Can We Judge the Morality of God?: A Response to Roger Olson
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Can We Judge the Morality of God?: A Response to Roger Olson
Can We Judge the Morality of God?: A Response to Roger Olson
FacePalm of the Day: Debunking Christianity - The Power of the Delusion is So Strong We Cannot Ordinarily Reason Believers Out of Their Faith
John Loftus is always good for writing something that is always such an example Facepalm-inducing failure.
David Eller makes the point in chapter one of The Christian Delusion that we cannot ordinarily reason believers out of their faith because they were never reasoned into it in the first place. I share his conclusion. I cannot reason with people who have faith because faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities.
And just where does Loftus get the definition that faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities? What probabilities are he referring to?
I must show believers that their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, and that’s an utterly unreasonable standard. That’s the power of the delusion.
So...let's get this straight: He can't prove that Christianity is true only that it probably isn't true according to the standard he has in his mind. He is frustrated because believers won't stop believing if he can't prove that Christianity is impossible when he can't even truly prove that it is improbable. And he thinks we are the ones who are deluded.
I can dialogue with believers even with such a conclusion. This particular post is part of that dialogue. It is meant to shock believers out of their dogmatic slumbers. If they hear this enough times from former believers like me then it may sink in to a few of them. Therefore I must state my conclusion from time to time. The rest is education. I am an educator. So that’s what I do regardless of whether believers are listening in or not. I hope they do though.
Listen to what? I've been watching John Loftus' blogs for a couple of years now and I have yet to see anything that remotely proved that Christianity is improbable, let alone impossible. And as for a dialogue, he and many other atheists really only want monologue not dialogue.
In most cases it takes some kind of personal crisis for believers to do what they should have been doing all along, critically evaluating their faith as an outsider. When that happens then what I have written will sink in. I’m priming the pump so to speak, and providing believers with the information that will help them when they encounter their crisis.
My experiences and many others that I know have had an opposite experience. Personal crisis leads you to know God better. This is what the book of Job also demonstrates. From what I've heard of Loftus' personal crisis, he had a crisis of faith when refused to accept responsibility for sin when the church he was at tried to hold him accountable for it because he was one of the leaders in that church. Instead of repenting and accepting the correction from his church instead he rejected God's authority over his life by rejecting Him. This is true regarding all apostates.
Original source: http://freethoughtblogs.com/loftus/2012/01/10/the-power-of-the-delusion-is-so-strong-we-cannot-ordinarily-reason-believers-out-of-their-faith/
Monday, January 9, 2012
Quote of the Day: Desposyni: Stephen Colbert on Pain
There's some wisdom here. From a big NYT profile of the TV host:In 1974, when Colbert was 10, his father, a doctor, and his brothers Peter and Paul, the two closest to him in age, died in a plane crash while flying to a prep school in New England. “There’s a common explanation that profound sadness leads to someone’s becoming a comedian, but I’m not sure that’s a proven equation in my case,” he told me. “I’m not bitter about what happened to me as a child, and my mother was instrumental in keeping me from being so.” He added, in a tone so humble and sincere that his character would never have used it: “She taught me to be grateful for my life regardless of what that entailed, and that’s directly related to the image of Christ on the cross and the example of sacrifice that he gave us. What she taught me is that the deliverance God offers you from pain is not no pain — it’s that the pain is actually a gift. What’s the option? God doesn’t really give you another choice.”
Yup, much Wisdom
Desposyni: Stephen Colbert on Pain
Historical Jesus - Two Centuries Worth of Citations - YouTube
You can read the original article at http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/historical-jesus-two-centuries-worth-
Historical Jesus - Two Centuries Worth of Citations - YouTube
New Testament Scholar Interview: Daniel B. Wallace - Apologetics 315
New Testament Scholar Interview: Daniel B. Wallace - Apologetics 315
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Answering Muslims: Is the Qur'an Miraculous?
A debate between Abdullah Kunde and Samuel Green. December 2011.
Answering Muslims: Is the Qur'an Miraculous?
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Are there Levels of Love?
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. - Matthew 5:43-45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-45&version=NIV)
A lot of people think that this means that you have to be nice to your enemies and not that you have to love them as much as you do your friends. But if you look more closely - say on Crosswalk.com that contains a KJV Strong's Concordance - you find out more about what kind of love Jesus was talking about. (Just click on the hypertexted word in the passage to see what the Strong's entries are.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said , Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. - Matthew 5:43-45If you look at the word "love" as in "love your neighbor" and compare "love" as in "love your enemies" you see that they are coded as the same Strong's number demonstrating that Jesus did not mean to imply different kinds of love for neighbors and enemies. This is significant because Kione Greek is extremely more precise then English. If there was a desire to imply a different kind of love for friends and enemies, there is a Greek word that could have been used rather than "ajgapavw". "Ajgapavw" refers to a deep love that is so "other-centered" that you seek the good of the person who is the recipient of that love - whether or not they deserve it.. That is how God loves us - and in no way do we deserves it. We know that this is what Jesus is referring to because He points out that this is how God loves just and unjust people - the same - to the extent that all enjoy the sun that belongs to Him.
(http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+5:43-45)
This isn't the same as saying that just because God loves everyone that He doesn't treat us differently. God does. "Just" doesn't mean that God has to give me everything He give you and vice versa. This also doesn't mean that God expects a man to love all women the same as he does his wife or that God doesn't do more for His chosen people than he does for those "vessels of dishonor". Therefore there aren't different quantities of love but there is a difference.in quality and the way love is expressed. I'm going to write more about this in the future, but here are some more passages to consider.
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
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.”
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.” 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? 25 As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” - Romans 9:10-25
Friday, January 6, 2012
Say Hello to my Little Friend » Blog Archiv » Episode 045: What if God Were Really Bad?
Here it is, the last podcast episode for 2011. This time I’m looking at “the “evil god challenge” as posed by Stephen Law in a fairly recent article by that name. Isn’t the evidence for a good God really no better or worse than the evidence that an evil god? In short, no. Here I explain why I think (as I suspect many may think) that the evil god challenges has major philosophical shortcomings, in spite of being an argument worthy of our attention.
I wasn't moved by Dr Law's "logic" but it's nice to see a good response to it.
Say Hello to my Little Friend » Blog Archiv » Episode 045: What if God Were Really Bad?
Thursday, January 5, 2012
IVP Bible Background Commentaries
When I listened to Dr Michael Brown interview Dr Craig Keener, one of Keener's books came up. Its a background commentary that gives historical context to the New Testament. I decided to see if I could find a digital version and there is one! It can be integrated with the Olive Tree Software platforms. I use Olive Tree on my Android devices so I was excited.IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, The by Craig Keener... for iPhone, iPad, and Android - Olive Tree Bible Software
As a bonus I found out that there is an Old Testament version! It's available as an e-book!
The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (eBook, Exclusive)
Parting Shot: The Entire Battlestar Galactica Series as a 16-Bit RPG - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Parting Shot: The Entire Battlestar Galactica Series as a 16-Bit RPG - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Norman Geisler - YouTube
Thanks to Mariano Grinbank for pointing out this video where Dr Norman Geisler answers the objections and arguments raised by Dr Bart Ehrman. You can see the for yourself how Dr Geisler would answer him.Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Normon Geisler - YouTube
Sketches | Premier.tv
Sketches | Premier.tv
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Craig Keener Interview on Miracles - Apologetics 315
Craig Keener Interview on Miracles - Apologetics 315
FacePalm of the Day: The Accommodation Theory of the Bible | Debunking Christianity
I was called an “idiot” and a “moron” for arguing that God should’ve told human beings a few things he didn’t do, especially when it comes to the ancient superstitious problem for modern Christians about the evil eye. He said, “If you were this ignorant in the pulpit then I really feel sorry for your former congregation.” Am I an idiot? Let me respond.
Idiot? No. A fool yes. A fool in the Biblical sense is not ignorant or stupid or even an idiot. It's someone who has enough information and revelation to choose to obey God and live right, but refuses to do so.
I had asked, “Why must God accommodate to his creatures?” His one line answer was this: “So that we can understand what he’s saying, you idiot.”
I think Loftus' mistake is thinking that if God doesn't stoop to our level we can even begin to understand Him, let alone recognize Him.
I have read up on the “accommodation theory” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, and a few entries dealing sporadically with it in the Harper’s Bible Dictionary, The New Bible Dictionary, and the Anchor Bible Dictionary. But let’s use what Norman Geisler said, since I think he dealt with the topic the best in his Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. In dealing with Jesus here’s an excerpted part of what he said:
In apologetics, accommodation theory can refer to either of two views, one acceptable and one objectionable to evangelical Christians. It can refer to God’s accommodation of his revelation to our finite circumstances to communicate with us, as in Scripture or the incarnation of Christ.Now that I can at least claim not to be a moron, let me explain the problem, again, this time more forcefully, okay? I understand that if God exists he must adapt if he is to communicate with human beings, okay? I have no problem seeing this. I merely claim that what we see in the Bible goes far beyond mere adaptation. He has allowed us to believe in errors, both scientific and moral, and that’s what I object to in the Bible if I’m supposed to believe it’s God’s word.
Negative critics of the Bible believe that Jesus accommodated himself to the erroneous views of the Jews of his day in their view of Scripture as inspired and infallible.
Legitimate accommodation can be more accurately called “adaptation.” God, because of infinitude, adapts himself to our finite understanding in order to reveal himself. However, the God who is truth never accommodates himself to human error. The vital differences are easily seen when these concepts are compared (click on the image for a better view):
The Bible teaches the transcendence of God. His ways and thoughts are far beyond ours (Isa. 55:9; Rom. 11:33). Human beings are infinitesimal in view of God’s infinity. God must “stoop down” in order to speak to us. However, this divine act of adaptation to our finitude never involves accommodation to our error. For God cannot err (Heb. 6:18). God uses anthropomorphisms (a true expression of who God is that is couched in human terms) to speak to us, but he does not use myths. He sometimes gives us only part of the truth but that partial truth is never error (1 Cor. 13:12). He reveals himself progressively, but never erroneously. He does not always tells us all, but all that he tells us is true.
Accommodation is contrary to Jesus’ life. Everything that is known about Jesus’ life and teaching reveals that he never accommodated to the false teaching of the day. On the contrary, Jesus rebuked those who accepted Jewish teaching that contradicted the Bible, declaring: “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6b).
Accommodation is contrary to Jesus’ character. From a purely human standpoint, Jesus was known as a man of high moral character. His closest friends found him impeccable (1 John 3:3; 4:17; 1 Peter 1:19). The crowds were amazed at his teaching “because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law” (Matt. 7:29).
Whoah there, buddy. I think you have to shoe that God has allowed us to believe in moral and scientific errors. Some scriptures would help in that regard. Just because Isaiah most likely did not know what the mass of an electron is, does not mean that God didn't reveal anything to him, or any of the the Bible writers. I see no moral or scientific errors in the Bible beyond what people like Loftus read into it. God did not see fit to give a map of the solar system in the Bible. So what? He revealed it later through science - which would fall under "Accomodation theory".
What Geisler says about Jesus must apply to God for obvious reasons, and I edited out a large chunk of text that went on and on about how Jesus’ actions and teaching would never allow him to accommodate for error. Point taken…or point to be consistently applied?
Again you have to prove that God accommodated for human error. One of Loftus' and atheists many objections to the Old Testament is the severity to which God punished sin. Don't forget that sin is human error. One cannot have it both ways.
Apologists claim God accommodated to human beings in describing how he created the universe using timeless “phenomenal language.” See the Hebrew Universe diagram . And yet it is crystal clear God could have described the universe differently in order to teach human beings about the vastness and age of the universe.
Who says God had to do things that way. There is no error recorded in the Bible that one can prove. Just because God didn't give us the whole story does not mean that he allowed us to believe lies, anymore than we don't explain everything to a two year-old. They will learn more when they are ready. This is how God deals with all of us.
Apologists will claim that such an ancient cosmological description of our universe was not important for God to correct; since all he wanted to do was to let humans to know that it was HE who created it (others will try fruitlessly to defend it literally).
I'd like to see Loftus prove that the Bible actually teaches the demonstrable errors that he hopes it does. The article he linked to admits that the conclusions are not really found in the Bible itself but instead projects the errors on Istael's neighbors. on Israel. There is book called Cracking the Bible Code by Dr Jefferey Satinover. He points out that ancient Israel was astronomically ahead of their neighbors in respects to how to calculate a lunar month. 29.53059 days - closer to the value we use today through science, better than the number used by all of their ancient neighbors ( pg 82,83)
But when we reflect on the Galileo affair and the irreparable harm it did to the Christian faith once astronomers understood the vastness and age of the universe, one can only shake her head in utter amazement God didn’t foresee that because he didn’t do this it would make many of us doubt the Bible.
The Bible does not say that Galileo was wrong. The Church said that Galileo was wrong because of tradition not exegesis. I wish people would get it straight.
I am an atheist because this very problem started me down the road of doubt. And I wrote a book and I now blog daily against Christianity. Does God really not care about the fact that he didn’t tell human beings the truth about the universe?
So if don't tells a 5 year-old, who is learning to count, about negative numbers the child is being lied to? Really? I don't think so. Loftus must think of himself that God owes him to tell him everything he wants to know when he wants to know it. God does not reveal Himself that way and there is no reason to assume God does not exist because God did not do this the way think we think He should have! Such arrogance.
You see the problem now? What best explains this? If God exists what was so wrong to tell these ancient people about the true age and vastness of the universe, or in giving them the knowledge of penicillin right from the start, or by unambiguously condemning slavery?
By not doing so God has produced many unbelievers who don’t see any true divine revelation in the Bible! I suppose God was also accommodating when he never condemned witch, heretic and honor killings either, eh? Can God justify all of this accommodating? Why must God accommodate to his creatures? Why can’t he simply tell us the truth, especially since we who want to assess the Bible’s accuracy in today’s world doubt that it’s from God because he supposedly did. This God is not too smart for an omniscient being.
In fact, there is nothing in the Bible that could not have been written by a person without divine revelation in that era at all. Everything reflects the age in which it was written. Why is that?”
Bold assertion. Offered without proof. However, let's humor Loftus and answer his question for why God has chosen to move and reveal Himself the ways that He has: HE WANTED TO DO IT THIS WAY.
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.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
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
The Accommodation Theory of the Bible | Debunking Christianity
Racial Comments By Republican Candidates - YouTube
Check this out:
2012 Republican Presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum have made comments leading up to the Iowa Caucus regarding race (the Dream Act, Civil Rights and an assumption regarding welfare respectively). The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur explains.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/01/health/la-pn-mitt-romney-says-he-woul...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688....
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/02/santorum-tells-iowans-i-dont-want-to-ma...
Subscribe to The Young Turks: http://bit.ly/eWuu5i
Find out how to watch The Young Turks on Current by clicking here: http://www.current.com/gettyt
Racial Comments By Republican Candidates - YouTube
Monday, January 2, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)