Apologist Interview: John Dickson - Apologetics 315
Monday, March 7, 2011
Apologist Interview: John Dickson - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: John Dickson - Apologetics 315
Tongues Debate: James White vs. David Bernard
Image via WikipediaJames Swan comes through again posting a great mp3 audio from a radio discussion between James White vs David Bernard - Reformed Baptist vs Oneness. I've always wondered how Dr. White would deal with this particular issues on Tongues. I have heard him debate oneness Pentecostals on the Trinity but not on tongues and the place such a gift from God as Tongues hold in how we get saved and live. Tongues Debate: James White vs. David Bernard
Memory Lane: White vs. Hunt, the "Almost" Debate
Image via WikipediaJames Swan has posted an article discussing interactions James White had with Dave Hunt on Christian Radio show Viewpoint with attorney Chuck Crismier regarding Calvinism back in 2004-2005. The post contains links to the discussion they had centered around the book White and Hunt wrote, the one-one-interview White later had on the same show, and links to the Dividing Line episodes where Dr. White commented on what happened. Crismier was definitely not on White's side and didn't seem to listen to what was said. He made many of the same objections in both programs and never explained what was wrong with the answers Dr. White gave.
Memory Lane: White vs. Hunt, the "Almost" Debate
Sunday, March 6, 2011
The Dunamis Word: In Memory Of Bishop Chandler D. Owens
13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. - 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14
Don't get me wrong it can be easy to forget that especially when it is a close loved one and you are experience the pain of the loss, however we still have hope because we know the one who conquered death.
The Dunamis Word: In Memory Of Bishop Chandler D. Owens
Zooming and panning in Windows Forms with Fixed focus - CodeProject
I have found quite a few articles about zooming into a fixed point. I have also tried many solutions, but none of them worked. Many of them resized the PictureFrame so that it eventually would overlap other parts of the screen and none of them could keep the focus point. I then created my own solution that actually works. When zooming it does keep the same zoom point at all zoom levels.
Zooming and panning in Windows Forms with Fixed focus - CodeProject
Mithra? Attis? Really, Rob Bell?
James White has posted a video response to videos by Rob Bell. One of the things I appreciate about Dr. James White is always clear about what core message of Christianity - the Gospel - is and tries to not let his traditions and thoughts enter into the presentation of what the Bible says. This should be done when discussing anything dealing with such matters as history and the origins of Christianity. This video also gives Dr White's insights into how to answer the charges that Mithra and Attis were archetypal Christs even as he unpacks Rob Bell's explanations.Mithra? Attis? Really, Rob Bell?
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Calvinistic Cartoons: Idol Makers
Eddie Eddings has posted this gem of a quote
I don't know why today's humanists and atheists fail to see this fact. When one says that God is unnecessary and places themselves as the final authority of their lives, what better term that "idolatry". Thanks, Eddie.
Calvinistic Cartoons: Idol Makers
I don't know why today's humanists and atheists fail to see this fact. When one says that God is unnecessary and places themselves as the final authority of their lives, what better term that "idolatry". Thanks, Eddie.
Calvinistic Cartoons: Idol Makers
Remembering Dwayne McDuffie | Marvel Heroes | Comic News | News | Marvel.com
Gregory Wright said:
While we were both assistant editors, Dwayne quietly pointed out to me that my boss Mark Gruenwald had written something particularly racially offensive. He had created a new partner for the wannabe Captain America, USAgent. He was an African-American Bucky. At the time, I didn't quite get what the problem was, but Dwayne explained it to me, and said that this made him lose some respect for Mark. I explained that Mark couldn't have done this on purpose, and would be very upset at this mistake. Dwayne was dubious. Mark was far too intelligent to not know what he was doing. So I decided that Dwayne should speak to Mark.
Dwayne was not thrilled with this, as he was already that subversive guy to some. And this could get him in labeled something else. I told him Mark was different, and besides, he didn't think DAMAGE CONTROL was subversive. He loved it. Dwayne very calmly expressed his view to Mark, who was absolutely horrified. He had no idea that “Bucky” was an offensive term. He quizzed Dwayne for a while on the history of the offensive nature of the term and asked him to help him solve this problem in the most sensitive way possible. So the very next issue of CAPTAIN AMERICA that Mark wrote, Bucky became Battlestar. And Mark and Dwayne had a newfound respect for each other.
I also enjoyed reading the remarks from Reggie Hudlin. He and Wright had the most to say about who McDuffie was as a person and some of the trials he had to face and how he overcame them. From their recollections, I think his life would make an interesting book and movie.
More on Marvel.com: http://marvel.com/news/story/15329/remembering_dwayne_mcduffie#ixzz1Fi2g9H00
Remembering Dwayne McDuffie | Marvel Heroes | Comic News | News | Marvel.com
Friday, March 4, 2011
FacePalm of the Day - #64 - Debunking Christianity: Dr. Matt McCormick On the Goodness of God
In A Simple Paradox Concerning God’s Goodness he writes:
Has God committed morally wrong actions? If God is the almighty creator of the universe, then there are countless instances where there was an event that God was either directly or indirectly causally responsible for that we would ordinarily identify as morally wrong. Consider the class of actions or omissions that we would identify as morally wrong if a moral agent had been present and had committed them or allowed them to happen. A person drowns by herself near a dock on a lake where a life vest sits on the dock. If a person had been standing next to the life vest and saw her drowning in the lake, but refrained from tossing the life vest to her, we would think of that failure to act as morally abhorrent. There are countless other events like these where it does not appear that God did what we would ordinarily have identified as the morally obligatory act. Therefore, it would appear that God has committed (or by omission allowed to happen) countless morally wrong events.
Many of the comments on the post at Debunking Christianity.make the mistake that because God does not stop all disasters and suffering that he does nothing at all. McCormick does not make that mistaken argument but his example of the drowning girl and the life vest does not accurately describe reality. It ignores that God averts all kinds of suffering all kinds of ways at all times. If God didn't we would have all died a long time ago. None of us would be here to argue about the issues in the first place.
I think the issue comes down to what McCormick wrote:
There are countless other events like these where it does not appear that God did what we would ordinarily have identified as the morally obligatory act. Therefore, it would appear that God has committed (or by omission allowed to happen) countless morally wrong events.It does not follow that God can have morally wrong events attributed to him because we can't confirm that God does not do what we would would define as morally obligatory. The argument presupposes that there is an objective moral standard that we and God should meet. I agree that there is an objective moral standard. We don't know the big picture. How do you know that God has not acted in the way that benefits the most number of people? You don't. Therefore you cannot conclude that God has done anything immorally.
Debunking Christianity: Dr. Matt McCormick On the Goodness of God
Answering Muslims: Dearborn Mayor John O'Reilly: Rant Against Acts 17
Answering Muslims: Dearborn Mayor John O'Reilly: Rant Against Acts 17
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The 'All Star Superman' Animated Movie: One of the Best [Review] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
The 'All Star Superman' Animated Movie: One of the Best [Review] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
FacePalm of the Day #63 - Debunking Christianity: Is God Omnipotent or Not?
John Loftus has posted yet another argument trying to show that God cannot be omnipotent and good. My comments are going to be bolded. Let's see where he goes off the rails this time.
Why is it that believers say God can do anything until I suggest a scenario that they don't like? This is yet another reason why I think Christians are delusional. It's crystal clear that what they think God can do depends on whether a given scenario is something that they like or not. It's much like how they deal with unanswered prayer. They count the hits and discount the misses. And it's much like giving God the credit for the good that happens in life and blaming human beings (or the devil) for everything else. I don't get it. Is God omnipotent or not? Let me give just one scenario concerning earthquakes which cause massive amounts of suffering.
Unfortunately, he has a point about Americanized Christian culture. Fortunately, the Bible clearly does not allow this viewpoint, although many Christians think this way.
Several earthquakes have caused a great amount of carnage in recent years, including the one in the Indian Ocean in 2004 that caused a tsunami which killed over a quarter million people, countless numbers of animals, and devastated the environment. There have been earthquakes in Haiti last year, and in Pakistan and New Zealand this year already. We know that in the future there will be massive earthquakes in Los Angeles, along the San Andreas fault line, and also in Istanbul.
All true. I live in California. The San Andreas Faults is really close to me. I'm well-aware of it.
Now, could God have averted the ones in the past and continue doing so in the future? Yes or no? No fudging. No obfuscation. No red herrings. No sidestepping the question. No delusional dances. No gerrymandering around the question. Yes or no? I take it the answer will be a resounding yes. "Yes, praise Jesus, he can do this!"
Yes, God can and does do that. That is why I continue to live.
Now let's also agree that the more power a person has then the more he is morally obliged to help avert suffering.
If all it takes is a snap of one's fingers, or a signature on a piece of paper, to avert suffering then that person has a greater moral obligation to help avert suffering than a person who must die in the process of doing so. Agree?
I disagree.
If a superman came upon a gang of thugs in Darfar who were pillaging a town, wantonly killing children, and repeatedly raping women, then does he have more of a moral obligation to help these innocents than a mere mortal who does not have the power to stop them and will surely die in the process? Again, Yes or no? No fudging. No obfuscation. No red herrings. No sidestepping the question. No delusional dances. No gerrymandering around the question. Yes or no? I take it the answer to this question will also be a resounding yes. "Yes, praise Jesus, God has more of a moral obligation than others to avert suffering because he has more power to do so!"
No. Equating Superman to God is really not looking at it correctly. The fictional Superman is just as valuable as any other human being and is obligated but because of the Moral standard God has established. God is not bound by the same standard.and we belong to Him. Superman belongs to the world. Superman serves the world. The world is supposed to serve God.
Put two and two together and there you have the problem. It's a serious one if you wish to continue believing in your delusion, and delusion it is. Why is it that an omnipotent God could not do a perpetual miracle by stopping plate tectonics from ever moving, especially if all it takes is a snap of his omnipotent "fingers"? Is he omnipotent, or not?
Loftus is putting two and two together and coming up with five. He asks "Why is it that an omnipotent God could not do a perpetual miracle by stopping plate tectonics from ever moving?" Simple. Without plate tectonics we are all dead. Look at the science from Reason to Believe website.
How Could A Good God Allow Earthquakes?
Another Benefit for Life in Earthquakes
God has a reason for everything he does and does not do. Claiming to know better is one of the best examples of stupidity ever thought by the minds of men.
Believers have only one reasonable way to escape the clear implications of this serious problem for faith in what I call the omniscience escape clause: "My ways are not your ways," we read in Isaiah. "How do we know what an omniscient God might do?" an apologist chimes in with an implied, "We can't." The answer is obvious. We must be able to understand enough of God's ways to know that his ways are good and that he knows what he's doing. It's that simple. If God does not act as a loving person would do then all we can reasonably conclude is that God is not acting like a loving person would do. And if God does not respond in discernible loving ways when tragic events take place then it looks entirely as if tragic events happen randomly without his ever-watchful eye.
Loftus misses another option: Maybe we don't know what Love is. If you don't know what love is, how do you discern what loving is. How do you not know that God has actually don e what was the absolute best for us all, although it doesn't seem like it to us. This is where trust comes in. We trust God and don't rely just on what we think because what we think will change. That doesn't mean don't think, but look at the world the way God has given it to us to look at it.
So I put it to believers. If God is omnipotent then why does he not care? He could avert all earthquakes with a perpetual miracle quite easily. Why doesn't he do it? No fudging. No obfuscation. No red herrings. No sidestepping the question. No delusional dances. No gerrymandering around the question. Why doesn't he do it?
Who said God doesn't care? While God could have chosen to make this world in a way that earthquakes were not needed, He didn't. This is what God decided to do and how He decided to do it. Do we know why? No. Do we need to know why? No. Can we ask God? Yes. Will He answer? When He is ready for us to know we will know but the signs and evidence point to earthquakes being needed fro the life we have on earth..
Then when you've come up with your answers look at them. Think about them. Ask yourself if these answers make sense apart from what you read in an ancient superstitious set of texts written by pre-scientific agency detectors. Do they really make sense give the omnipotence of God?
Unfortunately, many Christians don't think about these issues. I have thought about this a lot and the conclusion I've come to is that the Bible is right. Even it means everyone of us is wrong, God is right.
I have no hopes that what I've just written can shake you from your delusion, because you are deluded. Doubt is the adult attitude. Grow up.
Maybe John Lofuts should really take stock and see where the delusion is.
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. - James 1:5-8
Debunking Christianity: Is God Omnipotent or Not?
Interview: Dr. Nabeel Qureshi on Islam - Apologetics 315
Interview: Dr. Nabeel Qureshi on Islam - Apologetics 315
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Excerpts From 20/20’s ‘Charlie Sheen: In His Own Words’ « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.
Excerpts From 20/20’s ‘Charlie Sheen: In His Own Words’ « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.
Batman, 'The Daily Show', and the Fall of Western Civilization - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Batman, 'The Daily Show', and the Fall of Western Civilization - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Behind the Scenes at 'The Daily Show': My Day at the Fake News Headquarter
FacePalm of the Day #62 - Debunking Christianity: A New and Better Pascal's Wager: If God Asked You to Wager Before Being Born What Would You Choose?
Why didn't we get a choice in whether or not we would be born on earth? Wouldn't the reasonably good thing to do is to create us and then ask us if we would want to be born knowing the risks involved? God could have presented us with an informed choice to either be born or to be put out of existence forever, with heaven up for grabs if we wanted to take the risk. God would accurately inform us what the probabilities are to gain heaven should we be sent to earth as a babies somewhere. And we would know the probabilities that we might not be raised in the right Christian family and might therefore be sent to hell because of it. We would be fully informed persons about the risks involved. After all, this would be our lives! We're sentient conscious moral beings. Why wouldn't God give us a choice in the matter? It's unethical for him not to do so. It would be a Pascal's Wager in heaven before being created on earth. If I were given that choice I would simply say "No, count me out! Put me out of existence now." That would be the reasonable thing to do if I became informed about the odds. Only a fool would choose otherwise. And yet here I am without my choice who apparently will be condemned to hell.
John Loftus is forgetting the scripture he claims to know. He seems to think that God capriciously puts people in situations where they could possibly end up in hell. This is exactly opposite from what the Bible says.
22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[c]
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” - Acts 17:22-31
God tells us that he has placed us all in the circumstances where we can best find him, but does not promise that we will all find him. This explains how people who are not raised in Christian families can still find Jesus. I also always amazed by the attitude that says that we have opinions and rights that God should respect. Why? He made us. He is control. We don't know nearly as much as he does. Why should he listen to anything we have to say? We don't even know what we need or even how to pray. Compared to him we are not equals but more like unconscious clay. And he is the potter.
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:14-24
Debunking Christianity: A New and Better Pascal's Wager: If God Asked You to Wager Before Being Born What Would You Choose?
The Philosophy of Ayn Rand Refuted - apologetics - blip.tv
The Philosophy of Ayn Rand Refuted - apologetics - blip.tv
Dealing with Bible Contradictions MP3 - Apologetics 315
Dealing With Contradictions
Dealing with Bible Contradictions MP3 - Apologetics 315
Debunking Christianity: Were the "Dark Ages" Really Dark?
I'm being taken to task for publishing a graph depicting the Medieval Ages as the "Dark Ages" leaving a huge gaping hole in Western history, which can be seen here. What some people failed to realize is the title to the post in which Augustinian Platonism shares a large part of the blame (no, it is not totally to blame). Augustine like Plato before him placed a much greater value on the heavenly world (the realm of the eternal "forms" or ideas) over the empirical earthly world.
Sure, that makes just as much sense as assuming that the material reality that we experience is all there is.
Christians in earlier centuries therefore destroyed many ancient manuscripts--science manuscripts--which were preserved by the Muslims. Who needs earthly wisdom? Paul basically said it was worthless. When people like Aquinas re-discovered these ancient texts it brought on a new awareness of what the ancients taught and helped bring in the Enlightenment.
Paul was not saying that earthly wisdom that was worthless is the same as science. He was talking about the kind of wisdom that says there is no God and that we are the standard or reality. Or you know the "wisdom" that says that we don't need God to explain the world? Yup, that kind of "wisdom". I'd like to know where does Paul say that science is worthless? Easy Answer: He didn't.
I remember visiting The Art Institute of Chicago and seeing a dramatic change in the art of the 1500's. Artists were now painting pictures of real people, and even ("aghast*) a bowl of fruit on a table! This came after they had thrown off the shackles of Augustinianism. This is undeniable.
Since when should Augustine (even great as he was) be considered a higher authority than the Bible. He didn't have things completely right. Who does? No one is perfect but Jesus and that is why we should follow him and no one else.
And yes, it was mainly the French philosophes who labeled these centuries the "Dark Ages." That was probably due to several reasons. Of Sir Isaac Newton it was said by Alexander Pope:
Nature and nature's laws lay hid in Night;Prior to Newton the previous centuries were considered the "Dark Ages" by comparison, and that too is undeniable.
God said, 'Let Newton be!' and all was light.
Do you know what else is undeniable. Newton was a Bible-believing Christian who loved Jesus and served him. Hmmmmmm. Curious. It was the fact that he believed there was a creator who made an understandable universe that lead him to his discoveries in Mathematics and Physics. Same thing with Galileo and Copernicus.
The French philosophes also thought the atrocities committed by the church in the previous centuries, like the Crusades, Inquisitions, and witch-hunts, were a very dark period in Western history, and I agree. Superstition like that reigned. If I was being brought into the light with a new awareness of the writings of the ancients, which helped Newton to write his Principia, I would describe it that way too, for all the same legitimate reasons.
The Bible can't be blamed for the atrocities and evil perpetrated by the Church. Those thing happened because people didn't follow the Bible.
I do understand that the church made many strides during that period of history in science, literature, and so forth. And so the huge drop-off represented by the graph is not indicative of that period of time. But I have been persuaded that it was a dark period of history, even if not completely dark.
And here we have Loftus backing away from slightly from the unfounded assumption he and the image makes. That during the Middle Ages in Europe they would have been further along had they not been Christian. According to this logic, why not embrace Islam if you think the Muslims made more scientific discoveries and were more advanced? Very flawed. Loftus wouldn't want to make such an equivocation. It's silly but we must ask why would you not if you think Christianity was the problem with Europe in the Middle Ages? It had way more to do with politics than what the Bible says. That was the problem.
Of course, anyone who thinks otherwise can volunteer to go back in time to that period and see what you think. Good luck with that! I'll stay in my own century thank you. ;-)
For further reading on the origins of science there is no better place to look than Richard Carrier's chapter in The Christian Delusion
.I'm not sure why anyone would think that to believe the Bible means turning your back on science. I agree that people do that, but it's not by necessity. If that is what you think that is what being a Christian is, you are doing it wrong and you have nothing in the Bible to stand on in doing it.
Debunking Christianity: Were the "Dark Ages" Really Dark?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)