What had happen' was.....

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Carl Sagan Explains Time Dilation [Video]

Here is an oldie but goodie. Carl Sagan explains Time Dilation.

Carl Sagan Explains Time Dilation [Video]

Faithful Thinkers: Understanding and Belief

Luke Nix has posted a great article about how understanding and belief correlate. Luke was inspired by the following

Not too long ago I was discussing naturalistic evolution with an atheist. After a while of being unable to convince me of its truth, he told me that if I understood it, I would believe it. And further that since I didn't believe it or understand it, that any arguments I offered would be strawmen, and he didn't have to respond to them. I let the discussion rest at that point. Not because I saw the problem with what he was saying, but more because I was caught "off guard" and saw that he had actually come to that conclusion before we even began the conversation.

I wasn't too worried about it at the time, but I've come across similar claims from those who don't agree with me on other things as well. So I'm going to take a few minutes to put together a response for such claims.

I have ran across similar arguments and I think his response is well-worth considering. Feel free to read his post at the following link.

Faithful Thinkers: Understanding and Belief

Scientists of Faith - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted an article that gives a short bio of famous and important scientists who were also devout Christians. They are not the only ones! Check out his list.

Scientists of Faith - Apologetics 315

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Bargaining With God?

Here is a question that Dr Norman Geisler answers in which I think it was really well-done. I think that people not just only try to bargain with God for their eternal destiny but for the things we want in the here and now in our lives. It doesn't work. The best we got is to obey God and follow his commandments. We can trust Him.

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Bargaining With God?

Friday, July 8, 2011

FacePalm of the Day #101 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Sex, Sensuality in the Christian Heaven.

thegrandverbalizer is at it again. This time he attacks what Christianity has to say about human sexuality and instead of showing what the Bible actually says, he twists scripture into a pretzel to get what he wants out of the text.

It truly is unfortunate when one reflects upon early Christian attitudes towards sexuality. It reflects an almost Gnostic (anti-human) and (pro being) stance.

I'd be one of the first to admit that the Christian church has historically done a poor job in it's attitude towards sexuality. I find little of the idea that something is wrong with sexuality in the Bible but it's all over church history. Sexuality is a gift from God to humanity. And like any gift it's awesome when properly used and respected. Too bad we, as people, have really screwed that up

Islam is a reflection of the reality of what the Creator actually made. Allah has made us as Human/Beings.

We are animals (human) with a soul (being). In Islam you do not nurture or neglect one aspect of your reality to the detriment of the other.

Um, denying sexual feelings and desire is not a part of what the Bible teaches either. The Bible does not say we are animals either. Animals don't have souls. Animals have spirits. I realize that some people a long time ago got it into their heads that denying themselves the joy of sex within marriage somehow brought them closer to God. They didn't get this idea from the Bible so basing a polemic on it is dishonest.

The Noble Prophet Muhammed said, "Who ever does not marry is not of us." He is talking about people who have taken upon themselves monasticism; of which Allah says was never ordained for human beings.

"Whomever marries has completed half their faith now let them complete the other half by fearing Allah and doing what is right" -Noble Prophet Muhammed.

"Then We caused Our Messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented-We ordained it not for them-only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-doers." ( Holy Qur'an 57:27)

Notice the difference between what God inspired Muhammad to say and what He inspired Paul to say:

²⁶ Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. ²⁷ Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. ²⁸ But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
²⁹ What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; ³⁰ those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; ³¹ those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
³² I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. ³³ But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— ³⁴ and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. ³⁵ I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

³⁶ If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. ³⁷ 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. ³⁸ So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better. - 1 Corinthians 7:26-38

The Bible says that you can be married or not be married and still be righteous in the eyes of God. Now grant it, if you ain't married you will be celibate, but that does not make one better worse than the other. Look at how thegrandverbalizer twists Jesus' words.

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12)

No doubt this is a continuation of an earlier admonishment reported to have been given by Jesus where he is to have said,

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30)

Um, no. And these are in two different contexts at two different times.
Matthew 5 came before Matthew 19. The quotation in Matthew 19, Jesus was talking about why you should not divorce your wife for any reason other than adultery. Beats "hitting her lightly in the face" like Muhammad commanded right? Matthew 5: 29-30 is about avoiding sin.

"If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. (Matthew 18:18)

Matthew 18:18 is the wrong reference. Matthew 18:8-9 is what was quoted and it is in reference to avoiding sin..

So we can see here it was not necessary for Jesus to say "If your penis offends you, if your ears offend you etc... people pretty much got the ideal.

I find it hard to believe that Jesus would say the same thing in two different passages in the same book, by the same author but means something different. IT's not at all obvious that Jesus is expecting anyone to castrate themselves either physically, emotionally, or in anyway. Jesus came to make us whole. I don't think anyone who was listening to Jesus at the time got that idea. Can anyone name a single follower who knew Jesus personally do that?.

Of course this can become quite morbid when one reflects upon 'The City of God' -Augustine. I mean after all didn't God say to Adam and Eve: "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28)

Which is why the Bible can't mean thegrandverbalizer thinks that the Bible is saying.

Now it should be clear that NO WHERE is there an explicit text in the Bible that says 'There will be NO SEX' in heaven! Again your going to have to go into the warped thinking of Augustine to come up with this kind of nonsense. Even though the Creator says that the creation 'is good' these people can only see it as evil! A legacy from earlier gnostic influence rest assured.

Before we move further through thegrandverbalizer's "argument" it would make sense that he would want to prove that there is sex in heaven because many Muslims believe heaven is a place were pious men get 70 virgins

So let us look at the text that are most often used to try and conclude that there is no sex in marriage.

23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

29Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:23-30)
Note the above says absolutely nothing about sex. It simply says that people will not marry and they will not be given in marriage.

In order for the argument to fly, we have to ask: "Do angels have sex?" Jesus tells us that we will be like the angels and angels do not get married. By in large, I have no problem with sex being in heaven, but if sex outside of marriage is a sin on earth, I don't know why it'll be okay in the afterlife.

Remember asking your Priest/Deacon/Pastor/Bishop how Adam and Eve were married? Remember hearing those cool little stories about how they were 'married in the sight of God'?

Alright, here comes the Nephilim.

"and sons of God see the daughters of men that they are fair, and they take to themselves women of all whom they have chosen."(Genesis 6:2 Young's Literal Translation).

"the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."(Genesis 6:2 New International Version)

Now notice that the Young's Literal Translation basically says that the Sons of God 'took the women'. While the other translations say that the 'married' the women. So how actually did they get married? Was it in the 'sight of God' as well? If these beings 'angels' are law breakers and transgressors why get married?

Looks like someone has been reading the Book of Enoch! Easy the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 were not supernatural angels they were men. Much has been written about who these "sons of God" were but given that we see no other examples of angels taking human form apart from doing God's business and we don't see any demons in the Bible doing it either I don't think it's plausible to think that that angles married women. Nice try though. .

Furthermore note that it says 'SONS of God' and I already mentioned the Christian heaven is not for FEMALES! It is for men only, any woman deemed worthy enough will be turned into a SON OF GOD. Never ever a daughter of God! Note it doesn't say 'The Daughters of God' saw the sons of men were beautiful. (http://www.acommonword.net/2011/01/does-christian-heaven-have-place-for.html) < Article entitled "Does the Christian Heaven Have A Place For Women"?

And I completely disagreed with him. http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/01/facepalm-of-day-52-islam-and.html

Mark 12 and Luke 20 basically have the same story as the one above.

Remember in the Bible resurrected beings enjoy all kinds of sensual pleasure!

"And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have you here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:41-43) Apparently Jesus was able to eat some tasty tidbits as the 'firstborn' of the resurrection.

Eating fish and honeycomb is not the same thing as having sex. Of course we will be able to eat in heaven. Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree to that.

We also have this curious vision.

"On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine--the best of meats and the finest of wines." (Isaiah 25:6)

So move over Augustine looks like fine dining and great wine will be on the menu in heaven but no sex!

And what is so unbelievable about that? You can sin using food just as well as you can via sex. Sex isn't a sin.. Squandering sex is a sin - abusing the gifts God gave us.

Now even though the passages in Matthew 22, Mark 12 and Luke 20 do not explicitly say there is no sex in heaven some Christians reason that only by way of analogical deduction. They don't stop and ponder that maybe the whole idea of marriage (with it's laws and ordinances) will no longer be a necessity in heaven.

Why does thegrandverbalizer think that sex will be a necessity in heaven? Near as we can tell, no one will be born and no one will ever die.

Another passage that Christians especially those who have an Augustine slant could use is the following:

"Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." (Revelation 14:1)

"No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins (parthenos). They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-5)

Now this text is probably the strongest AGAINST the idea of having sex in heaven. Because if the translation is rendered correct these men remained VIRGINS and they did not DEFILE themselves with women (outside of marriage or INSIDE of marriage). Now think about that for a moment especially if your a woman! Also it's quite sad that not a single woman out of all of Earth's women will be singled out to be among the privileged 144,000 that get to learn this special song!

Only if you are Jehovah's Witness would you even consider such an argument as strong.

I guess there will be no sex in heaven after all, in fact it's kind of hard for that to happen when THERE ARE ONLY MEN IN HEAVEN.. (http://www.acommonword.net/2011/01/does-christian-heaven-have-place-for.html)....unless...wait... I better not go there!

Good news is thegrandverbalizer is wrong. http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/01/facepalm-of-day-52-islam-and.html

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Sex, Sensuality in the Christian Heaven.

Baratunde: Michelle Bachmann is running for president on a pro-slavery, anti-porn platform? | The Angry Black Woman

I have seen four blog posts today criticizing Michelle Bachmann for signing a document called "THE MARRIAGE VOW: A Declaration of Dependence Upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY." It's a vow that political candidates for public office are being asked to sign to show that they are against pornography and the move to change the definition of "marriage" to describe anything other than a man and a woman. The thing that seems to have upset many people is the following:

Of course this new-found little-talked-about Black history tidbit is noted in a social-conservative pledge known as “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family”. You know, some form of Christian conservative gibberish like the following:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President. (source)

I have read the document and I do not think it is pro-Slavery! I know however it's historically and culturally inaccurate. I think it is what is making people upset is that it appears to be saying that single-mothers are a modern thing and during slavery all black children had both parents. Anyone who knows history knows that in America slaves sometimes couldn't marry. Sometimes marriages were arranged despite what the man and/or women wanted. Sometimes families were split up - husbands, wives, and children sold away from one another like cattle. My own family experienced such horrors. Way to make a stable family. I understood the document as trying to say that there were more intact families in the black community than today. This isn't true. But it is true that across the board all races in the America have failed to maintain their families. In black families we can't place all the blame on slavery but it didn't help in any shape or form. I don't look at the document as saying things were better for black children during slavery. I think that they are trying to say that as bad as things were for us that things, they are worse because we have so many children growing up without both parents for no good reason - mostly because men will not be responsible for their children. I say that because my father broke that trend. I am taking care of my children, sticking to my wife, just as my father does. We can do better. We must do better. I think that the pledge is racist. Family problems in other races are not really singled out. Just the black community. As if they wanted to say "See, electing a black man didn't help you." Being a bad parent has nothing to do with race but the condition of your heart. The things that the pledge asks people to do to protect marriage are good ideas. I just which they had added to "check out your history before you speak about stuff you don't know anything about."

Baratunde: Michelle Bachmann is running for president on a pro-slavery, anti-porn platform? | The Angry Black Woman

Thursday, July 7, 2011

My Common Sense is Tingling: Marriage Equals… | The Angry Black Woman

I saw the above image with the following comments:

Every time I hear about how marriage has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman I want to go through the Bible and bring all this up. The infographic is very helpful.
Next I need a list of all the different kinds of marriages throughout history. Because not only have we had polygamous marriage for forever, but it hasn’t always been one man and several wives. Plus, there’s that whole penchant Egyptians had for marrying siblings (there is evidence that this wasn’t just a practice of the royals, either).
But for those who only believe in what the Bible tells them, this is the best weapon.

I do believe what the Bible says about marriage. Does the Bible tells us that Levirate marriages, concubines, polygamy are prescribed as commandments or condoned? No, the Bible merely tells us that they happened and we have no evidence that God was happy about it. As a matter of fact the times at which God actively and miraculously matched men and women together (Adam/Eve and Isaac/Rebbecca. are examples) were single, male/female relationships. Other marriages being discussed were the choices of people. God didn't tell them to do that.Also in a Levirate marriage the woman who married her dead husband's closest living male relative it was a real marriage and she was supposed to be a full wife. Their children were to carry on the lineage of the dead husband and provide the woman the protection that a widow looses in that culture.

Now it gets interesting. ~~Because the Bible does mandate that if a man rapes a virgin he has to marry her.~~ The Bible does not mandate that a woman must marry her rapist. The Bible also talks about how to marry a woman who has been captured in war. It seems crazy to our modern sensibilities. I mean why would a woman want to marry her rapist? We are repulsed by the idea because today women have options. In Ancient times, they had no options. A woman who had been raped would not have the protection of a husband. It was better for her in that time to be in a marriage where she could not be divorced. God gave them this command for the woman's protection. If one carefully studies the Hebrew you can see when it's talking about when a woman is being forced or when a woman is choosing to have sex. Both cases are discussed.

As for two of the relationships given in the chart, there are misstatements..

Genesis 16 is about Hagar being Sarah's slave and becoming Abraham's concubine. The chart says that a wife's property becomes that of her husband's. I should hope so! And vice versa! By this time, Sarah and Abraham had been married for years! Being barren, Sarah thought she could help God out because they had been promised children. Sarah knew legally, the child Hagar would bear by Abraham would be his and Sarah's. That was the practice of the time and no where does God say "Good idea! All those who follow me should do the same thing!!!"

As for Exodus 21:4, the whole law is not given:

² “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. ³ If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. ⁴ If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
⁵ “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ ⁶ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.- Exodus 21:4-6

The law is not about mating slaves together like cattle. Thank America for that, not God. Instead the scripture it talking about giving permission to a slaves to marry.

So why did God allow people to mess up marriage so bad, if monogamous, male-to-female marriages are better for us and His will? Jesus answered this for us:

⁷ “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” ⁸ Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Does anyone really think that these other aberrations of what marriage should be is any different than the evil of divorce, made necessary by our sins? I don't. Why should we go and further mess up what marriage has become? Why make it worse? We should just go back to what God has called "Good", not to "I'll let you slide until I decide to judge you in hell".

Marriage Equals… | The Angry Black Woman

FacePalm of the Day #100 - Debunking Christianity: The Implications of Evolution are Enormous

John Loftus posted a short paragraph that never ceases to amaze me

I've previously quoted from Jerry Coyne where he tells us evolution is a fact. Here are a few of the implications: The God-hypothesis for the creation of human beings is unnecessary at best; the Adam & Eve story is a myth; human beings are not special nor even the highest creation; when we die we cease to exist just like every other species does. There are many others. Religion itself becomes an unnecessary hypothesis.

It seems that it doesn't matter what anyone says, he doesn't listen. Think about it. He protests too much. Micro Evolution is a fact. Small incremental changes caused by environment and mutation from within a species is indeed a fact. However, those changes explaining how a whale and a horse can have common ancestor as a land dwelling mammal....not so much.

Debunking Christianity: The Implications of Evolution are Enormous

“Being here in America doesn’t make you an American…” | The Angry Black Woman

“Well, I am one who doesn’t believe in deluding myself. I’m not going to sit at your table and watch you eat, with nothing on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn’t make you a diner, unless you eat some of what’s on that plate. Being here in America doesn’t make you an American. Being born here in America doesn’t make you an American. Why, if birth made you American, you wouldn’t need any legislation; you wouldn’t need any amendments to the Constitution; you wouldn’t be faced with civil-rights filibustering in Washington, D.C., right now. They don’t have to pass civil-rights legislation to make a Polack an American. No, I’m not an American. I’m one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy. So, I’m not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver — no, not I. I’m speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don’t see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.”

- Malcolm X

“Being here in America doesn’t make you an American…” | The Angry Black Woman

Generation Text: Teens and Their Texting Habits [Infographic]

Answering Muslims: Female MPs Get into Cat Fight on Floor of Afghan Parliament

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

FacePalm of the Day - #99 - Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall: Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch is Unfounded

Several weeks ago, John Loftus recently posted the following quote from Harry McCall. McCall makes quite a few claims. It doesn't hold up.

The belief that either Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that it predates the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy – II Kings) is unfounded by the Biblical facts themselves:

I'm going to grant that Deuteronomistic History as a fact because most scholars seem to agree to it even though I'm not completely sold on it. Instead let's look at McCall's claims that Moses did not write Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, or Numbers.

(Yet it is clear that Jesus thought Moses gave Israel the Law: “Did not Moses give you the Law,…” John 7: 19). Thus, if the modern critical view of the Bible is correct, then Jesus himself is subject to error.)

I'm glad that McCall is willing to grant the John 7:19 accurately recounts Jesus' words. It's nice to have a point of agreement to start with. I don't agree with the modern view but this post is about McCalls' alleged contradiction which he says show that Moses did not write those first books of the New Testament.

Point A: Why do latter books of the Bible totally ignore early Mosaic Laws - such as when Elijah is commanded by God to eat what unclean ravens brought (1 Kings 17:6) - especially when the Law clearly forbids eating that which has been torn by beasts?

The latter books of the Bible do not ignore the Mosaic Laws. Now a few important points:

1. Who said that the ravens brought Elijah brought meat that had been torn by beasts?

2. Does McCall really think that no one else has thought of this question?

3. There is a long tradition offering alternatives other that what McCall suggests. For Example.

1. "You shall be holy men to Me, therefore you shall not eat any flesh torn to pieces in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs." Exodus 22: 31

2. "Also the fat of an animal which dies and the fat of an animal torn by beasts may be put to any other use, but you must certainly not eat it." Lev. 7: 24

3. "He shall not eat an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, becoming unclean by it; I am the LORD." Lev 22: 8)

These three examples actually misrepresents what the Bible says.

1. Doesn't conflict with the raven because the Bible does not say that the meat came from torn animals.

2. Fat and Meat are not necessarily the same thing. The Hebrew words used for "flesh" in Exodus 22:31 and "fat" in Lev 7:24; 22:8 are not the same words at all. Again, it doesn't conflict with ravens bringing Elijah food wither.

3. Leviticus 22:8 is in context of the Levitcal priesthood. Which would have applied to Elijah. But not in context with the raven because of the aforementioned reasons.

Some more Biblcial[sic] proofs of the LATE creation of the “Mosaic Law” (Pentateuch) is listed below:

Let's see if McCall's arguments improve.

Point B: Why did Samuel hesitate to anoint a king over Israel (1 Samuel 8) when Samuel already had Deuteronomy 17: 15?

No improvement here. We just agreed that Deuteronomy may not have been written by Moses. I'll save that for another post. The passage is clear for why Samuel did not think there should be a king.

Point C: Why did Elijah build an altar to Yahweh away from the legitimate central sanctuary?

Where does the Torah say that it's wrong to build an altar away from the central sanctuary. A reference would have been nice. At the time the Torah came down there was only the Tabernacle and no Temple. There is a tradition that was certainly around in Jesus' time that Jerusalem was the only legitimate place to worship God, but Jerusalem did not come under Jewish control until David's time and we know they were worshiping Yahweh way before that. And Jesus shot down this idea in John 4.

Point D: Why can Hezekiah quote no “Mosaic Law” for his reform, whereas Josiah does (2 Chronicles 31 to 2 Kings 23)?

Who said Hezekiah couldn't? Hezekiah's reforms were in line with the Mosaic Law, just because the passages does not quote the Law doesn't mean they didn't have it.Also keep in mind that a lost book was found in the temple during Josiah reign. If the Law had not been written down, what were they reading? See

⁸ Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. ⁹ Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: “Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple.” ¹⁰ Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.
¹¹ When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. ¹² He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: ¹³ “Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.” - 2 Kings 22:8-13

Point E: Why does Deuteronomy permit Levites to come to the altar where as Leviticus does not? Link.

Again, after McCall says he's dealing with the books before Deuteronomy, he brings up another conflict between Deuteronomy and Leviticus. So again his further arguments deteriorate.

Harry McCall even further posted the following anecdote.

Twenty-three years ago (while I was president of our humanistic discussion group here in Greenville The Lion‘s Den) I debated a young ministerial student over the truth of the Bible (one of a number of debates I did back in the 80’s). This nice young ministerial student published very well written a monthly apologetic newspaper he entitled: The Bible Trumpet.

With regard to our debate, he asked me if his wife could help in defending his conservative position on Biblical truth... one point being that Moses wrote Pentateuch. I told him I would welcome her input, however the debate did not fare well for them and they left disappointed.

A year later, he excitedly told me that he was going to attend an Apologetic Bible conference where the famed Late Gleason Archer, PhD; ThD; the renowned conservative Old Testament scholar and the editor of “The International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” along with the conservative Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser would be leading a major conference on the defense of the Bible.

Dr. Archer's topic was: What Proof Do We have That Moses Wrote the
Pentateuch?

Dr. Walter Kaiser’s topic was: The J E D P Documentary Hypothesis Exploded

(I still have the audio tape somewhere in my library.)

After both apologetic lectures, Drs. Archer and Kaiser would then debate several Moslem scholars in order to exposed the Qu’ran as a false historical record (A debate I thought was like the pot calling the kettle black!).

My young friend told me he had been in touch with Dr. Archer who challenged him to have me write down any facts which I felt proved Moses did not write the Pentateuch. My friend said he would personally give them to Dr. Archer at the conference and claimed that Dr. Archer “…would put me in my place”.

My young ministerial friend told me that he was very excited about Dr. Archer’s challenge to me and he could not wait to give me my irrefutable apologetic proofs that Moses did write the Pentateuch. So I wrote down five hard facts which I felt proved Moses did, in fact, not write the Pentateuch.

A week later my ministerial friend returned, but seemed very disappointed. After all, he had used his short vacation time off from his night job (as he was a full time college Bible student during the day), plus he paid all his expenses to and at the conference with his credit card.

When I asked him what irrefutable evidence Dr. Archer provided so as to prove my facts wrong, he told me he didn’t know what had happened.

He said he gave Dr. Archer my questions, who studied them for a short time, then Archer threw them on the conference table and exclaimed: “Whose this nut?” before walking off.

That’s right! Yours truly has been declared an official declared a “nut” by the editor / author of The International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (sounds a lot like JP Holding).

However, I had the last laugh since (the funny thing is) it only took a “nut” to stump the great Gleason Archer!

I found this anecdote extremely sad. McCall seems to be willing to think that Dr Archer calling him a "nut" and not even dignifying his silly ideas with a rebuttal is the same as not being able to offer counter arguments. Further it's interesting how atheists are more than willing to see Richard Dawkins' dismissal of Christians as a "win" but think that if a Christian scholar does the same of arguments that they think are not worth their time equates to the Christian "loosing". Why would McCall think that Archer was stumped. I think Archer just didn't want to waste his time. I mean he couldn't just let McCall think he had worthy arguments.I mean that is what Dawkins says. Total fail here.

Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall: Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch is Unfounded

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Faithful Thinkers: Audio: Major Creation/Evolution Models

Here is a very interesting interview of Dr. Hugh Ross. He discusses how the Reason to Believe group finds its scientific models. I like Dr Ross a great deal because of his attitude towards the Bible and the fact that he is tolerant of other people, especially other Christians, who disagree with him. I like how he is willing to see that the Bible does contain science but we can't assume that there is more than there really is in the Bible than God ever intended us to think.

Faithful Thinkers: Audio: Major Creation/Evolution Models

Kinect Powered Quadrotor -- Nugget From The Net - G4tv.com

Kinect sensor as shown at the 2010 Electronic ...

Image via WikipediaNo, Microsoft Kinect is not just a toy.

Kinect Powered Quadrotor -- Nugget From The Net - G4tv.com

Facepalm of the Day #99 - Debunking Christianity: Only Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan Can Set the Record Straight

Gee, I guess Dr Matthew Flannagan and Dr Paul Copan really got under John Loftus' skin. I'm not going to comment on every single red herring and mistake Loftus and Dr Avalos have made, I'll leave that to Dr Copan and Dr Flannagan if they'd like. I doubt it'll make a difference, Loftus and Avalos have already made up their minds and don't really want discussion and understanding. There are several points that I think need to be pointed out.

I get comments and emails from skeptics who think Christian apologists do not really believe what they defend. They think the case is so bad that apologists must be lying for ulterior motives, that they are liars for Jesus. Here is a case in point for two apologists, Paul Copan, President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and Matthew Flannagan. I'm not accusing these two apologists of lying for Jesus. But it sure makes it appear that way when they won't or can't answer some simple questions both Hector Avalos and I have posed to them.

Notice in this above paragraph, Loftus claims not to be calling either Copan or Flannagan liars. However, I have never seen anyone prove that Christianity has no merits worthy of believing it. Loftus and others are overstating the case.

Here is the post Dr. Avalos wrote, Underhanded Biblical Interpretation: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 in Context, where he asked his simple questions:

QUESTIONS FOR DR. COPAN
In case Dr. Copan wishes to respond, here are a few questions for him:

A. Why did you ignore the evidence of the Septuagint in your attempt to understand the meaning of Deut. 25:11-12?
B. Can you show us another clear instance where QATSATS + KAPH means “shaving pubic hair”?
C. Do you regard uniqueness of law as a reason to interpret it non-literally?
D.Where else do you find the expression "your eye shall not have pity" when someone endures punitive shaving?
E. Would you accept non-literal interpretations of the Near Eastern texts you regard as more brutal than the Bible?

Matthew Flannagan entered the fray right here, upon which Hector asked him:

But to be clear: Do you believe Westbrook takes Lev. 24:17-22 literally?

Yes or No?

Please do give us a Yes or No, even if you wish to elaborate later. It will make our discussion more efficient.

In the comments section Flannagan has a useful idiot named BenYachov who helps the cover-up by diverting attention away from Flannagan answering such a simple question.

What does BenYachov being an idiot have anything to do with if he's right or not? Further, the only proof Loftus gives for BenYachov being an idiot is the Loftus disagrees with him. If anything that is a point in BeYachov's favor. Also I see no reason for assuming anything negative on Flannagan or BenYachov's parts. Sad. It's like Loftus didn't understand anything Flannagan or Copan has written. There is nothing wrong with asking for clarification or for more information but don't ignore what has already been said without response.

No wonder many skeptics think apologists lie for Jesus in defense of their faith. Do they? Only Copan and Flannagan can set the record straight.

I thought that there was no accusation of Copan or Flannagan being liars? Well, may be suggesting it isn't the same as merely asserting it?

---------------

In my case, Matthew Flannagan wrote a comment saying: "As to the OTF you'll see I have pointed out that argument is incoherent." I don't take kindly to such hand waving and I certainly don't want him going around claiming such a thing elsewhere, so I challenged him about his understanding of the OTF, and asked him five sets of questions:

I personally don't have a problem with the OTF. I think God gave us a gift with it. Unfortunately, Loftus is unable to correctly apply it because he doesn't know what Christians believe. Everytime I see a posting in which he attempts to apply it he never correctly evaluates what Christianity claims.

1) Do you or do you not assume other religions shoulder the burden of proof? When you examine Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Hinduism, Scientology, Mormonism, Shintoism, Jainism, Haitian Voodoo, the John Frum Cargo Cult, Satanism, or the many African or Chinese tribal religions, do you think approaching them with faith is the way to test these religions, or would you agree with the OTF that a much fairer method is by assuming they all have the burden of proof, including your own?

This is all a well and good question, but Loftus doesn't know what faith is. I'm not sure how he can evaluate what he does not understand.

2) Do you or do you not think that a consistent standard invoking fairness is the best way to objectively come to know the correct religious faith, if there is one? If not, why the double standard?

3) Do you or do you not think that if Christianity is true it should be detectably known and supported by the sciences to the exclusion of other false religious faiths?

4) Do you or do you not admit that if you reject the OTF then your God did not make Christianity such that it would lead reasonable people who were born as outsiders to come to believe it, and as such, will be condemned to hell by virtue of where they were born? If not, and if outsiders can reasonably come to believe, then why is it that you think the OTF is incoherent?

5) Do you or do you not have a better method for us to reasonably settle which religious faith is true, if there is one? If so, what is it?

Do you know what his response has been?

*crickets chirping*

The OTF is not a problem. I think it's a good idea. I just doubt Loftus' ability to look past his own blinding presuppositions to accurately apply it. The one thing that is missing is a test for revelation.

If Flannagan ever does any more of this hand waving about the OTF and he has not answered my questions, then he is indeed a liar for Jesus!

Yes, indeed let us contemplate what handwaving looks like. Loftus throws out personal insults and suggest mental defficiency and hope no one realizes that he has no idea what Christians believe or what the Bible teaches about salvation, the nature of God, or what saving faith is. That's Lofus' M.O. Too late. We see it. Notice Loftus writes that if Flannagan does not answer his questions (he doesn't like his answers) that Flannagan is a liar. But I thought that he wasn't calling either Flannagan nor Copan a liar? Oh, they aren't liars as long as they do what Loftus thinks they should do. I see.

Please help us guys, show them you don't lie for Jesus. You don't, do you?

Another accusation. I don't fault Loftus. I mean without Jesus, it's all he has.

Debunking Christianity: Only Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan Can Set the Record Straight

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Friday, July 8, 2011

Related articles

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Related articles

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Related articles

Related articles