Ehrman's Problem: A Critique by Clay Jones - Apologetics 315
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Ehrman's Problem: A Critique by Clay Jones - Apologetics 315
Ehrman's Problem: A Critique by Clay Jones - Apologetics 315
Stan Lee Talks 'With Great Power: The Stan Lee Story' | Video | MTV
 |
| Image via Wikipedia |
Get More: MTV Shows
Get More: MTV Shows
Get More: MTV Shows
Stan Lee Talks 'With Great Power: The Stan Lee Story' | Video | MTV
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Answering Muslims: Does the Qur'an Claim That the Bible Has Been Corrupted?
Answering Muslims: Does the Qur'an Claim That the Bible Has Been Corrupted?
Who Cares About Romney's Money? What Matters Is How He'd Tax It - News - GOOD
Who Cares About Romney's Money? What Matters Is How He'd Tax It - News - GOOD
With Udacity, Former Stanford Professor Goes All-In on Online Learning - Education - GOOD
With Udacity, Former Stanford Professor Goes All-In on Online Learning - Education - GOOD
Michael Licona vs Shane Puckett Debate: Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? - Apologetics 315
Michael Licona vs Shane Puckett Debate: Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? - Apologetics 315
Monday, January 23, 2012
Faithful Thinkers: Zombies of Christianity - Updated
Luke Nix has posted a great article about how silly people claim that zombies are in the Bible. Real silly. You can read it at the following link. It's obvious that when people bring up the term as a perjorative - mocking the Bible.
I made a huge blunder. The post is about how Christians in churches are like Zombies
Zombies remind me of people who simply like to just offer opinions, but without backing them up or defending their positions.
Faithful Thinkers: Zombies of Christianity
Wikipedia's Blackout [infographic]
What were some of the results of the Wikipedia blackout last week?
Wikipedia's Blackout [infographic]
Wikipedia's Blackout [infographic]
Sunday, January 22, 2012
The Importance of Defending our Freedom to Share
pics on Sodahead Here is another viewpoint on why we can't let laws like SOPA get passed.
The Importance of Defending our Freedom to Share
“Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think” - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com
It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most (whatever that means) scientists are atheists. They then boast that scientific findings lend weight to atheism (whatever that means).Read the rest of it at the following link.
They appear to be un-skeptical (as is usual) that atheists would come to atheistic conclusions. They are (for some reason) convinced that these atheist scientists are unbiased and strictly truth seekers.
“Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think” - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Debunking Christianity: Oprah Winfrey's Half-Sister and The Odds of The Resurrection of Jesus
There are a lot of things that happen to people that go against the overwhelming odds. Let's take the example of Oprah Winfrey's revelation in November 2010 that she has a half-sister named Patricia who was adopted out by her mother shortly after being born. What are the odds of someone discovering late in life that she has a half-sister? I don't know, but surely it's extremely rare. It wasn't a miracle, that's for sure. Things like that do occur from time to time. By contrast, if Jesus arose from the grave then such a thing was a miracle, and as such has even less of a chance of happening than a sister discovering she had a half-sister, by far!
Right out of the gate: What is a miracle? A miracle is not just an improbability. A miracle is not just a rare occurrence. A miracle by definition must contain some impossibility and carry with it the knowledge that it wasn't brought about human interaction or contrivance. I agree that discovering a half-sibling later in life is rare but not miraculous. I would also agree that Jesus' Resurrection is a miracle
Incredibly rare events within the realm of the natural world take place all of the time, like people getting stuck by lightning, winning the lottery, finding a bottle with a note in it that washes up on a beach, or living through a disaster that should have killed them. Yes, these things are all extremely rare, but they happen, all of the time.
How can something be "extremely rare" and yet simultaneously "happen all the time"? Definitely a stumble here at a logical paradox. I think also what's missing here is forgetting that God is involved in each of these occurrences. And I'm not sure how living through a disaster despite all logic that says death was imminent would not be a "miracle".
In a like manner, a natural explanation for the resurrection should almost always be preferred over any claim that Jesus arose from the dead, so long as it has a minimal degree of plausibility (i.e., aliens did not do it). It's the rational thing to conclude. Even if we cannot produce a natural explanation of what actually happened from the so-called evidence, it's still far more reasonable to say we don't think Jesus arose from the dead. Why? Because incredible things happen all of the time.
So any alternate explanation for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ should be preferred as long as it's plausible to someone - doesn't matter if it's true or not. From a stumble to trip. And the first faceplant comes at the assertion that the explanation does not need to be supported by evidence because incredible things happen a lot. Couple of problems here.
1. Something is incredible because it's outside of normal experience and
2. By definition incredible means it doesn't happen all the time - if it did then it would be "credible".
In what follows I'll offer a very brief natural explanation of the claim that Jesus resurrected. Compare it with the claim he physically arose from the dead. You cannot say my natural explanation lacks plausibility because I already admit that it does.
So by his own admission, Loftus' natural explanation is worthless.
As I said, incredible things happen all of the time. What you need to say is that my natural explanation is MORE implausible than the claim that Jesus physically arose from the dead, and you simply cannot do that.
My natural explanation is that the early disciples were visionaries, that is, they believed God was speaking to them in dreams, trances, and thoughts that burst into their heads throughout the day.
No place can you find that in scripture before the Crucifixion among the Apostles. Toe stub while trying to get up.
Having their hopes utterly dashed upon the crucifixion of Jesus they began having visions that Jesus arose from the dead. They began preaching this to people who subsequently had these same kinds of visions.
The problem is that no one began preaching until after the tomb was found empty - and the whole city of Jerusalem knew the tomb was empty. And until the Apostles saw Jesus, they didn't default to belief in the Resurrection.
In these visions they thought Jesus was speaking to them, so they began preaching what they learned from him (Acts 2:17-21; I Cor. 14; 2 Cor. 12:1-10).
So they all had the same visions and heard the same messages? I don't think so. Bad conjecture - another trip.
The most obvious of these revelations was Paul's claim that he learned the Gospel and the Lord's Supper directly from Jesus himself, not from men (Galatians 1:11-12; I Cor. 11:23). The author of Revelation wrote down seven dictated letters from Jesus as the result of his vision (Rev. 2-3).
They "saw" Jesus. They preached what he "revealed" to them. There was no objective evidence for any of this, so there is no reason why we should take their word on it. After all, these visions were subjective experiences.
I don't think there is any such thing as objective evidence that Loftus would accept given that he wants to throw out and disregard eye witness testimony.
With this as a basis for their faith anything can be believed and taught with the authority of Jesus speaking from heaven. All one needs to do is compare this phenomena with the rise of Mormonism.
The origins of Mormonism is quite different. If Loftus wants to make such a comparison as to how Joseph Smith's testimony came about and was transmitted with the Bible, he should be prepared to produce the Golden Plates and the seer stones because the Bible has plenty of historical and manuscript evidence backing it up. FacePlant number 2.
It can also be believed that there was an empty tomb on the basis of a vision from someone who is thought to receive this revelation from Jesus himself. We call these people "liars for Jesus," and we know plenty of them who have claimed they found Noah's Ark.
Either the tomb was empty or it wasn't. Vision? Really?? Does he really want to go there - calling the first 3000+ Christians Liars? People who would know if the tomb was empty or not because they were in Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified and buried? What would they have gained by lying? They weren't making money. They were beaten, jailed, and executed. Oh yeah, I'd lie to get that. More and and more fail. FacePlant number 3.
My natural explanation doesn't require a conspiracy, or that Jesus didn't die on the cross. All it requires is one liar for Jesus, and I think this liar is the author of Mark, the first gospel. He invented the empty tomb sequence. That's it. The rest is history among superstitious people who were wanting to have hard evidence for their claim and would believe Mark's Gospel based upon the visions of a visionary. Just think of Joseph Smith who started the Mormon church. It's the same claim.
No it's not the same claim. Joseph Smith built a theology based on himself. The Apostles pointed to Jesus Christ and said that Jesus has all the answers and didn't leave a book that has so many historical errors and lies like Joseph Smith did. Try again, Mr Loftus.
Stranger things have happened.
Name one.
But a miracle is simply more incredible than my natural explanation, by far. Therefore no reasonable person should believe Jesus arose from the dead. Just as it was utterly incredible but non-miraculous that Oprah would discover she had a half-sister, so also there is no reason to punt to a miracle when it comes to the early church claim that Jesus physically arose from the grave.
Another faceplant. Who said that visions are more plausible than the physical Resurrection? It's not because visions don't reconcile all the facts that we do know. Let's be honest. Lying for the Devil is just as bad as lying for Jesus and Jesus will hold people account for both.
And if my natural explanation doesn't work there are a number of them, any one of which has more probability to it than that Jesus physically arose from the dead.
Good thing for unbelievers there are other explanations because punting to visions and accusing the first Christians of being liars is pretty silly. Other have indeed tried to do better than that. All have failed.
Debunking Christianity: Oprah Winfrey's Half-Sister and The Odds of The Resurrection of Jesus
Some Humorous Takes on S.O.P.A.
S.O.P.A. and Youtube: What is Going to Happen [Comic]
The Effect of the Anti-SOPA Internet Blackout [Pic]
And a must see video. Yet another thing to disagree with Bill Mahr About.
Bill Maher seems to think that just because his crappy religious hit piece "Religulous" was pirated, that Washington D.C. should control the internet totally with the SOPA bill. He refers to people downloading copyrighted materials as people who "just want free shit". Mr. Maher perhaps there are some of us out there who would rather download something to see if its worth buying, instead of spending our hard earned money and being disappointed.
NOTICE: Fair Use Copyright Law
This video may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues etc. We know that our use of any such copyrighted material constitutes a 'fair use' as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this video is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
THEOparadox - The Biblical Paradox Blog: Cornelius Van Til - "Why I Believe In God"
 |
| Image via Wikipedia |
THEOparadox - The Biblical Paradox Blog: Cornelius Van Til - "Why I Believe In God"
Answering Muslims: Victim of Attempted "Honor" Killing Speaks Out
You should really, really watch this.
Answering Muslims: Victim of Attempted "Honor" Killing Speaks Out
Answering Muslims: Victim of Attempted "Honor" Killing Speaks Out
Friday, January 20, 2012
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Disagree?
Why is it Christians cannot agree to the point where they have condemned each other to hell and/or slaughtered each other because of doctrinal differences that other Christians don't think are essential for salvation? My answer is that Christianity is man made, and as such, doctrinal differences are due to different human ways of understanding the Bible. There is no divine mind behind the Bible, otherwise God should have communicated his will much better than he supposedly did. That's the major reason why there is no doctrinal Christian unity. These different doctrinal understandings continue to be used by denominational leaders to differentiate between Christianities for financial gain and power. Christian, what's your answer?
A truly facepalm inducing paragraph causing groans to match. I'm amazed at this. Apparently to John Loftus, anyone who claims to be a "Christian" is just as "Christian" as anyone else, no matter what they believes. In order to even begin such a silly argument, this presupposition must be in it's centerpiece. Along with the the thought that all denominations of Christianity are so different that we can't even begin to live peaceably. Another false canard. I'm not saying that there haven't been wars fought and mistakes made - but these were human mistakes not God's. Also I am not saying that there aren't important differences, but none are important enough to kill another over. The reason why we have so many problems because we have refused to obey the word of God. On nonessential issues this what the Bible says:
1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”
12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.
19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. - Romans 14
Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Disagree?
Open Marriages Aren't Wrong? –Newt Gingrich Is - News - GOOD
 |
| Image by Getty Images via @daylife |
Open Marriages Aren't Wrong–Newt Gingrich Is - News - GOOD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)