straczynski handles the stories.
I'm not at all suggesting that DC Comics endorses the concept of God. I am saying that I believe it is impossible to answer the very important questions of identity and purpose without consulting the one who made us.
Clark Kent Takes First Flight in 'Superman: Earth One' Preview [Exclusive] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Radio Free Geneva...Accomplished!
Radio Free Geneva...Accomplished!
Explaining the Heresy of Catholicism by John MacArthur - Apologetics 315
Explaining the Heresy of Catholicism by John MacArthur - Apologetics 315
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Christ the Redeemer - A Panoramic View
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Christ the Redeemer - A Panoramic View
Clarence Thomas Was More Fun When He Was Drunk - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
On the Black Snob blog, there is a clip of an interview of Lillian McEwen, ex-ladyfriend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, on Larry King Live. All I could say was, "Wow, she threw him under the bus!" It's amazing to me that she waited over twenty years to dredge up all this stuff now!? I think Thomas' wife calling Anita Hill's office inappropriately and asking for an apology for the hearings that would have been better left in the 80's when it happened. I smell something weird. It is obvious that McEwen is going to get a book deal and much promotion. Could the Thomases be in on this?Clarence Thomas Was More Fun When He Was Drunk - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Kalamullah.Com | In the Shade of the Qur'an | Fi Dhilal al-Quran
Kalamullah.Com | In the Shade of the Qur'an | Fi Dhilal al-Quran
YouTube - Call Me Senator - From David Zucker
Yes, it is hilarious. However it does have a ring of truth. One's position should never become so important that all your attention is given to the status while forgetting that you should be serving the people who put you in power.
YouTube - Call Me Senator - From David Zucker
Fistbump of the Day #5 - THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Five Reasons why Jesus would not agree with the Right Wing….
THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Five Reasons why Jesus would not agree with the Right Wing….
Apologist Interview: Alan Shlemon - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: Alan Shlemon - Apologetics 315
Truthbomb Apologetics: Audio: Does God Exist? by Dr. Frank Turek
Truthbomb Apologetics: Audio: Does God Exist? by Dr. Frank Turekhttp://www.blogger.com/blog_this.pyra?t=&u=http%3A%2%2Ftruthbomb.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F10%2Faudio-does-god-exist-by-dr-frank-turek.html&n=Truthbomb+Apologetics%3A+Audio%3A+Does+God+Exist%3F+by+Dr.+Frank+Turek
Monday, October 25, 2010
High-Five of the Day #2 - Sunday Quote: Alexander Vilenkin on Cosmic Beginnings - Apologetics 315
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
- Alexander Vilenkin
Sunday Quote: Alexander Vilenkin on Cosmic Beginnings - Apologetics 315
Fist Bump of my Life - Mistouky McElhaney
Today is my wife's birthday! I wanted to publicly say that she truly is my "good thing" - the best gift from God I have ever received, second only to my salvation. She is extremely intelligent, funny, and amazingly beautiful. She is all ever needed in wife and more than I ever thought I wanted. She is an amazing mother to our two young children. Her strength and wit and compassion never cease to astounds me. Turns out that October 25th was one of the best days that ever happened to me and I didn't know it for 19 years. I thank God for her every day!
He who finds a wife finds what is good
and receives favor from the LORD. - Proverbs 18:22
I'm so glad God chose favor me by allowing me to be Mitsouky's husband.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)