tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.comments2023-11-05T03:56:30.685-08:00The WorrywartUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger245125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-54557271224662579762020-04-14T10:32:06.850-07:002020-04-14T10:32:06.850-07:00I'm stunned by the vitriol that this well-rese...I'm stunned by the vitriol that this well-researched article has prompted. The "young doctor Marcus Fernandes" was my brother-in-law and I confirm his disillusionment with Mother Teresa. F. FernandesF. Fernandeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00719383784314404883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-9252370468526221082019-10-16T06:59:47.170-07:002019-10-16T06:59:47.170-07:00If the Resurrection didn't occur, Christianity...If the Resurrection didn't occur, Christianity would have died off with the first few fanatics who claimed to have seen the Resurrected Jesus. The Romans spread the #FakeNews that Jesus was still dead, but his body had somehow been stolen out from under the watch of Roman soldiers by the Disciples of Jesus. The Roman Authorities produced the soldiers and they repeated the lie to the public. Those who had seen the Resurrected Jesus knew the Romans were lying to them. When a Roman soldier was caught sleeping on watch, they were executed. In a curious way, then, those who listened to the lying and alive (but sleeping, so how did they know WHO took the Body?) Roman watch standers were witnessing a confirmation that the Roman Empire would eventually die, and it would die defending the lie that Jesus is dead and the false Roman gods were still alive.Dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01810967605757898415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-35135482611836330392019-10-16T06:47:19.371-07:002019-10-16T06:47:19.371-07:00If evolution is settled science, how can it be evo...If evolution is settled science, how can it be evolving and is communism really "the end of History?"<br />The Natural Law is written in every human heart and God doesn't cause evil He permits it so that He may make a greater good come from the evil that men do to other men.Dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01810967605757898415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-37785098172615923682018-09-07T19:05:22.810-07:002018-09-07T19:05:22.810-07:00thanksgiving family traditions ideas
thanksgiving...<a href="http://https://thanksgiving786.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">thanksgiving family traditions ideas</a><br /><br /><a href="http://https://thanksgiving786.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">thanksgiving activities for adults</a><br /><br /><a href="http://https://thanksgiving786.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">thanksgiving activities for preschoolers</a><br /><br /><a href="http://https://thanksgiving786.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">thanksgiving activities for families</a>8 ball pool all versionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11598134867899820695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-47934448815883299292018-03-23T23:17:00.461-07:002018-03-23T23:17:00.461-07:00The principle of proportionality demands extraordi...The principle of proportionality demands extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Of the approximately 100 billion people who have lived before us, all have died and none have returned, so the claim that one (or more) of them rose from the dead is about as extraordinary as one will ever find. Is the evidence commensurate with the conviction? According to philosopher Larry Shapiro of the University of Wisconsin–Madison in his 2016 book The Miracle Myth (Columbia University Press), “evidence for the resurrection is nowhere near as complete or convincing as the evidence on which historians rely to justify belief in other historical events such as the destruction of Pompeii.” Because miracles are far less probable than ordinary historical occurrences, such as volcanic eruptions, “the evidence necessary to justify beliefs about them must be many times better than that which would justify our beliefs in run-of-the-mill historical events. But it isn't.”<br />What about the eyewitnesses? Maybe they “were superstitious or credulous” and saw what they wanted to see, Shapiro suggests. “Maybe they reported only feeling Jesus ‘in spirit,’ and over the decades their testimony was altered to suggest that they saw Jesus in the flesh. Maybe accounts of the resurrection never appeared in the original gospels and were added in later centuries. Any of these explanations for the gospel descriptions of Jesus's resurrection are far more likely than the possibility that Jesus actually returned to life after being dead for three days.” The principle of proportionality also means we should prefer the more probable explanation over less probable ones, which these alternatives surely are.<br />Perhaps this is why Jesus was silent when Pontius Pilate asked him (John 18:38), “What is truth?”Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07327403220404111959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-86397537718346922822017-07-19T14:07:18.852-07:002017-07-19T14:07:18.852-07:00Christopher Hitchens's book grassy titled, The...Christopher Hitchens's book grassy titled, The Missionary Position contains no citations. It is hardly a credible source and I am immediately skeptical about Parenti's piece.Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04640657940096391289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-43828182026556370792017-02-08T00:00:41.173-08:002017-02-08T00:00:41.173-08:00You should find yourself a proper church, one that...You should find yourself a proper church, one that actually preaches the truth of the Gospel!Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03319524508163040482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-5887537457831025202016-05-17T09:22:28.405-07:002016-05-17T09:22:28.405-07:00Wooow! Very good article!, Thank you very much for...Wooow! Very good article!, Thank you very much for posting!.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755863308741018779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-6098234777841994092016-05-17T09:19:55.846-07:002016-05-17T09:19:55.846-07:00Wooow! Very good article!, Thank you very much for...Wooow! Very good article!, Thank you very much for posting!.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755863308741018779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-80375695993934674372016-04-07T18:13:02.756-07:002016-04-07T18:13:02.756-07:00Reader, the author of the essay I’m critiquing is ...Reader, the author of the essay I’m critiquing is using shock factor, surface level treatments of scripture, and cherry picked verses to make you question the Bible and question God’s morals. The truth is, the Bible has been trusted by the noblest, smartest, and most intellectual people of all time. The capital building has Moses’ Ten Commandments inscribed on them. Our heralded Second Treatise of Civil Government has 1000 Bible verses cited. Founders of our modern sciences (Kepler, Pasteur, Newton, etc.) pursued science to know more about their Creator. The Bible is the foundation of who we are as a society. The Bible is trustworthy. Christ has risen. God is holy, good, and just. Any surface level problems in the Bible have perfectly rational explanations, as I’ve shown. It just takes seeking them out from those who are qualified to answer your questions. God has appointed teachers and evangelists in the church, and they certainly don’t consist of atheists. Seek answers from Spirit filled teachers who have poured their lives into understanding the entire Bible. May God bless you in your spiritual journey!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-17390157210325919112016-04-07T18:12:46.185-07:002016-04-07T18:12:46.185-07:00According to the author, God promotes witch-hunts,...According to the author, God promotes witch-hunts, crusades, and inquisitions. No He doesn’t. Nowhere are we told to do these as New Testament believers. We are not told to torture unsubordinated church members, but rather disassociate with them religiously (2 John 1:10). Nor are we to attack other unbelieving nations. The first century Christians were pacifists, and denounced any involvement in war. To compare us to Israelites storming Canaan shows a complete naïve understanding of the flow of Biblical history and theology. That was a one-time typological war which pointed spiritually to Christ’s battle against spiritual principalities and powers. Individuals or churches who promote such activity today may be Christian by profession, but not by possession. We should never judge a truth based on people’s lack of adherence to it. You don’t stop believing in gardens because of weeds, nor do you stop believing in mathematical laws because of failing math students. Jesus prophesied that many professed Christians would be hypocrites (Matthew 7:21), and that many would fall away from the faith in the latter days (1 Timothy 4:1). The fact that this has occurred supports the validity of His prophetic ministry, if anything! <br /><br />One ridiculous example the author mentioned was 2 Kings 3:26-27. She claimed that this passage shows how God condones the sacrificing of ones child to God for winning a war. This is sheer dishonesty. The passage is a narrative of a battle, in which a non-God-fearing, non-Israelite Moabite king sacrifices his son to a false Moabite god (not Jehovah) in order to win the battle. The Moabites were not followers of Jehovah! It appalls me that someone would try to use such a passage to say that God approved of this activity. Since when does a narration of an evil activity prove that the evil activity is condoned? That’s like saying the newspaper is responsible for promoting murder because it published an article about a recent murder. Silliness! <br /><br />Near the end of her paper, while describing the plentiful number of religious booths at the Ann Arbor arts festival, the author implies that religions cannot be true because there are so many and they all have different claims. However, this argument is self-refuting. Atheism is also a belief system founded upon many supernatural, unscientific, indemonstrable claims, especially those of abiogenesis and the one-time violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics; matter spontaneously coming from nothing in a big bang; an uncaused effect. Atheism should set up a booth right along-side the others. In addition, it is preposterous to think that a multiplicity of claims precludes a true claim. Would a roomful of counterfeit $100, 10$, and $5 bills render the impossibility of a real $100 bill being in the room? Of course not. Jesus promised there would be many false teachers and prophecies. So the fact that so many exist actually supports His teachings. Since the Resurrection of Christ only happened once, we cannot demand a modern day repeat of it in a laboratory (we don’t demand such of the one-time big bang do we?). No, we need to use analyze the forensic evidence involved and come to logical conclusion. When this is done, the resurrection of Christ is supported by early testimony, eyewitness testimony, expected testimony (prophetic), excruciating witness, embarrassing testimony, extra-biblical testimony, and more . Such is not so with other supposed myths, legends, and religions. I’ll quote from Harvard professor Simon Greanleaf, the father of the laws of evidence: “it was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead”. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-75495660914941557572016-04-07T18:12:15.760-07:002016-04-07T18:12:15.760-07:00The author brings up Jesus’ apparent mistaken noti...The author brings up Jesus’ apparent mistaken notions of when He would return, such as His mention of eschatological events occurring in the very generation of the disciples (Matthew 24:34). Such an argument demonstrates the author’s apparent lack of study of the New Testament. Nearly all camps of Christians see a clear already/not structure of Matthew 24, similar to the apocalyptic prophecies of the Old Testament. Jewish apocalyptic language uses end of the age imagery to speak of very near events. The tribulation spoken of in Matthew 24 is the 70 AD destruction of the temple, which did happen in their generation. The kingdom of God is also described in already/not yet language throughout the New Testament. It came invisibly at the first advent and resides in us spiritually (Luke 17:21). We are members of the Heavenly kingdom and live according to its precepts while on Earth. In the future, it will come in its consummate form and we will reside in it physically (Mt 25:34). What about Jesus not knowing when He would return? In His human nature Jesus was limited in knowledge. He had willingly foregone the independent use of His divine attributes while on Earth. Instead He relied on the anointing of the Holy Spirit to do miracles and gain special knowledge (Luke 4:18). <br /><br />Ok, let’s get back to some more Bible evil. The author claims that Jesus taught us to hate our families. Of course the, she either doesn’t know the Bible at all, or she thinks her audience doesn’t know the Bible at all. Clearly Jesus taught us that hatred is evil and equivalent to murder (1 John 3:15). Jesus’ teachings exude with love for people, and especially respect for our parents (in accord with the Ten Commandments). Thus the idiom he states in Luke 14:26 is not a call to hate our families in the 21st century sense of the term “hate”. He’s making the point that if we are going to be followers of Him, we must make that relationship our number one priority. All other relationships must pale in comparison. It’s obvious he doesn’t mean the kind of hate that’s evil, for he includes “even their own life” in the list. Is he telling us to hate ourselves? No, as that would directly contradict where he elsewhere tells us to love our neighbors as “ourselves”! No, he’s simply telling us to put our desires aside and follow Him. Again, the author is using deceptive shock value again and again throughout her essay.<br /><br />The author had the audacity to claim that the Book of Revelation is filled with literal tormentuous plagues that God will single-handedly inflict on people at the end of time. The book of Revelation is a self-proclaimed book of symbols that “signify” events (Revelation 1:1). To take it wooden literally is a very naïve approach to interpretation. The majority of Christians (Amillennials, Postmillennials, Preterists, Historicists, Historic Premillennials) see the seals, plagues, and viles of Revelation as apocalyptic language describing the downfall of worldly kingdoms. The author is misrepresenting the majority of Christian scholarship! <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-66476495153320986342016-04-07T18:11:47.657-07:002016-04-07T18:11:47.657-07:00Let’s talk about God’s interaction with Satan. Th...Let’s talk about God’s interaction with Satan. The author claims moral repulsion over the account David’s census. One account says, “Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel”. The other account says, “The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” The word Hebrew word satan, without a definite article, simple means “adversary”, not the title Satan. Thus the first account should be rendered as “an adversary stood against Israel….” This interpretation is exactly like the only other occurrence of anarthrous “satan” in the OT: “the Angel of the Lord stood in the road as an adversary [heb. satan]” (Num 22:22). Thus, there is no contradiction between the two accounts. One question remains: Why would Yahweh incite David to do something for which He would later punish him? And why did He punish all of Israel. Simple, Both accounts begin by saying Yahweh was angry with Israel, not David. Yahweh chose to use David as His instrument of judgment against the nation, similar to the way He would use Nebuchadnezzar centuries later. God didn’t directly provoke David. He tempts no man in such a way (James 1:13). No, He simply permitted the circumstance in which He foreknew David would willingly (by his own libertarian free will) choose to count the nation, which was a sin. Israel was never to be counted unless expressly sanctioned by God. Why? Because it directly challenged God’s promise for Israel to be as numerous as the sand of the sea.<br /><br /> What about Job? I already wrote in detail about God working for our ultimate good. Job’s trials resulted in his self-righteousness being eradicated, his faith increasing immensely, and him being given double of all that he had before the trials. But why did God let Satan attack a good man in the first place? First of all, there are no truly perfectly good people. Jesus told us “there is none good but God”. We've all sinned and sin makes us worthy of death (Romans 3:23, 6:23). Secondly, God isn't the one who authorized Satan to unleash hell on humanity, Adam is! In the garden Adam had a choice about who to obey, Satan or God. By obeying Satan, he delivered the kingdoms of this world to Satan (Lk 4:6). He showed God that he wanted to listen to Satan’s commands, not Gods. Satan legally became the god of this wicked age (2 Cor 4:4), the prince of this world (John 16:11), who walks about seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet 5:8). He subjugates people to his paternity by causing them to do the very wicked things he loves (Jn 8:44). So the book of job is not some pissing contest between God and Satan, but rather God letting Satan do what he’s always been authorized by Adam to do (Compare 1 Pet 5:8 with Job 1:7). Satan already targeted Job, as he targets all mankind. I’m convinced that when God said, “Have you considered my servant Job?”, he wasn’t provoking Satan to go look for him, but rather, knowing he already targeted him, saying, “You actually have the audacity to target my righteous servant Job? Are you nuts? You know He’ll never forsake me! You’re wasting your time!” Just as God stated, Job’s faithfulness through the trial rendered Satan’s attacks futile. Job won! We all win if we accept Christ’s victory over Satan. No matter what evil, persecution, or sickness comes our way, we overcome by the blood of Jesus Christ! We win!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-79830676805277026642016-04-07T18:11:28.829-07:002016-04-07T18:11:28.829-07:00Atheists will shake their fists at God for testing...Atheists will shake their fists at God for testing Abraham to see if he would slay Isaac. First of all, this was a one-time test given to the patriarch of God’s people – a unique office; perhaps the most important of all time. It demanded a test that no other human has to take. It would be akin to the special training of a navy seal which is much more rigorous than that of a regular naval soldier. Some people, based on the office they are being considered for, must go through intensely horrifying training not expected by others. But why did the test include killing Isaac? Atheists don’t have the illumination of the heart and mind to see the beautiful picture of the Gospel in Genesis 22. The truth is, God was walking Abraham through a picture form of the future sacrifice of His own son, Jesus. God provided a substitute for Isaac in the thicket (a ram) on the third day (Just like Jesus won our victory on the third day). God wanted Abraham, the father of faith (Galatians 3), to truly understand the essence of the Gospel – which is the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ for our sin. Abraham was God’s friend, and God didn’t keep secrets from Him (Gen 18:17). Plus God had already promised Abraham that Isaac would be the seed from which Israel was birthed. Thus, Abraham knew it was a Gospel re-enactment the whole time. He was confident that he wouldn’t actually have to kill Isaac. When they were departing, he told his men that he and the boy would return. In addition, multiple times during the journey, he told Isaac that God would provide a sacrifice for them. <br /><br />While we’re on the subject of killing children, atheists ask ‘why would God kill His own Son’? First of all, God didn’t kill Jesus. Wicked human beings did, and they did it from their own libertarian free will, not by compulsion from God. God simply foreknew it would occur, and integrated it into His plan permissively. Secondly, Jesus died of His own accord. He said, “I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself” (John 10:15-17). Jesus could have stopped His death at any time, but wanted to die for His people. But why couldn’t God just forgive sin without a penalty being paid? To ask such a question is to completely misunderstand justice. Should we just let all of our murderers, rapists, child molesters, and thieves out of jail without paying any penalty? Surely, one would be infuriated by a judge who lets their wife’s murderer off the hook without punishment. They would call that judge a “bad” judge. Likewise, if God doesn’t punish sin, He’s a bad judge. ‘But we aren’t all murderers, rapists, and thieves’. True, but God is infinitely Holy, and even the motives behind such sins are present to some degree in all people (e.g. hate is considered like murder in the Bible). Such sinful motives, thoughts, and words and irreconcilable with an infinitely holy and righteous Creator. To illustrate, imagine cooking at an amateur cooking show with common lay people as judges. They would judge you on the taste of the food, probably missing all the little culinary mistakes you made. Then picture cooking at a professional cooking show with Las Vegas chefs as the judges. Their status as skilled professionals brings the judgement to a higher standard. They would be much pickier. You may present a dish that tastes pretty good compared to any normal person’s cooking. But they would nag on every culinary mistake you make. And we would expect that from them, given who they are. As an infinitely righteous Creator, overlooking even minor sins would make God less than God; less than all-righteous; less than all-holy. The penalty needs to be paid or God’s infinite justice is invalidated. Of course, no man can pay the penalty for another man. But, with God all things are possible. So He Himself became a man so that He Himself could pay the penalty for humans and satisfy infinite justice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-16746101743099310602016-04-07T18:06:39.483-07:002016-04-07T18:06:39.483-07:00What about “headship” and the seeming injustice of...What about “headship” and the seeming injustice of all people suffering for Adam’s sin, or Israel suffering for David’s sin? Think about it, don’t we immediately associate misbehaved children with their parents’ inability to properly teach them? Don’t we assume the children are acting the way they have been trained to act, and the way that will lead them to be just like their parents? Now imagine having complete foreknowledge. You could infallibly see whether they would actually become the moral and ethical picture of their parents. That’s exactly what God has – Exhaustive and complete foreknowledge. He foreknew exactly what we would become! We have Adam’s negative consequences because we directly identify with him. We all would have committed the sin in the garden, as is evidenced by our lives every day! We eat of the forbidden apple daily, and we know it. Our consciences daily convict us of our rebellion against God. So Adam was a fitting representative for every one of us sinners. God foreknew each one of us beforehand and justly brought the judgements on all of us that we all deserve, being moral duplicates of Adam. God has every right to execute judgements on people because of their association to a federal head because He (unlike us) perfectly sees their future willful identification with that head. On a side note, it perplexes me that as a nation we were morally ok with dropping the bomb on Hiroshima for the sins of its ruling elite and military, yet God isn’t allowed to make moral judgments against a family, tribe, or entire nation. Perplexing!<br /><br />The author brings up their repulsion of the concept of Hell, making it sound like God is down there stirring a pot of fire soup as He cooks the majority of humanity. This is not the Christian conception of Hell. In the end, we will all get what we want. Those who want to be reconciled with their Creator in be a blissful state of worship will be. Those who want nothing to do with their Creator will also get their desire. We call it Hell! Its symbolic images range from bright painful fire to outer darkness, but it’s nothing more than a state of complete absence from God and all of His created grace – His love, His resources, His people, His pleasures, His virtues, His everything. Anything that we experience in this life that brings true pleasure, from the cool drops of rain on a hot day to the feelings of love and acceptance at the altar of marriage, is from God. With that taken away, we have loneliness, despair, mourning, and torment. Yet, God is even gracious enough to have levels of guilt based on the level of knowledge sinners received about Him during their lifetime, and those levels of guilt dictate their level of punishment. So even Hell has an element of grace that is totally undeserved. <br /><br />While I’m on the subject, let me address the touted “what about those who never heard” objection. People who have never heard the Gospel have a revelation of God in nature and conscience (Romans 1-2). If they respond positively to that light, accepting the one Creator God (rather than worshipping creation) and heeding their conscience’s plea to escape moral depravity, God will grant them further revelation, either by sending a missionary, a dream, a vision, or even a deathbed experience. Seek and you will find! If they do not seek, they will end up severed from their Creator’s graces for eternity, at a level commensurate to the level of light they forsook. Yes, the Bible clearly portrays levels of guilt based on levels of revelation and understanding. That’s why children will not be in hell at all.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-89342966676396468122016-04-07T18:06:14.628-07:002016-04-07T18:06:14.628-07:00The author brought up the slaughtering of the Cana...The author brought up the slaughtering of the Canaanites. We hear this one a lot. Yet I don’t think atheists understand the gravity of the sin of the Canaanites. These people committed atrocities for ages, without ever facing justice. I’m convinced that if an entire society was sacrificing the masses of their children regularly (as they did), a league of morally inclined nations would confront them in war. That’s just conjecture. “But why the command to wipe out women and children,” you ask. This seems harsh, I agree. For one thing, some have suggested that such obliteration language was used as a hyperbolic idiom. I’m not sure about that. One thing I am convinced of, however, is the nearly unanimous early church view (and apocryphal view from the Book of Enoch and various other sources) that the Canaanites weren’t even fully human, but a race of “Giants” (Greek LXX Gigantes in Genesis 6), also deemed Rephaim and Nephilim, who were a half breed of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” (see a very thorough study of this in Douglas Van Dorn’s book – The Giants). If these creatures were infused with necessary evil that would pervade and destroy the rest of humanity, they needed wiped out. The race needed purified once again. That was the intention of the Global flood (an event evidenced by our catastrophically layed sedimentary layers, polystrata tree fossils, sea shell fossils on our highest mountains, and much more, but I digress). And that’s exactly why a resurgence of Giants in the land of Canaan after the flood required extermination. Even if the “giant” theory is wrong, God has every right to take like when He sees fit. Think about it, if you were a mid-wife who helped give birth to Hitler and were suddenly given an infallible foreknowledge of what Htiler would become, you may be tempted to throw the baby out of the window. But, of course, you have no right to carry out such an action. God however does. He alone can give life. He alone can take it away. He has perfect foreknowledge of what those infant Canaanites would have become (likely wicked hell-bound heathen like their parents), and had every right to wipe them out as children prior to the age of accountability, in order to assure they went to heaven and never became what their parents were. That would give them an eternity of bliss instead (at the expense of 70-80 years of temporal existence) rather than an eternity of hell. God alone has the right as Life-Giver to take away life in such a way that it maximizes the population of Heaven. We don't have the right to make that call. He does. I must say, I find it quite ironic that most of those who bring up the Divine infanticide argument will at the same time staunchly defend the slaughtering of millions of our babies in abortion clinics. God can't play God, but we can? Perplexing! <br /><br />The author bashed the complementarian view of women being in subjection to men (in Ephesians 5). Interestingly a couple verses earlier, we are all told to be in subjection to one another (i.e. consider each other’s needs first). There are areas where functional subjection is absolutely necessary. Any two headed creature is a monster. Two CEO’s of the same company would lead to chaos. Likewise, two functionally equal executives of the home would cause chaos. Even Jesus Christ said that He was in subjection to God the Father (See John 5). With that said, complementarianism in no way degrades a woman as less valuable or as a slave (Lest we claim Christ as less valuable than the Father??). It simply acknowledges a functional order in the home. In a nearby verse, Paul also says, “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church”. That means that we aren’t heavy handed slave masters, but simple executives of our homes who love and serve our wives sacrificially. We earn their desire to follow our lead. Anything short of that is unbiblical tyranny. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-63757533873705205562016-04-07T18:05:50.436-07:002016-04-07T18:05:50.436-07:00As I read the article, I couldn’t help the author’...As I read the article, I couldn’t help the author’s repetitive insistence that the punishment God gives is often way more than what the person or people-group deserved. This is the result of a failure to grasp the gravity of sin against God, which itself is the result of a failure to understand who God is. Atheists are comparing God to human beings when they accuse Him of evil, but He is not a human; He is the infinite, all-holy, all-pure, all-perfect, all-righteous Creator of all things. We can’t compare the consequences of sin that He unleashes against humans to the consequences of sin that humans unleash against other humans. No human shares His infinite attributes. When someone sins against a human, it’s not nearly the same travesty as when someone sins against God. Such a willful disobedience requires complete and utter spiritual and physical death, a complete and utter removal from all grace that emanates from God. The question should not be, “why are good people caused to suffer on earth or in hell”, but rather “why do bad people get any grace at all”. Does that mean I am condoning every apparent “evil” that God permits or causes in the Bible as perfectly justifiable? Who am I to question the Almighty’s justice? The Bible says that He does not cause evil in the sense of wickedness with wicked intentions (James 1:13). However, He does cause “evil” in the Hebraic sense of calamity or ruin (Isaiah 45:7). But this aligns with His nature that I have been describing. He ultimately works all things for good in a way that falls in line with His infinite justice and His infinite goodness (Rom 8:28). Yet I also must say that the examples of apparent Biblical evil that the author mentions are mostly shear misinterpretations, failing to consider either immediate or broad context, or illogical deductions applied to a strawman god. I don’t have time to address them all, but I’ll touch on a few I remember her bringing up. <br /><br />The author mentioned Paul’s predestination verses. This is an apparent problem, not a real one. All Christian camps understand that God’s sovereign control is perfectly reconcilable with man’s free will, whether it’s under the construct of a “middle knowledge” view or some other foreknowledge view. The truth is, God has predestined all things in so far as He knows our choices and has in advance determined how He will interact with those choices. He has offered sufficient grace for any person to respond positively to some degree. The Bible promises that those who respond positively will be granted more grace. Then, of course, there are those who don’t respond positively. God makes the choice to grant some of those folks special grace, thereby drawing them to Him completely undeservedly and for optimization of His universal plan. Is He obligated to do that for them? No, not at all. Those who fail to respond positively to common grace have no excuse. They are condemned by their own choice. Based on God’s mercy, however, I’m convinced that there are way more “thief on the cross” (i.e. deathbed) conversions than we can imagine.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-28171810409774022282016-04-07T18:05:10.144-07:002016-04-07T18:05:10.144-07:00God has created a world with free-will agents. Cla...God has created a world with free-will agents. Claiming that we could govern such agents better than God is like saying we could solve an infinitely large multi-variate, multi-constraint, multi-objective optimization problem with a pencil and paper. It’s like setting up an infinitely complex set of dominoes larger than our universe. How in the world does the author know what some evil event (or good event) today will do to other dominoes down the line? It’s impossible to know with our finite minds. God, who does have that infinite knowledge and wisdom, is making all things new; all things perfect; not instantly, but in a way that makes these ultimate virtues truly personal, formed through experience, and appreciated. Victory comes through struggle, courage comes through testing, strength comes through opposition, patience comes in trial, mercy is shown only in offense, good is best seen in contrast to evil. We daily cry tears of inspiration when we read about or watch videos of the proverbial “evil worked for ultimate good” stories on Facebook. Yet atheists shake their one fist at God while they wipe the tears of inspiration with the other hand, as if the evil is futile and all in vain. No, it’s all for something good in the end. To strip the world of all evil (which requires a stripping of all free will by the way) is to strip it of a plethora of opportunities to gain the aforementioned virtues in a profoundly personal (rather than robotic) way. God is creating the ultimate good ending to a movie that Adam gave a bad start. This is the type of God we have, not the hypothetical strawman that the author is tearing down. <br /><br />In a similar vein, the author claims that if a caring designer existed, the biological world wouldn’t appear as imperfect. First of all, the once heralded useless vestigial organs of humans have since been shown to have very beneficial functions. Time and time again we discover how the supposed “imperfect” designs of creation are actually good designs that are misunderstood. So the science of such a claim is quite tentative and controversial. But let’s set that aside for now. Again, the author has no basis for such an argument because without a standard of “perfect design” that exists outside of all humans, no single human can claim what the “perfect” standard of design is. The author is setting aside her very argument when it comes to her own brain so that her “brain” can be trusted enough to make the very argument (else we could just say, ‘Sorry, I don’t trust your imperfect brain that resulted from blind physical forces in nature’). Who’s to say that her brain can suggest the “perfect design” standard? What about the guy next door? In addition, she is blaming an imperfect design on God, when, in fact, the entrance of sin into the world brought a curse which made the world imperfect (Genesis 3, Romans 8). According to Romans 8, the imperfection we see in this world, both morally and naturally, is there to make all of creation “groan” for what we know is the ultimate standard of perfection. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-7064076959899032792016-04-07T18:03:31.191-07:002016-04-07T18:03:31.191-07:00The author makes the typical atheistic claim that ...The author makes the typical atheistic claim that our God can’t exist because He permits and/or causes evil. Her argument is baseless, because the word “evil” has no objective, universal meaning within an atheistic worldview. If someone threw a rock at me, I would never yell at the rock, “Rock, you ought not to have done that”. I place responsibility on the agent who threw the rock. Yet, if that agent is simply a blob of carbon based molecules that assembled together via physical forces over millions of years, they are nothing more than a complex rock (perhaps I should blame those physical forces). One of those “rocks” may be named Hitler, and one named Mother Theresa, but asserting that the Hitler rock “ought” to behave the way the Mother Theresa rock behaves is illogical in such a worldview. The Hitler rock just does what the physical forces over time have evolved it to do. The Mother Theresa rock just does what the physical forces over time have evolved it to do. One desires to murder, while the other doesn’t have that desire. Neither “ought” to do anything; they just “do” what natural forces cause their matter to do. We don’t blame quartz for not having the properties of sandstone, do we? And when one has evolved more suitably for survival by murdering the other, then so be it – survival of the fittest assembly of molecules. “But we should defend the right of the more complex organism to survive”, they say. Why? What universal virtue demands that more “complexity” translates into higher value and worth? The mineral rich earth was much “healthier” before we supposedly evolved and started polluting and destroying its biosphere. Perhaps the simple rock is of more value in relation to universal sustenance. But all of this “worth” and value talk is meaningless in the atheistic worldview. No rock or person (i.e. complex rock) has any intrinsic value, purpose, worth, or rights unless those virtues are granted from without. As our Declaration of Independence states, were created by our Creator with certain unalienable rights – Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is what our country, along with its system of law and justice, was founded on. Without such a foundation, no one can argue with “wicked” individuals (e.g. Jeffrey Dahmer), “wicked” small tribes (cannibal baby-eating tribes), or “wicked” societies (e.g. Hitler’s regime). On what basis are Dahmer, baby-eating tribes, and Hitler’s regime wrong? They could simply argue that their sexual, murderous, and baby-eating cravings are a natural result of stronger genes wanting to reproduce more, reduce the population, or wipe out weaker gene pools to free up resources (respectively). Without a moral Law-Giver which transcends all individuals, tribes, and societies with the command – Murder is wrong – they will just follow their evolved cravings, and the notion of “murder” or “not murder” becomes a matter of preference, but not an objective, universal moral wrong. <br /><br />Secondly, God is infinitely wise and omniscient. We aren’t. Our situational ethics are very localized. If someone told you they were going to blow up an entire city unless you killed one specific person, you may think long and hard about that. Yet atheists blame an all-knowing, all wise God (Who knows all possible futures and scenarios) of being evil because He makes such a localized decision to allow evil for the greater good. The truth is, we don’t know the gain that could come from any given pain. Karate kid, totally frustrated, shaking his fist at Mr. Myagi, complained about the painful work Myagi had him doing. But the complaining stopped when Myagi showed him that the techniques learned through toil and pain resulted in beautifully honed karate moves. Whoever said that immediate gratification is what God intends or should intend. All rational humans know that without pain, often there is no gain. Doesn’t God know this infinitely better? <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-14233978697215988142015-12-13T00:29:10.190-08:002015-12-13T00:29:10.190-08:00The author also didn't include process theolog...The author also didn't include process theology, the theological position that God is changing as is the universe. Process theologians argue our knowledge of God must be progressing as we learn more about Him, and it can never rest in any absolutes, which is why process theologians deny the absolutes of God's immutability and truth. The God of Sculpture is not the God of today and will not be the God of tomorrow. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17024700157933255788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-91278054311663415142015-08-27T03:35:28.600-07:002015-08-27T03:35:28.600-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mr.big noisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11192367166730001592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-2589029401094764822014-11-11T22:43:50.427-08:002014-11-11T22:43:50.427-08:00very nice and decent blog post,.
Affordable Searc...very nice and decent blog post,.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.destinsol.com/seo-services.html" rel="nofollow">Affordable Search Engine Optimization</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478078253866417686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-38638977591525193542014-09-03T21:36:19.675-07:002014-09-03T21:36:19.675-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.d kilgorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730172434970251657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-47484641585937947962014-05-03T12:18:37.376-07:002014-05-03T12:18:37.376-07:00Mr. Kauffman, what an excellent read. Your prose ...Mr. Kauffman, what an excellent read. Your prose in magnificent and you have a marvelous writing style. I look forward to reading more. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07938865613457545409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-87114635577375025582014-02-21T06:35:30.098-08:002014-02-21T06:35:30.098-08:00The Bible is said to be the word of God. But why i...The Bible is said to be the word of God. But why is God Almighty not a competent writer? His biographical accounts are not as good as those of many human biographers, historical narratives are not as competent as those of modern historians, philosophical thoughts are not as coherent as those of philosophers. Cohesion, coherence, consistency, unambiguous statement of facts and internal logic are the pre-requisites of a good text. How do you score the Bible on the scale of good writing ? If not very high, which kind of God has produced this work ? If, on the other hand, it surpasses all human literary works in all genres by far, then we can unhesitatingly accept it as God's masterpiece.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08604748717705998829noreply@blogger.com