Could We Record Our Dreams? [Science Video] | Geeks are Sexy Technology News

Could We Record Our Dreams? [Science Video] | Geeks are Sexy Technology News

Answering Muslims: Allen West Responds to Bill Cosby's Praise of Muslims

Reportedly on June 10, Bill Cosby said the following:

I’m a Christian. But Muslims are misunderstood. Intentionally misunderstood. We should all be more like them. They make sense, especially with their children. There is no other group like the Black Muslims, who put so much effort into teaching children the right things, they don’t smoke, they don’t drink or overindulge in alcohol, they protect their women, they command respect. And what do these other people do?

They complain about them, they criticize them. We’d be a better world if we emulated them. We don’t have to become black Muslims, but we can embrace the things that work. (Source)

Since then, Bill Cosby has come under heavy criticism.  People have interpreted his words as an endorsement of Islam. I respect David Wood but I think what he said about this misses an important point.

If Bill Cosby had praised some specific Muslims for being good parents or being good people, I would have no objections. I've known many Muslims that I respect as parents and as people. But Cosby went much, much further, claiming that we should all strive to be more like Muslims. And here we must ask what he could possibly mean. Should we be more like Osama bin Laden, or the Muslims who blew up innocent people at the Boston Marathon, or the Muslims who butchered Lee Rigby? Of course not. Cosby means that we should be like Muslims who live better lives than their religion commands them to live. But if we're looking for people who live better lives than Islam commands, that's almost everyone in the world.

I think that what Allen West, Sean Hannity, and even David Wood are missing is that Cosby was not endorsing Sharia or the Quran. He basically just said that there was somethings about the Nation of Islam (Black Muslims) that are worthy of emulation. I don't know if Cosby understands the difference but I'd like to think that West, Hannity, and Wood do know the difference between Islam proper and the Nation of Islam. If you study the Nation of Islam you will find many differences between it and what Muslims throughout the world believe.  I wouldn't endorse the Nation of Islam but its definitely not the same as the Islam practiced by "Osama bin Laden, or the Muslims who blew up innocent people at the Boston Marathon, or the Muslims who butchered Lee Rigby".

</ br>
</ br>


Answering Muslims: Allen West Responds to Bill Cosby's Praise of Muslims

High Five of the Day - Calvinistic "Quotes": Man's idolatrous estimation of his self as

This is an awesome quote:

Nothing quite reveals man's idolatrous estimation of his self as being preeminent then his acceptance of Christ dying for sins of others while he refuses to accept that men should die for their own sins!

~ Julius Mickel

This point is what separates born-again Christians from all other people - it is the recognition that salvation is not because we deserve it - we deserve death (physical death and eternal separation from God) because of our sins. Jesus saved us from the consequences of what we did, do, and will do.

Calvinistic "Quotes": Man's idolatrous estimation of his self as

My Common Sense Is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Can God Exist if Yahweh Doesn't?

Here is  a video that went up today on the Debunking Christianity blog. It pretends to get rid of the God of the Bible by assuming that the Ontological argument for the existence of God throws the Bible under the bus.


 The Christian understanding is clearly misunderstood here. William Lane Craig often uses the concept that the greatest being you can think of is God. The video's author claims that he can think of a being greater than the God revealed to us in the Bible. However no proof is offered of that. And neither does the author attempt to explain by what he measures greatness. On top of all of that I see no way any one of us could come up with a more powerful, more loving, more intelligent, or greater by any measure. At the very least creating and sustaining all of reality out of nothing - energy, matter, time, space, and all there is - cannot be topped.

Debunking Christianity: Can God Exist if Yahweh Doesn't?

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Cain and His Offering

Dr. Mariottini has posted a really interesting article weighing different interpretations of God rejecting Cain's sacrifice but accepting Able's and why God did what He did and say What He did to each man. Really great stuff!


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Cain and His Offering

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Clever satire exposing heresies of the Trinity

Here is a great video that in an extremely humorous way explains the various ways that people have tried to explain the Trinity. No metaphor or example is perfect because it is our finiteness trying to wrap human understanding around the infinite nature of God. Good tries though.




Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Clever satire exposing heresies of the Trinity

No Compromise Episode II

This particular discussion is really interesting.They discuss a lot of thing - important things. Things like whether or not God can talk to us outside of scripture. I used to wonder how do people who are reformed and/or believe that the spiritual gifts are not for today interact and see their relationship with God. Do they see themselves being lead by God? Turns out that they use different terminology thanmy tradition used. It was very useful.

No Compromise Episode II

Thoughts from the Boonies: Jerry Walls: What's Wrong With Calvinism

I've had the opportunity to listen to Jerry Walls on a couple of subjects and I find myself in agreement with much of his ideas. The one on this video I really think he got wrong.


 At the end, he says he covers the scriptural basis of his conclusions in a 6-part series on YouTube.  I wasn't really impressed with that either. Beside no real good scriptural basis for rejecting Calvinism, Dr Walls presentation is flawed because the philosophy underlying it is flawed. For example, he spends quite a bit of time on talking about Calvinists must accept the compatibilistic interpretation and definition of free will in order for Calvinism to be consistent. I disagree.  If without salvation, you are enslaved to sin and can't choose not to sin that would mean you have not the ability to do otherwise and Libertarian Free Will  falls with a thud. This does not mean that people don't have wills of their own. We do. They are just bent and broken. Jesus is the only way to be free.  I agree with James White, there is free will - only it's God that has it.

Thoughts from the Boonies: Jerry Walls: What's Wrong With Calvinism

On Guard Conference 2012: William Lane Craig - "The Problem of Evil and Suffering" - YouTube

I don't think that the Problems of evil and suffering can ever be satisfactorily reconciled with our understanding through philosophy. It's not big enough. It can only be done well Biblically. Still it is interesting to watch philosophers try. William Lane Craig has good intentions, I just don't think he goes far enough in standing where the Bible leaves us room to to stand. I think he is far too concerned with maintaining that people have libertarian free will than what the Bible really says. Even though I disagree with Dr Craig on free will and God's sovereignty, he  still offers a better understanding and presentation that the atheists I've heard who fail at this question all the time.


On Guard Conference 2012: William Lane Craig - "The Problem of Evil and Suffering" - YouTube

God's Outlaw - William Tyndale - YouTube

English: William Tyndale, Protestant reformer and Bible translator. Portrait from Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Česky: William Tyndale (portrét ve Foxeově Knize mučedníků) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here is a movie I found on YouTube covering the life of William Tyndale. It is dated, but well-done and really good. Tyndale lived an interesting life and should not be forgotten.


God's Outlaw - William Tyndale - YouTube

Answering Muslims: Jihad Returns to London: A Reply to Prime Minister David Cameron

Last Wednesday, a town in the UK experienced a real act of terrorism. Two men hit an off-duty soldier with a car, got out, and then hacked him to death with machetes. They stayed around and talked to witnesses and explained why they did it. One even recorded a message on one of the witnesses' smart phone! He said that they did this horrible murder because they are Muslims and are agents of Allah and followers of the Quran. Hearing the UK government come back and say that this had nothing to do with Islam seems like a slap in the face to the murdered soldier, Lee Rigby. Call this what it was.


Answering Muslims: Jihad Returns to London: A Reply to Prime Minister David Cameron

Star Wars Filibuster

Sometimes actors are allowed to be creative and ad-lib their lines. In an episode of the show "Parks and Recreation" recently, it called for a scene where one of the characters had to do filibuster in a fictional city council meeting. Actor Patton Oswalt was told to come up with whatever he wanted and chose to do a pitch for Star Wars Episode VII. This is what he came up with: pure gold.




Animated version


Star Wars Filibuster - Animation - YouTube

The Avengers...PBS-Style! - Topless Robot - Nerd news, humor and self-loathing.

This video is a joke but it makes some very astute observations about the media. Education indeed needs to be avenged.


The Avengers...PBS-Style! - Topless Robot - Nerd news, humor and self-loathing.

Calvinistic "Quotes": There are only two religions in the world:

There are only two religions in the world: divine accomplishment and human achievement.
~ John MacArthur


Calvinistic "Quotes": There are only two religions in the world:

MUSLIM PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS - YouTube

Some Atheists either try to devalue or outright deny the historical facts of Christians having been persecuted or killed since the beginning of it. One way we know that they are wrong is because there are Christians being persecuted and killed even today. Why would it be any different for Jesus' first followers? It wouldn't.


MUSLIM PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS - YouTube

Pacific Rim - Con Footage [HD] - YouTube

Pacific Rim - Con Footage [HD] - YouTube

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Sinner, Do You Know Jesus?

Harry McCall has posted another of his really ignorant arguments that he is deluded enough to really believe is a "death blow" for Christianity. In this case he correctly seems to understand the scripture:

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:12

There is no one else through whom we must be saved other than Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ - son of the Living God.  This is definitely what Peter was saying.  However McCall attempts to make the following argument:

To keep our souls out of an eternal fiery Hell, we need to be “washed in the blood of the Lamb”, that is the blood of Jesus. But since the Gospels can’t agree (see below) on just who and what this Divine Man is, we are forced to look outside of the New Testament of a savior named Jesus.

McCall is wrong.The Gospels are not confused.  McCall is confused.  He offers the following "evidence" that the Gospel of Matthew is confused as to which Jesus we need to put our faith in.

A major problem in the Gospel of Matthew 27: 17 is that we have more than one Jesus crucified by Ponitus Pilate! As pointed out by Bruce Metzger in his A Textural Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., 1994 p. 56 states:

In a tenth century uncial manuscript (S) and in about twenty minuscule manuscripts a marginal comment states: “In many ancient copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called ‘Jesus’; that is, the question of Pilate . . . “ συνηγμένων οὖν αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Πειλᾶτος• τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν; (So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?")

Dr Bruce Metzger was only talking about one manuscript and it's not saying that Pilate did not know which man was the Messiah.

 In a closing statement on this verse Metzger notes that “A majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the original text of Matthew had the double name in both verses and that Ἰησοῦν was deliberately suppressed in most witnesses for reverential consideration” or we might more accurately note for apologetic / theological purposes! 

Metzger was not making an apologetic or a theological  point but McCall want to make a point but only manages to fail miserably. Before I explain the main thing he misses, I want to point out that he tries to give multiple examples of other men named "Jesus".

What is really sad is that McCall mistake is so obvious!  He is making the assumption that the name "Jesus" would have to been unique for scripture to be true.  "Jesus" wasn't even the name in the Aramaic. His name is "Yeshua". "Jesus" is the Greek transliteration of "Yeshua" and in English "Yeshua comes to us as "Joshua". It doesn't matter what language you use - Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or English - the name was a common name in 1st century Palestine. There are more than 14 men referenced as Jesus from that time period. Extremely popular.  This is why they did a lot of disambiguation. And in each of McCall's examples there is disambiguation in the examples. Thanks, McCall, for making my point for me. In no way is anyone in the Bible confused as to which Jesus they were referring too - any more than I can confuse John Loftus with my grandfather just because they have the same first name.

To add insult to common sense and scholarship, John Loftus offered the following *ahem <cough> insight.

Harry, you're good at unearthing this interesting stuff. Keep it up. 

If Loftus is the learned scholar he pretends to be - the one whom Dr William Lane Craig - is too scared to debate, then why could he not identify such an obvious flaw in logic?

Perhaps Loftus and McCall should learn something from a real scholar.

   Lecture with Dr. Peter Williams from Lanier Theological Library on Vimeo.
Debunking Christianity: Sinner, Do You Know Jesus?

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Jesus Versus Paul: The Greatest Love?

It's always amazing how badly people want to undermine Christianity so that they can continue in their unbelief and feel justified. If the stakes for their soul weren't so high it would be comical but it is just sad. One such tactic is to pretend that Apostle Paul's theology and teachings are contrary to what Jesus said. It's not true but always facepalm inducing. For example take this article. I waited about 15 hours to see if any atheists would be honest enough on Debunking Christianity to point out how bad this particular argument is but alas nothing. There was a great comment by Dr David Heddle but I will save that for the end of this post. I have some direct observations to make on the post.

According to the famous Whitney Houston song, the greatest love of all is to love oneself.
Travelling back in time long before Grammy awards were handed out, we find that Jesus, (according to the Gospel of John), had a different idea:

“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13 (NIV)

Well at least Green recognized that Jesus was teaching something different that what our culture says so he gets a point there. It all goes downhill from there.

But, the Apostle Paul (not-surprisingly) had his own take on it:

For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us… For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Romans 5:7-8, 10 (NASB)

I find several things interesting about this. First, I have to side with Paul on this. I know he usually comes across like an arrogant know-it-all, what with his self-declared apostleship and talk of trips to the Third Heaven, but when he’s right, he’s right. Dying for one’s enemies, for those who are unworthy, is a hell of a lot more nobler and impressive than dying for one’s friends. Friends mean something to you. An act of self-sacrifice for a friend, while admirable, is not unthinkable, but dying for an enemy is a very strange thing indeed.

What I find most interesting that J.M. Green (who wrote this post) thinks that Jesus and Paul are saying contradictory things to one another. I should point out that he later changed the post to say that dying for one's enemies is "unusual". Let's look at the context for John 15:13.

⁹ “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. ¹⁰ If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. ¹¹ I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. ¹² My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. ¹³ Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. ¹⁴ You are my friends if you do what I command. ¹⁵ I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. ¹⁶ You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. ¹⁷ This is my command: Love each other. - John 15:9-17

It should be obvious that Jesus is not talking to the same audience as Paul was talking to. Jesus was talking his followers and admonishing them to love one another. And they were all Jesus' friends (except Judas). Paul was talking about the love Jesus has for all us.

So, sorry Jesus, but Paul wins this round. You really should have thought that line through a bit more carefully (or at least, the gospel writer who placed that line of dialog in your mouth should have). That sort of easy mistake tends to undermine the idea that you were supremely wise. And, if you truly had foreknowledge, you would have known that Paul would come along and trump your pronouncement.

Interesting how Green gives Paul's context but not Jesus' context. Either he is ignorant or dishonest. Also Paul did not say the dying for your enemies is greater than loving your friends. He was saying that Jesus showed His love for us in that he died for us inspite of us being His enemies. Green is still Jesus' enemy. Green is arguing that Jesus did not tell us to love our enemies. Is there a single scripture that tells us not to love our enemies? Not a chance. In fact we have the opposite. Jesus said:

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[a] 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

I know this may seem minor to some of you, but when a ‘mere ma’n one-ups the ‘Son of God’ in defining the highest pinnacle of love, then that is somewhat of a big deal.

Paul didn't contradict Jesus here. I would argue that no where did Paul contradict Jesus.  Atheists will have to do better than this to prove this canard. 

The other interesting thing is how often the teachings of Paul are at odds with the teachings of Jesus. Oh I know, the letter to the Romans was written decades before the Gospel of John and all, but still, these kind of discrepancies in the ‘amazing unity of the Bible’ should give Christians pause. But, sadly it doesn’t seem to. Perhaps another time, we will take a look at some of more pronounced differences between Paul’s gospel, and that of the Jesus he claimed to have been personally selected and tutored by.

Written by J. M. Green

Poor J.M. Green Of course an outright contradiction should give us cause in accept Christianity. The

problem is no one has pointed out one and that should give atheist pause and  cause them to seek God with all their hearts.  David Heddle posted the following remark

David Heddle • 4 hours ago

 

Hmm, lots o' confirmation of

The Super-duper Paul of Tarsus View: Atheists often attribute the Apostle Paul with powers far beyond what Christians grant. To wit: it is often suggested that he a) did not exist. And yet in spite of not actually being real he managed to b) usurp Christianity, creating an entirely new religion quite different from that taught by Jesus—who by the way probably did not exist either. And c) Paul managed, while not existing, to steal Christianity —through the use of forged letters. Remarkable! In a nutshell the "super Paul" view is that two people who never existed created two distinct religions (fraudulently). Then later fools, who believed in both of these non-entities, merged their contradictory teachings into a franken-religion.

I agree with Dr Heddle. He posted a comment showing how silly the remarks in this post are and how it shows how little people understand Christianity in general and Paul in particular.  A scathing  comment like this of course generated a response. However John Law isn't that honest.

Honest_John_Law David Heddle • 2 hours ago
Wow! More keen insight from David Heddle, the guy who reads the Bible intelligently and comes here for fun. Since David Heddle began visiting this website, we have observed that:

a) he rejects the position of Early Church Fathers re. their widely held view of an infallible sacred magisterium...

The position of the  Early Church Fathers was not the "widely held view of an infallible sacred magisterium..."

b) he agrees with Luther's positions on sola fide and predestination yet disagrees with Luther's views re. the sacraments and polity...

 So? Martin Luther was not infallible. You can disagree with him and still be a believer and go to heaven. I think Heddle is right on that. And Luther himself would not say you have to agree with him 100% to be a true Christian.

c) some of his views re. Calvinism appear at odds with WLC's views...

Duh. So what? Does Law think that William Lane Craig is the beginning and ending of Christianity? If so he should get out more. 

d) he stated that " when I (David Heddle) disagree with Pope Francis I think I (David Heddle) am correct."...

And....? Law (I assume) disagree with Pope Francis. Does that mean he is just as wrong as me and Heddle?

e) he stated that "There are probably ~8000 Protestant denominations. Whether God is happy with that or not I couldn't say." and suggested that different denominations within the Christian faith are "not a big deal"...

Why should it be? The majority of them only disagree on minor issues that are not important. Things like worship styles. You can't honestly include Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and Christian Science in that group. If you do, then you are even more ignorant than I thought. 

f) he boldly asserts that the "vast majority of Christians" agree upon the basic gospel message, yet he provided no statistically significant independently verified data to substantiate that claim. In fact, the RCC is by far the largest denomination, and their comprehensive views re. salvation are at odds with those held by mainline Protestant "churches". The RCC is abundantly clear on this point re. those who "knowingly and deliberately" (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) reject divinely revealed doctrine taught by the RCC...
If scripture was intended to be read intelligently by individuals who then may interpret scripture as it seems right to them, it would be astounding if orthodoxy could be preserved over many centuries. Then again, David Heddle suggested that different denominations within the Christian faith are "not a big deal"...
Eureka! We now clearly see that David Heddle HAS contributed something of real value here. David Heddle is a "Cafeteria Christian" for all to observe with astonishment and wonder... Well done, David Heddle. Keep up the good work.

Law forgets that the Roman Catholic Church is hardly based on Sola Scriptura so that is why it's different on some of those main things.  They are not reading the scriptures intelligently. Neither does J.M. Green or Law. And while I will agree that David Heddle HAS contributed something of real value her but he is not a  "Cafeteria Christian". However John Law's comment has contributed nothing of value. 

The bottom line is that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because He loves us. That is what Jesus taught and that is what His followers taught and teach.  

Debunking Christianity: Jesus Versus Paul: The Greatest Love?

Answering Muslims: Is the Father the Only God?

In this episode, Sam Shamoun discusses the Trinity and why it should not be a stumbling block to Muslims in coming to Jesus for salvation. Really good stuff!!



Answering Muslims: Is the Father the Only God?

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: Jim Warner Wallace- God's Crime Scene

I've become something of a fan of James Warner Wallace's ministry/ This is another presentation of his methodology for approaching scripture and witnessing. He brings to bear his years of experience in investigating crime scenes and especially "cold cases" (like the 30 year-old cases) on the evidences inside and outside the Bible for the validity of Christianity. After being an Atheist of 35 years, he came to the conclusion - based on his professional analysis of the evidence - that accepting Christianity is the only reasonable response.  He gives a great presentation.


Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: Jim Warner Wallace- God's Crime Scene