Wednesday, January 9, 2013

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: On How to Answer a Presuppositionalist

John Loftus has recently posted an attempt to answer the challenge to Atheism posed by Presuppositional Apologetics.  He fails. I'm not even willing to describe it as a "good try" because that would be lying. 

Tim Shaughnessy is posting at DC a one note song. It doesn't matter what tune we sing, his song remains the same:
Christianity only has ONE presupposition. We presuppose the truth of the bible. God and his word cannot be divorced and are synonymous with one another so we could also say that we presuppose the God of the bible as true.
Okay then, let's sing this note. Let's presuppose the Bible and the God in it, yes! But let's first understand the Bible and the God in it. Q.E.D.

Could the God of the Bible exist but the Bible be false? Nope.  However just like Loftus is woefully incapable of correctly describing what "faith" is and is not, he doesn't know what Presuppostional Apologetics is. I have collected a few audios and videos and articles that would help anyone who is confused. Just follow the link.

Debunking Christianity: On How to Answer a Presuppositionalist

Apologist Interview: J. Warner Wallace - Apologetics 315

I really enjoyed Brian Auten's interview of J Warner Wallace. Wallace's ministry is amazing and unique in my experience. I had never considered valuable it would be to consider the evidence for Christianity from the point of view of a Cold Case Detective. Really good interview!

Apologist Interview: J. Warner Wallace - Apologetics 315

Michael Licona on Bible Contradictions (MP3) - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has recently posted an interview of Dr Michael Licona by Dr Frank Turek. They discussed Licona's most recent research into how ancient first/second century historians like Plutarch wrote and recorded history and how their historiography and writing relates to and mirrrors how the Gospels were written. Good stuff linked below.


Michael Licona on Bible Contradictions (MP3) - Apologetics 315

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: "If Good and Evil Exists, God Exists" featuring Peter Kreeft

Over at his blog, Truthbomb Apologetics, posted a great video of Dr Peter Kreeft explaining why the fact that there is good and evil means that God does exist. It's a good argument for God's existence using morality.


Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: "If Good and Evil Exists, God Exists" featuring Peter Kreeft

Monday, January 7, 2013

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: A very interesting discussion

For years I have wondered what Word of Faith proponents believe and teach the things they do in the face of so much scripture. Also I have seen very little interaction between Word of Faith proponents and other Christians.

A discussion between Pastor Saiko Woods (Reformed) and Fredrick Price, Jr. (Word of Faith - Name it Claim it Prosperity Health and Wealth Heresy)  I am grateful for Pastor Saiko Woods diligence and character in seeking to have a respectful discussion with a Word of Faith teacher.  Fred Price, Jr. is to be commended in at least being willing to discuss the issues.




I think the really valuable thing that happened was their discussion centered on Reformed Theology vs Arminian theology. I think that the thought that we can shape our reality by the words we say is an outgrowth of the belief that we have to cooperate with God in our salvation. My problem with that is there is no way our human, fallible, and sinful will can trump's God's good and perfect will.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: A very interesting discussion





Friday, January 4, 2013

Answering Muslims: Zakir Naik Proves That Jesus Is Muhammad's God!

Check this out: David Wood and Sam Shamoun continue to show why Zakir Naik is not a good representative for Islam.


Answering Muslims: Zakir Naik Proves That Jesus Is Muhammad's God!

Answering Muslims: Refuting Zakir Naik on the Deity of Christ

In their latest episode, David Wood and Sam Shamoun continue to attempt to bless Zakir Naik by cluing him in on how ad his arguments truly are. I sure hope he and those who have fallen for there hell-spawned lies will take heed and abandon them. In this outing, they show that Naik is wrong to say that the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ. Naik really makes it easy.


Answering Muslims: Refuting Zakir Naik on the Deity of Christ
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, January 3, 2013

2012 Rap Up! - @DeStorm - YouTube

This guy manages to cover all the major events of 2012 I remember plus some I had forgotten!


2012 Rap Up! - @DeStorm - YouTube

Intermission: Possibly the World's Oldest Dashcam Footage | Living on GOOD



A camera mounted on the dashboard of a fire truck gives a fascinating glimpse into what Manhattan looked like in 1926.

Intermission: Possibly the World's Oldest Dashcam Footage | Living on GOOD
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Sin: An Imaginary Problem with an Invented Solution

Harry McCall continues to faceplant. Just before the end of  2012, he posted the following post.  I recognize what he's trying to do. If he can explain that there is no such thing as "sin" then the Christian message fails.  There is no need to for Jesus, atonement, or anything Christianity offers. In order for him to make his point McCall is going to have to prove that there is no sin and nothing to atone for. Will he be able to do that?

Picture right is the typical Salvation Gospel Tract found at bank ATM’s, left on tables at restaurants and ironically, in restrooms. This one was left under a wiper blade on my wife’s car at work by Freedom Baptist Church (as stamped on the back) located just a quarter mile from where she works.




McCall should be thanking God that God sent another opportunity for him and his family to hear the Gospel.
(Click on Tract to read)

Let’s briefly review some of the major problems with, not only on this Gospel Tract, with but everyone I’ve found:

First, like any good sales pitch, it needs have a product to sell. In Christianity the product (whether you need it or not) is an imaginary problem: Sin

How does McCall know that sin is an imaginary problem?

Secondly, after a person is pitched the imaginary problem, then and invented solution is offered to solve the problem of sin: Atonement

Too bad McCall is into invented problems based on assertions he can't prove. 

Thirdly, to prevent the imaginary problem and the invented solution from being empirically examined, a dogma is used to glue the problem to the solution: Faith

How can he equate "faith" and "dogma" with a straight face?

Fourthly, once a religious consumer has been exposed to the third step and by now to have swallowed the sales pitch hook, line and sinker; the entire imaginary dogma is sealed by: Damnation (Hell’s fire awaits those who reject or even doubt this sales pitch!)

McCall's ignorance of Christianity is extremely evident. He doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.  Hell is the final destination of everyone because we are all sinners. You escape hell because of what Jesus did for us. Hell is default. This is why the denial of sin is so important. McCall so far has failed to explain how he knows he is not a sinner.

Now let’s examine the tract’s statements:

A. They are rambling statements from eclectic writings in the New Testament. Of the 27 religious texts that make up the New Testament, only 7 could be used to prove this point and most from a man who never even saw nor heard the earthly Jesus preach: Paul Like most Gospel Tracts, much of the sales pitch comes from Paul’s last perfected theological views , Romans. Reality proves that this salvation sales pitch is nothing more than a cut and paste theory created by the tract's author to fish for converts!

Any examples or proof that there is no sin? Nope. Without this, McCall is the one who is rambling, not Paul. 

B. Notice too, that nowhere does God (the one who is demanding atonement for the imaginary problem of sin) makes a single statement!

You want a statement from God demanding atonement for sin? 
 Ezekiel 18 is a good example of God demanding repentance and and atonement for sin. Being that God punishes sin, why would anyone of us think that God would let our sin just go ignored? He wouldn't.

C. Notice also that Jesus - the center of which the entire Christian faith built upon – makes any statements either (except a rambling statement taken from the Gospel of John made to other Jews) since Jesus hated gentiles.

McCall neither proves nor demonstrates that Jesus hated Gentiles. And If I can point to another passage in Matthew, Mark, or Luke where Jesus tells us how bad sin is, McCall illustrates a faceplant and not a valid point. 

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
“‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’” - Luke 13:1-8

And there are many, many other passages I could have brought up. Looks like McCall faceplants again.

D. Finally, notice that this whole eclectic rambling sales propaganda assumes the person reading the tact understands completely the concepts of sin, atonement and salvation as found in Jewish Covenantal Theology as drawn from the Hebrew Bible!

Obviously, McCall doesn't understand the concepts of sin, atonement, salvation, and Jewish Convenantal Theology. Maybe he should re-read the New Testament, especially Romans and Hebrews.  

E. In short, Gospel Tracts are little more than “fishing” for human guilt trips build on ignorance.

Yes, let's examine whose ignorance is on display here. McCall writes an article assuming that there is no such thing as sin but never once explains why he rejects the existence of sin. How does he know he is not a sinner? Given that there isn't a sin human being who talks who has not lied, stolen something, or has failed to live selflessly I'd say that sin is an established reality. If that is not enough proof, I'd say that the fact that there is so much suffering and pain (like a man walking into an elementary school and killing 26 human beings) is amply explained by the existence of sin. And God's restraining mercy and grace for why it doesn't happen more often.

 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. - 1 John 1:9,10

So whose lying? Is it God or McCall. Since it is not God, we are forced to the conclusion that if lying is a sin (and it is) then McCall is just a much a sinner as the rest of  humanity and need a savior to atone for his sins. It sure is a good thing the at God sent him a tract to remind him. Too bad he has not listened yet.

Debunking Christianity: Sin: An Imaginary Problem with an Invented Solution
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Answering Muslims: Zakir Naik Proves That Allah Is a Mouse! (Based on Song of Solomon 5:16)

David Wood and Sam Shamoun continue responding to the "arguments" of Zakir Naik  with humor and logic. This video shows what happens when you try to apply Naik's hermeneutic is showing that Muhammad is the subject of Song of Solomon 5:16 to other places in the Bible. It doesn't work in Song of Solomon 5:16 or anywhere else.

Answering Muslims: Zakir Naik Proves That Allah Is a Mouse! (Based on Song of Solomon 5:16)
Enhanced by Zemanta

J. Warner Wallace Lectures on Evidence for Christianity - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has shared a recent lecture by J. Warner Wallace on the reliability of  evidences for Christianity. This is really interesting. He points out that the issue isn't the possibility of  New Testament, it is about the reasonableness of the New Testament/ It's a well-done lecture and presentation.


Cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace, and author of Cold-Case Christianity, presented this lecture via Skype at Reasonable Faith Belfast on Monday, 3rd December 2012. He talks about the nature of evidence, possibility and reason, the chain of custody for the New Testament documents, and much more.

J. Warner Wallace Lectures on Evidence for Christianity - Apologetics 315

Monday, December 31, 2012

2012 In 4 Minutes - YouTube




2012 In 4 Minutes - YouTube

Answering Muslims: Refuting Zakir Naik on Muhammad in the Bible

David Wood and Sam Shamoun are actually doing more than just correcting the errors of Zakir Naik on the realities of Islam, they are also combating the ignorance of many Christians. Thank God for them.


Answering Muslims: Refuting Zakir Naik on Muhammad in the Bible

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Debunking Christianity: In a Godless Universe the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting is What We'd Expect Would Happen

John Loftus attempts to argue that the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School was exactly what we should expect because there is no God. I disagree. This is indeed facepalm worthy. But let us attempt to think through his argument, because he obviously didn't.

Even though I'm a godless atheist I say this. Don't quote me though, at least not without my explanation. I'm not speaking about a godless ethic, that supposedly atheists do these kinds of deeds, and/or that they have no ethical standards to condemn such terrible senseless acts. I do have an ethic and I do condemn these kinds of deeds. That's a topic for another time so don't derail what I'm saying with irrelevant comments. What I'm saying here is something different.

For the sake of this post, let's grant that a godless atheist like John Loftus does have an ethic and can condemn these kinds of deeds such as murdering children and their teachers as wrong. I am willing to allow for that because the Bible is more than clear that he can grant anyone that much grace even a godless atheist.  I agree that what Loftus is saying is something qualitatively different.

People are not too good at comparing hypotheses but that's what we must do. Most often in our debates we latch on to a theory and seek to confirm it, ignoring competing ones. It's called confirmation bias, and psychological studies show we all have a strong tendency or bias toward our pet theories. We don't give competing theories the time of day. We ignore them as false and sometimes even ludicrous.

Agreed. Let's see if John Loftus can avoid this trap as he tries to compare his godless hypothesis with Christian theism.

But if we compare the godless hypothesis that there is no god with the God hypothesis that there is an all powerful, perfectly good, all knowing deity, it's patently obvious that the best explanation for this horrible tragedy is the godless one. Now believers may think they have good reasons to accept the God hypothesis anyway, but this tragedy is not one of them to say the least. Let me briefly explain.

So we have a conclusion drawn that the godless hypothesis explains such a terrible thing such as this. We immediately run into a problem: What does he think the godless hypothesis explain? Does it explain how a man could walk into a school and gun-down twenty young children - boys and girls; six and seven years-old - and six of their teachers?  Does it explain the big question why?  What is it he is trying answer? Maybe as he explains what he mean, Loftus will tell us what he means as he explains how the godless hypothesis provides answers.

In a godless universe shit happens without rhyme nor reason. Life is predatory from the ground up. Creatures eat one another by trapping unsuspecting victims in unusual ways, launching surprise attacks out of the blue, and hunting in packs by overpowering prey with brute force and numbers. Sometimes a creature just goes wacko for no reason at all. Humans are not exempt. Sometimes the wiring in our brains goes haywire and we snap. We too are violent and we inherited this trait from our animal predecessors. We also show care and concern to our kith and kin but we can lash out in horrific ways at what we consider an uncaring world.

So the godless hypothesis is answering the question "why?" with things "happen without rhyme or reason". Then he gives examples from nature.  He raises more questions than answers.  Is it condemnable when "Creatures eat one another by trapping unsuspecting victims in unusual ways, launching surprise attacks out of the blue, and hunting in packs by overpowering prey with brute force and numbers." or when a "creature just goes wacko for no reason at all"? If not, then why is it condemnable for that man to kill those 26 people?  If so, why?

In a universe where there is an all powerful, perfectly good, all knowing God this tragedy is not what we would expect to happen.

Why? I see no reason to make that conclusion. Loftus neglects the Biblical description of the universe with human beings enslaved to sin with hearts inclined to evil - I'd expect nothing different. Instead, I'd wonder why such things don't happen more often.

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. - Genesis 8:21

There were innocent children who were brutally massacred. We would not expect that after praying the Lord's prayer to a loving heavenly father that such a deity would allow this to happen, just as we would not expect a father in that school to sit by and do nothing while the gunman killed his children.

Hmmm...just who does Loftus think prayed the Lord's Prayer before this happened. Our society took prayer out of of public school, remember?

What could a loving heavenly father have done? There are tons of things. Just have the gunman's brakes fail on the way so he would crash his car into a telephone pole and die. If God knew the man would one day kill these people then he could have killed him in a thousand unsuspecting ways like this. He had twenty years to do it. God could have snapped his omnipotent fingers causing the man to have massive amnesia such that he wouldn't know who he is, or what he was going to do with his guns that morning. God could have caused his guns to misfire if nothing else. God did nothing that a loving father would have done.

Just how many times do you think that God has done exactly that. How many school shootings have been avoided through God's direct actions - restraining evil? We don't know. We only know about the times God has allowed such things to happen. While we don't know why God allowed this, we can trust that God really knows best and God has a purpose for everything God allows to happen. God has the right to do as God wills because everything belongs to God.   

When comparing these two hypotheses the God hypothesis fails and the godless hypothesis prevails, hands down, no question, no ifs ands or buts about it.

I'm amazed that any rational person would really think that "stuff just happens" is a viable answer and would think that the godless hypothesis. Really? Really? It's the godless hypothesis that fails. So what answer does the Bible give? Here are two of my favorite verses on the subject:

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. - Romans 8:18-25


Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?
I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” - Luke 13:1-5

Silly godless atheist, Theodicy is for Christians.

Debunking Christianity: In a Godless Universe the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting is What We'd Expect Would Happen

Faceplant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig, The Last Great Christian Apologist We'll Ever See!

First and foremost:  Dr William Lane Craig not the last Christian Defender and he most definitely not the only one! Defeating Dr Craig does not defeat Christianity by a long shot. The following video, pointed to by John Loftus, attempts to point to Dr William Lane Craig as making  blunders in his response to the massacre of children and their teachers in Conneticut on December 14, 2012.


The Video's author attempts to exploit one of Craig's weaknesses: Theodicy.  However the video shows that atheism has no answer at all. I don't fully agree with Dr Craig's answer to the question raised in this video: Why do such evil things happen?

The shooting on December 14, 2012 is dissimilar with Herod's killing of Children after Jesus' birth.  Look at it. Herod only killed boys in Bethlehem under 2 years of age and we are not talking about thousands or millions of lives. Bethlehem was not a huge place there would not have been that many children there. Some folks think that other historians would have mentions it, but I doubt that a few boys in Bethlehem being killed by Herod would have raised must attention - awful that is. I doubt that there would have even been as many as 20 children having been killed. Does that mean that Herod's actions weren't that bad? No! It explains why there was not more attention or anger raised up over this.  It is also completely consistent with Herod's character.

So could God have worked this out without a single life of a baby being lost? Yes! Could God had prevented the terrible tragedy on December 14, 2012? Yes! I don't know why. I agree that it doesn't make sense to us that it would be to remind us what Herod did, but that that doesn't mean that there is no God or that the Bible is in error.  I don't know how God is going to turn that into a blessing. What I do know is that it's best to stick to Jesus' answer to such a question.

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” - Luke 13:1-5

Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig, The Last Great Christian Apologist We'll Ever See!
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Deen Show's "Aspiring Baptist Minister" Reviewed and Refuted

The Deen show is a Islamic show that attempts to convert non-Muslims to Islam. It often attempts to air the testimonies of former Christians. They also attempt to give these converts some weight and credentials to give their apostasy from Christianity some legitimacy. Unfortunately, they are not honest about it. This is a case-in-point. Dr James White talks about a recent show featuring Khalil Meek and points out the glaring inconsistencies and errors. Neither the Muslims putting the show together or the former Christian seem to know what Christians believe.

The Deen Show's "Aspiring Baptist Minister" Reviewed and Refuted

Also read David Wood's post on this at: Khalil Meek Exposed by James White
Enhanced by Zemanta

Answering Muslims: Robert Spencer: The Origins of the Qur'an


Robert Spencer sums up the origins of the Qur'an. Take a look!


Answering Muslims: Robert Spencer: The Origins of the Qur'an
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, December 28, 2012

Faceplant of the Day - Michael Gilmour: Top 10 Zombie Scenes in the Bible


Bart Willruth has posted a link on Debunking Christianity to the following post which he introduced thusly:

Professor Gilmour of Providence University, Manitoba, Canada, has listed his favorite zombie imagery of the Bible. See his Top 10 Zombie Scenes in the Bible.
I think "zombie culture" is all well and fine. I think books, movies, and video games are just another form of entertainment. However, I think stating that there is "zombie imagery" in the Bible is not just dishonest but wrong. Some proponents of this silliness want to insist that they are merely defining "zombie" as meaning that dead people coming back to life from death. Many of these people then go on to make fun of the Bible insisting on equating the same kind of zombies we see in popular culture with people we see raised from the dead in the Bible.

Zombies loom large in popular culture these days. Max Brooks' "World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War" (2006), the Jane Austen, Seth Grahame-Smith mashup "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" (2009), and Melissa Marr's "Graveminder" (2011), to name but a few recent novels, enjoy a wide readership. There are also graphic novels, the AMC television show "The Walking Dead," video games, and of course movies. Some of my recent favorites in the latter category include the Norwegian Nazis-as-zombies film "Dead Snow" (2009) with its delightful tagline "Ein! Zwei! Die!" and Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon's "The Cabin in the Woods" (2012). With all of this going on, there is little surprise to come across the open-source, collaborative Stinque Zombie Bible. It was just a matter of time, I suppose, and the King James Bible will never be quite the same.

I think that the only reason for such a thing as a "zombie bible" is due to ignorance as to what the Bible really says about the people who were raised from the dead. 

I am an unabashed zombie fan but also teach "classic" English literature and the New Testament so I can't quite bring myself to desecrate the literary and religious masterpiece that is the Authorized (King James) Version by contributing to the Zombie Bible. Still, wanting to get into the spirit of things, I can't resist noting a few biblical scenes and themes -- a top 10 list -- that come to mind each time I watch or read the latest version of the zombie apocalypse to come along. At least in some passages, a zombie-Bible mashup requires very little editorial interference.

If there are any scenes in the Bible that remind you of fictional zombie apocalypse, I doubt that you seriously understand what the Bible is describing. 

1. The Gospel of Luke: "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen" (Luke 24:5). Such a suggestive phrase. Note also that the angels asking the question and those they address are standing inside a tomb at the time (Luke 24:2-4).

 Suggestive? The Angel is pointing out that Jesus is not dead. He is alive. He was dead. Jesus' Resurrection is unique. Jesus was the first to be Resurrected - meaning all the other people who died and was raised from the dead before Jesus later died again. Jesus'  Resurrection was qualitatively new and different. Jesus did not just come back in the same body he had before. That body was transformed - not deformed.

2. The Book of Revelation: "the sea gave up the dead that were in it" (Revelation 20:13). John the Seer's creepy statement reminds me of a scene in George A. Romero's "Land of the Dead" (2005) that features slow-moving corpses walking out of the surf, and Max Brooks' "World War Z" with its account of the boy returning from a swim with a bite mark on his foot. He also describes the zombie hoards roaming the world's oceans: "They say there are still somewhere between twenty and thirty million of them, still washing up on beaches, or getting snagged in fisherman's nets."

A deformed hoard walking out of the sea? Is that really what you get when you read Revelations 20:13? I don't. Why? Because 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 paints a different picture and gives us a good picture of what Revelations 20:13 will look like when it happens.

16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

3. Deuteronomy: "Your corpses shall be food for every bird of the air and animal of the earth, and there shall be no one to frighten them away" (Deuteronomy 28:25-26; cf. 2 Samuel 21:10; Psalm 79:1-2; Isaiah 34:2-3; Jeremiah 7:33). The ancients worried about the exposure of their body after death. Improper care of one's corpse was a terrifying prospect, so it is no wonder it features in prophetic warnings of divine wrath. Qoheleth insists that even though a man lives a long life and has many children, if he "has no burial ... a stillborn child is better off than he" (Ecclesiastes 6:3). The indignity of non-burial presumably accounts for the honor bestowed on the poor man Lazarus in Jesus' parable; the rich man receives proper burial but Lazarus "was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham" (Luke 16:22) because there was no one to care for his remains.

I don't see how one could equate an undead existence as a zombie with the improper burial. And the  point of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man turn his argument all around. Lazarus' was carried away by Angels because  he was righteous. The rich man was not because of his wickedness.

4. The Book of Job: "Why is light given to one in misery, and life to the bitter in soul, who long for death, but it does not come, and dig for it more than for hidden treasures...?" (Job 3:20-21). Job is angry he did not die at birth (3:11), adding that he loathes his life and does not want to live forever (7:16). Others prefer death to life out of principled anger against God, like the prophet Jonah (4:3; cf. 4:8). Physical death eludes a surprising number of people in the Christian Bible, and this is not always a welcome thing. The prophet John refers to some who "seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will flee from them" (Revelation 9:6). The prospect of an elusive death, as every zombie fan knows, terrorizes the living. The "stricken" Charlotte Lucas in "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" agrees to marry the tedious and obsequious minister Mr. Collins because she wants "a husband who will see to [her] proper Christian beheading and burial." This is no small task for most survivors left with such a grim assignment, as Shaun well knows: "I don't think I got it in me to shoot my flat mate, my mom, and my girlfriend all in the same evening" ("Shaun of the Dead," 2004).

It's erroneous to say that physical death eludes a lot of people in the Bible. Realize that the Bible says that, so far, only Enoch and Elijah have not died. The reference to Revelations 9:6 describes events and situations that have not happened yet and has nothing to do with the Zombies like those in "Shaun of the Dead" and "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies".

5. The Gospel of Matthew: "The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After [Jesus'] resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many" (Matthew 27:52-53). Unwanted persistent life is a recurring image in biblical literature and so too is language referring to the impermanence of bodily death. The dead do not stay dead. The psalmist is confident he will not "see decay" (Psalm 16:10 New International Version; cf. Acts 2:27; 13:35). We read of the physical resurrections of specific individuals (e.g., 1 Kings 17:17-24; Luke 8:49-56; maybe Acts 20:7-12) and expected mass revivals (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). Some of these accounts of un-dying involve reference to un-burying. Mary and Martha's brother Lazarus walks out of his tomb when "they took away the stone" (John 11:41). On Easter morning, mourners find "the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back" (Mark 16:4). A second century writer describes further the events preceding Jesus' emergence from the tomb: "That stone which had been laid against the entrance to the sepulchre started of itself to roll and gave way to the side, and the sepulchre was opened" (Gospel of Peter 9.35).

Unwanted persistent life is a recurring image in biblical literature and so too is language referring to the impermanence of bodily death. No way. No one in the Bible is raised from the dead despite the will of God. Lazarus' walked out of his tomb. He was not deformed and he did not want to eat anyone's brains.

6. Ezekiel: Ezekiel receives a vision promising the restoration of Israel (37:11). Seeing a valley full of bones, the Lord instructs him to speak to them, saying, "O dry bones ... I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. I will lay sinews on you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live" (37:4-6). When Ezekiel does so, "there was a noise, a rattling" as bones come together and sinew and skin appears and the breath of life returns. The dry bones "lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude" (37:7-10).

No where does the passage tells us that they were deformed or went to look to eat brains/flesh afterward.

7. Zechariah: "their flesh shall rot while they are still on their feet; their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths" (Zechariah 14:12). They seem to resemble extras in a George A. Romero film.

It is another prophecy. It has not happened yet. I doubt that Jerusalem's enemies will be walking around after they get a taste of this plague.

8. The Gospel of Mark: "hell, where their worm never dies" (Mark 9:48; alluding here to Isaiah 66:24). Gehenna (here symbolically representing "hell," and usually translated so, as in Mark 9:44, 45, 47) refers to the Valley of Hinnom located to the south and southwest of Jerusalem. Following the reign of Israel's righteous King Josiah (see 2 Kings 23:10-14), it became Jerusalem's garbage heap, a place with maggots and rotting corpses. Jesus refers to this burning garbage in Mark 9:48, a place where residents of the city would leave the rotting corpses of humans and animals to the worms that do not die, to maggots. The image suggests the corpses of the damned rot in gehenna/hell -- maggot ridden -- in perpetuity.

That's not an image suggested. Gilmour imposes the images. A fundamental problem with his interpretation is that zombies do not go to hell. Jesus was not only just referring to Jerusalem but to all those who refuse to accept him.

9. 2 Maccabees: "[Antiochus IV Epiphanes] was seized with a pain in his bowels, for which there was no relief, and with sharp internal tortures -- and that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many and strange inflictions ... he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body. ... the ungodly man's body swarmed with worms, and while he was still living in anguish and pain, his flesh rotted away, and because of the stench the whole army felt revulsion at his decay. Because of his intolerable stench no one was able to carry the man who a little while before had thought that he could touch the stars of heaven" (2 Maccabees 9:5-6, 7, 9-10). The Syrian ruler's physical body rots away zombie-like while he still lives. The cause is divine, as the God of Israel strikes this enemy of the Jews with "an incurable and invisible blow" (2 Maccabees 9:5).

But he wasn't turned into a zombie.

10. Genesis with the Book of Revelation: "the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep"; "the first heaven and the first earth has passed away, and the sea was no more" (Genesis 1:2; Revelation 21:1). With the disappearance of chaos, Eden returns: "On either side of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit" (Revelation 22:2; cf. Genesis 2:9). Horrors stories often wander back and forth between forms of paradise (ordered society) and chaos (some variant of an apocalyptic hellscape) thus recalling biblical stories with similar alternations. Zombie stories typically depict the disintegration of the modern world, and often hint at a return from the wilderness to the paradisiacal garden for survivors (cf. Genesis 3:23-24). Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later" (2002), for one, ends with a developing romance between Jim and Salina, happy in the cultivated lands around a cottage that echoes Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The sequel "28 Weeks Later" (2007), however, depicts a failed attempt to restore Eden. After the spread of the disastrous infection in the first film, the sequel documents efforts to repopulate the United Kingdom. Survivors return to their homeland, to what the director's commentary refers to as "a new world" and a "Garden of Eden." Naturally, mayhem ensues and the infection spreads as the movie unfolds. It wouldn't be much of a horror movie otherwise.

Overall there is no reason to equate anything in the Bible with zombie fiction. There is much fiction that borrows from the Bible the idea of Eden lost and regained. So what? The reason I think zombie fiction and horror has so much commercial success is because it is based on two major fears: fear of not being at the top of the food chain and the fear of loosing people we love. The Bible gives us real answers as to giving us understanding of what is true and and what is not true. God does not want us to be living in blind ignorance. You know the truth by knowing him.

I know what some think: that no one really thinks that the equates the people who are raised from the dead with the brain-eating zombies of fiction. For any of those people I have one question. How is this:


Different than this?



Yup, Definitely a faceplant.

Michael Gilmour: Top 10 Zombie Scenes in the Bible
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, December 22, 2012

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: What Would Christianity Have Without Its Myths?

I'm grateful that Harry McCall has actually come up with pointing out an actual problem  with Christianity. This time instead of trying to throw the Bible "under bus",  he attacks Christian myths and tradition in general and St George killing a Dragon to save a town in particular. He wrote:

Christian "truth" is fabricated and propagated by Christian tradition and one of my favorites deals with my experience at Saint George Greek Orthodox Church here in Greenville, S.C. 

Then he tries to use the fact that some Christians who hold this tradition of George and this Dragon as proof of the above statement. He asks a simple and fair question; "Was the dragon a real dragon and how do you know?" All he managed to prove is that some people accept some stories and have no way to defend them. No need to for them to get mad and angry with an atheist for pointing out that fact. McCall's faceplant here is assuming that George slaying a dragon has anything to do with the validity of the Bible - on which Christianity is supposed to rest. Face it. What difference does it make to the truth claims of the Bible if the George and the Dragon story is true? None! What if it's false and made up? Also no difference. You are still a sinner in the need of a savior regardless of the George and the Dragon story. If you are going to try to debunk Christianity than quit making straw men arguments.



Debunking Christianity: What Would Christianity Have Without Its Myths?