Supervillain Primary Debate 2012 – G4tv.com

G4TV has recently imagined what it might look like if fictional supervillains were involved in our American political process.

Video Games - E3 2012 - Comedy

Supervillain Primary Debate 2012 Discuss Social Issues in High Definition – G4tv.com

Video Game - E3 2012 - Comedy

Supervillain Primary Debate 2012 Discuss Health Care Reform

Answering Muslims: Islamic Bookstore Sells out of Violently Misogynistic "A Gift for the Muslim Couple"

David Wood posted an article about a book describing how Muslim marriages should run.  He not on;y points out a passage from the Qur'an many Muslims use to tell them that they should beat their wives and wives should allow themselves to be beaten. I realize some people might read this and not follow the link so here is the Qur'anic passage:

Qur'an 4:34—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

The book the article that David writes about attempts to explain how would someone live this out:

Page 45 contains the rights of the husband, which include his wife’s inability to leave “his house without his permission,” and that his wife must “fulfil his desires” and “not allow herself to be untidy ... but should beautify herself for him ... ”

In terms of physical punishment, the book advises that a husband may scold her, “beat by hand or stick,” withhold money from her or “pull (her) by the ears,” but should “refrain from beating her excessively.”

Yup, Marital bliss alright. The truth is that not all Muslims would agree with that. But like David Wood observeed:

I hate to break this to everyone, but if Tarek Fatah rejects what this book says about beating women, he's not a "moderate" Muslim. He's not a Muslim at all, because he accepts Western values as a higher source of morality than the Qur'an.

Answering Muslims: Islamic Bookstore Sells out of Violently Misogynistic "A Gift for the Muslim Couple"

ID.Plus: Insight into Fundamentalist Atheism

Dr Peter S Williams posted the following video on his blog and I agree that it does show one of the ugly sides of fundamentalism: refusal of discussion. Religious people are not the only ones guilty of doing this. It is unfortunate that people can be so busy throwing accusation at people that they don't see their own blindness. I also found it interesting that many the atheist running the so-called "Reason Rally" only want to interact with the caricature of Christianity embodied by the Westboro Baptist Church. It's like they don't want to reason - just pontificate.




ID.Plus: Insight into Fundamentalist Atheism

Common Runner Injuries [infographic] | Daily Infographic

[via]

Common Runner Injuries [infographic] | Daily Infographic

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Why do some Bibles omit portions of Daniel and Esther? Akin Says: Luther

James Swan has posted a really great response to Jimmy Akin who was answering the question of why most Protestant Bibles don't have the longer versions of Daniel and Esther. Swan also explodes the myth that Martin Luther tried to get rid of those parts of Daniel and Esther. This is a great article. The video being responded to is below.





Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Why do some Bibles omit portions of Daniel and Esther? Akin Says: Luther

Internal Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Here is the third part in Dr Timothy McGrew's series of lectures in which he explains some of the evidence we have for accepting the validity of the Gospels. In this lecture, he focuses on "undesigned coincidences". They are times when the one Gospel gives details that another Gospel omits. There are several examples and none of them can be explained by one author copying another. The series just keeps getting better and better. Can't wait for part 4.




Internal Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Doomsday Predictions Debunked [infographic]

Personally, I believe the Bible tells us the right way it will all end.

Doomsday Predictions Debunked [infographic]

External Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Here is a really good lecture that Dr Timothy McGrew gave last month relying on historical evidences from non Christian witnesses and culture and history to show consistently accurate the Biblical Gospels and Acts are. Of course, it does not prove that they are true by themselves but it is good evidence that they are true. If the Bible authors had gotten so many easily checked things wrong, it would be enough to throw them out as true. I'be got to ask why doesn't the fact that they get these things right not evidence that the books are true? It truly is a sad, double-minded, and inconsistent methodology for determining if something is true.



External Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Game Of Thrones: House Stark Gets An Avenger - G4tv.com

One of the few ways Game of Thrones could be improved!!!

Game Of Thrones: House Stark Gets An Avenger - G4tv.com

How Many Devices Can You Replace With An iPad?

[]

No More Shuffling

Kirk Cameron Claims He Loves Everyone, Even If They're Going To Hell

Recently, Kirk Cameron has been heavily condemned for sticking to Biblical Christianity. I was amazed but not surprised about this article. It never fails. The minute you stand on what the Bible says, while speaking English, all of a sudden you are like speaking an entirely different language. For example this article says that Kirk said:

So today Kirk Cameron went on The Today Show to explain what he really meant by what he said. And all he really explained was that he’s still a homophobic asshole who can’t understand why people are mad that he thinks gay people are the worst. 

He never said that. It's like what he said went through a filter and out comes something unrecognizable. I think that some people will hear what a Christian says and then run it through a filter and their minds twist it into something else. For example Kirk is quoted in the article:

“Absolutely not, of course not. I love all people, I hate no one and, you know, when you take a subject and you reduce it to something like a four-second sound bite and a check mark on a ballot, I think that that’s inappropriate and insensitive…Nobody should mistreat anybody—homosexuals should not be mistreated, heterosexuals should not be mistreated, bisexuals should not be mistreated. All of us who really think deeply about social issues like gay marriage and abortion and homosexuality have convictions on issues, and and we all have our convictions formed by different things, and mine are formed by my faith, they’re informed by the word of God, and I found that to be an anchor for me, a compass and a guide for me."

The article's author seems to be fine and understands exactly what was said. But then Cameron is quoted:

“I was surprised, frankly, that people were surprised by the things I said. I have been consistent for 15 years as a Christian. I’m a Bible-believing Christian. What I would have thought was more newsworthy is if I had said something that contradicted the word of God, if I had contradicted my faith.” 

I see nothing wrong with this statement. It is consistent and clear. But the author of the article feels the need to re-contextualize and re-state the comment in their own words. Not surprisingly, it's completely different than what Kirk Cameron said and wrote:

Let’s translate that real fast to non-PR lingo:
“Guys, remember that time God called me and told me being gay was unnatural and sinful and dirty? Yeah that was years ago and I told ya’ll years ago. So I don’t get why you’re all acting surprised that I still think they’re ‘unnatural’ and gross. Wouldn’t it be weirder if I came on this show and said ‘Gays are awesome, rainbow flags for everyone!’ I’m not saying you should like stone them, but I am saying you should stay away so you don’t get dragged to hell with them. Okay?”
So yeah, Kirk Cameron still sucks. It’s a shame, you know? The Seavers seemed like such good parents!

This is completely not what he said. And I think that it should be remembered that as a Christian, Kirk Cameron believes, and as he has stated in the past, that all people are sinners and without Jesus' sacrifice and Resurrection we would all be going to hell no matter if your gay or not.

View the Video

Kirk Cameron Claims He Loves Everyone, Even If They're Going To Hell

One Device to Rule Them All

Gadgets in 2000 vs. Gadgets in 2012 [Pic]

Threat Morphosis: Evolution of the Computer Virus [infographic] | Daily Infographic

Threat Morphosis: Evolution of the Computer Virus [infographic] | Daily Infographic

40 Arabic Words

40 Arabic Words

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Major Reason Why I Am a Skeptic

John Loftus has posted some thought about his interaction with David Marshall and the difference about which they view the world

 David Marshall continually says I must read up on world religions and the history of religions. But why? It's because he thinks it will help me to believe. So David, I'll grant that you have read more world literature than I have and that you have the benefit of world travel. But I think the brain is such that if I had your experiences and read only the works you have, I would agree with you and think like you. Our brains are like that. So in order to think like you I must be more like you (which also includes IQ, gender, race, sexuality, place and time of birth, and so forth--do you know that sociologists can identify different ideas held by people born in America during the 20's vs the 30's vs the 40's vs the 50's and so on?). BUT I AM NOT YOU! Nor can I ever be. The same thing goes in reverse for you. If you had my experiences and read only the works I have, you would agree with me and think like me. That is probably the major reason why I am a skeptic, because of this propensity of ours to believe and defend a host of ideas just because we were exposed to them, which is as obvious of an empirical fact as we can get. It's overwhelming that our respective cultures influence us, since that's what we're talking about. Just take four babies and raise one in China the other in Saudi Arabia the third in Kentucky and the fourth in Russia and you will see clearly how cultures influence us all. And it’s never more pronounced than when it comes to religion. Knowing this I must reject faith based reasoning of any kind. Knowing this I am skeptical of ideas that do not have sufficient evidence for them. Knowing this I try as best as I possibly can to only accept science based reasoning. Science is the only hope out of this epistemological morass. How can you possibly counter this? How can any believer counter this? Believers can only do so out of ignorance, pure ignorance, willful ignorance, a head-in-the-sand type of fear based ignorance.

Loftus admits the following:

So David, I'll grant that you have read more world literature than I have and that you have the benefit of world travel.

But he also asserts:

Believers can only do so out of ignorance, pure ignorance, willful ignorance, a head-in-the-sand type of fear based ignorance.

Rather inconsistent.  Loftus admits that in reference to Marshall, he is ignorant about a lot of things that Marshall is knowledgeable about. Given that Marshall is a Believer, it would mean that many, if not all, of Loftus' assumptions and premises are flawed, leading to his flawed conclusion.

Debunking Christianity: The Major Reason Why I Am a Skeptic

Answering Muslims: More Hypocrisy/Sharia Compliance from the New York Times

David Wood asks and answers a really great question in a recent post: Why is it okay for the New York Times to publish the following ad:

But not okay to publish this one:

David writes:

 Not surprisingly, the New York Times refused to publish the ad (at the moment, anyway), claiming that “the fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”

In other words, the New York Times will run an ad against Catholicism because Catholics won't go on a killing spree. But the Times won't run an ad critical of Islam because Muslims will go on a killing spree.

Answering Muslims: More Hypocrisy/Sharia Compliance from the New York Times

Bill Honsberger - Why not burn witches? - YouTube

Mariano has posted a few great lectures by Bill Honsberger. This one is about Witchcraft and the historical evidence for the charge against Christianity that it is responsible for the execution of 9 million witches. This particular video is full of good information


Bill Honsberger - Why not burn witches? - YouTube

Thinking about Suffering and Death, Part 1 | Reflections

I have seen a really interesting article about Theodicy from Dr Ken Samples. He wrote

People often ask why a good God would allow human beings to suffer. In fact, the problem of pain and suffering (theodicy) is arguably the greatest challenge to the truth of Christian theism. But if suffering is the only way or perhaps the best way to move people toward ultimate truth and virtue, then God’s goodness is compatible with pain and suffering (this is known as the “greater good” response to theodicy).



Obviously, people can still ask why certain folks suffer when they don’t appear to be the direct beneficiary of the good that can come from sorrow. Or people can ask why there is so much suffering in the world. From a Christian apologetics standpoint there is no one response that explains, let alone solves, all of the problems connected to suffering. But the Christian response that God has dealt decisively with the problem of human suffering and evil through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ appears to be a far greater explanation than other worldviews offer.



The Gospel offers humankind hope and purpose because the Lord Jesus Christ suffered with us and for us. The historic Christian claim to the believer is that the suffering one endures in this life cannot compare with the glory that will be revealed in the next life.

Read the whole thing at:



Thinking about Suffering and Death, Part 1 | Reflections



Given what I've just gone through watching my sister waste away and finally succumbed to the suffering she courageously endured  from the cancer that attacked her body, this post carried with it a different feel than when I usually think of theodicy. Dr Samples' article is indeed true. My sister lived it and I witnessed it - God is indeed enough.

The People Behind the Way We Live [Infographic]

From: Best Colleges Online

The People Behind the Way We Live [Infographic]

FacePlant of the Day - Mis-Defining Faith

Yesterday, John Loftus posted a few article attempting to attack what Christians mean by "faith". He issues the following challenge:

Christian theists make two claims about faith: 1) That atheists define the concept of faith wrong, and 2) That atheists have faith just like Christian theists do. So here's my challenge: Define faith in such a way that it fulfills both requirements!

An Open Challenge to Christians About Faith

I think that John Loftus has no idea how Christians understand faith. His first premise is easy to prove, but the second is silly. The Christian argument is not that atheists have the same kind of faith that Christians do because atheists don't know how to understand what Biblical faith is. Loftus has written several times akin to the following mis-definition of Biblical faith.

I've been writing about faith lately, claiming it is an irrational leap over the probabilities. Faith is Irrational

In short, Loftus keeps arguing that if something is improbable then there isn't any reason to believe it. This is flawed for many reasons but two of the major ones are just because something is improbable does not mean it is also false. And no where in the Bible is believing something that is not true condoned or commanded. The ancients were commended for believing things that were improbable and impossible on the basis of what God said to them and on the evidence of their relationship with God. Not wishful thinking or a shot in the dark. The second premise is flawed because Christians are not arguing that Atheists operate on blind faith but on evidence of past experience and inferences that seem reasonable to them although they may not be able to empirically prove those assumptions and conclusions correct. This is not the definition of Biblical faith.but it is faith such as the world has come to define it. The premiss fail and so does Loftus' arguments.

Related articles

• A debate with New Atheists - The End of Christianity by John Loftus (Part 1) (rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com)
• D'Souza Debates Loftus (faithbyhearing.wordpress.com)
• A debate with New Atheists - The End of Inifidelity (2) plus Common Objections to Christianity from Skeptics (rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com)
• A Case Study in Apostasy (bcaskins.wordpress.com)
• The Four Types of Atheists (coppellpianoshop.wordpress.com)