Evagelical Apologist

You Tubing on Tuesdays

2010-03-16T12:35:00.000-07:00

I can't believe that March is half over and this is my first blog entry since November of the previous year! It is so hard to keep updating with new material. Oh well, perhaps I'll do better for the remainder of the year.

While totally ignoring my text blog, for the last several months, I've been very busy on my video blog which is on You Tube. There I go by the moniker "evangelical1" because "evangelical" was already taken. That last symbol is a one, not an elle. a elle one.

I've really enjoyed being part of the You Tube community and hope to continue in the future. I haven't been very active for the last week or two, though. This is because my computer more or less died. While my friend, who is going to college for that sort of thing, is trying to fix it, I've been reduced to using a public computer and, there is no webcam or microphone here.

At any rate, once I get home internet access up and running again I plan to co-ordinate some of the stuff from the vlog with my Blogspot account. So be watching for that in another week or two.

And, there is actually a vibrant community on You Tube, of amateur philosophers who debate back and forth the question of God's existence-or lack thereof--or relevance vs irrelevance thereof. We even use formal deductive arguments at times. Its quite fun and stimulating.

Recently there has been an interesting exchange. The two leading Christian apologists on You Tube (together with a Muslim proselyte who is quite sound in his philosophical acumen) joined forces on a project on the presumption of atheism. Together, the triad has come to be known as "The Rational Dawn". I'm not quite sure how this name originated but I think it was derogatory. In phase one they merely explained that atheists can't get away with the old "We don't really believe anything so the burden of proof is on you Christians" trick any longer. Atheists are making a positive truth claim and so bear the burden of proof for their own contentions just like everyone else. Then in phase two, Rational Dawn was to simply sit back and listen to the best skeptical You Tubers had to offer. Most of the response videos I watched, arguing on behalf of positive atheism were really disappointing. I don't know how people can actually believe this stuff. The arguments against the existence of God I find normally only serve to establish what they are trying to deny. The arguments for atheism are so bad that the case for faith in God is even stronger.

At any rate, half way through, three pagans conspired to short-circuit the project. They formed a triad called "Rational Tuesday Afternoons." Their own stated purpose was to catalogue all the atheological arguments they could get their hands on. In the process they turned up their noses at Rational Dawn and said they would just ignore them. Its not totally clear to me, but I believe Rational Dawn discussed the presumption of atheism project with those who would later become Rational Tuesday Afternoons. They mutually agreed, I think, to have a civil and intelligent discussion which would be enlightening to all viewers whether they believe in God or not at the beginning of the project, and whether anyones mind is changed at the end.

I'm not sure how the catalogue project is going. It left a bad taste in my mouth. Having a readily available reference, or catalogue, on You Tube of positive atheism would be a valuable service to the world. However, the back-stabbing/mocking genesis of the Rational Tuesdays project was not the way to go about it.

About the only argument that I've seen so far (but I haven't been looking so there could be others) is by a young man who's handle is "Urbanelf". He calls this "The Forbidden Argument." The argument is manifestly unsound because it realise on the mistaken assumption that Muslims and Christians follow the same God. Urbanelf himself has since admitted, though I think for a different reason, that the forbidden argument as originally stated is unsound.

My own take on the original project, that of Rational Dawn, is that it was a success. I don't mean that it was successful in getting atheists to defend their position, though many thoughtful skeptics tried to do just that. Rather, it brought to the fore a confirmation of what I've strongly suspected all along. Namely that professing atheists are either unable or unwilling to defend themselves intellectually. This is not a universal statement, for, as I've said, many atheists did offer arguments and even Rational Tuesdays and co at least made the claim they would offer evidence of their position. Still, it seems that a large percentage of squeaky wheels who claim that they are so rational and the Christians and other theists have made a blind leap into irrational faith have been shown to really be full of hot air. To be honest, it seems atheism is rather presumptuous after all.

Divine Hiddeness: A Problem?

2009-11-08T11:52:00.000-08:00

A less popular argument for atheism, than the problem of evil, is the problem of divine hiddeness. God's existence, it is said (even by believers), is not as clear as it could be. But yet God wants us to believe in Him. This problem may be expressed more formally, as a reductio ad absurdum, as follows:

0. God exists.
1. God wants all men to believe He exists.
2. Since God wants this, He would have made Himself clearly known.
3. There are educated-rational men, who do not believe in Him.
4. Therefor, there is no God.

So then, a reduction to absurdity, such as the above, starts out assuming the truth of what is to be disproved, the zeroth premise, then shows a contradiction is derivable from the original hypothesis. The conclusion, (4), contradicts the original assumption, (0), and so, if the proof is sound, we must reject the original assumption. In other words, if the above proof succeeds, God does not exist.

But, I do not think the above proof is sound. Let's take a closer look to find out why. First, in premise 1, the term "believe" is ambiguous. According to the letter of James, in the Bible, Satan himself believes in God. But we would hardly expect that the actions of the devil are pleasing to God. There is certainly a difference between mere mental ascent, such as devils possess, and saving faith such as Christians possess. It seems that saving faith is what is in view in premise one.

The reformers distinguished three distinct components of saving faith. They even had fancy Latin verbiage to label said components. I don't recall off hand what those terms are but no matter. What is sufficient for our purposes here is that saving belief is more than mere mental ascent. The something more includes an accepting trust. It is not enough to say, "I know God exists, so I guess I'll just have to make the best of it." We have to like the fact that God exists, and willingly follow Him.

But here is where the real problem comes in. Does God want everyone to choose to follow Him? I think He does. But what if we choose, of our own free will, to not 'trust and obey'? God cannot make us freely choose to follow Him. We saw this when looking at the problem of evil. So then, if God first wants us to have free will (and He does) He cannot then make us choose to follow Him of our own free will, even against our own free will, for that is self-contradictory and, hence, meaningless.

But we can go further. Premise two is demonstrably false. God could (and "could" is all we need to defuse a deductive premise) have had over-riding reasons for not making His existence more clear. God's thoughts are as high above ours as the heavens are above the earth. So maybe (and "maybe" is all we need to defuse a deductive premise) He knows something, in His omniscience, which we, in our limited knowledge, do not know.

What is more, premise two rests on a false assumption. Namely, the assumption God has not made His existence abundantly clear. At least, this idea seems to be lurking unstated somewheres within the above proof. But this assumption is patently false. The cosmological, teleological, ontological, and axiological proofs for the existence of God, individually and collectively, make it literally undeniable that there is a God. So God has made His existence unmistakable. If the people in premise three suppress this knowledge, that is their problem, not God's.

Could God have made His presence more clear? I suppose He could have, in some sense. He could have written "God exists" on every cell, for example. However, natural theology has given us apodictic certainty that God exists. Nothing can be more plain than what been rigorously demonstrated to be absolutely certainly true.

The argument against the existence of God, then, from divine hiddeness, is manifestly unsound as we have just seen. Still, it is a helpful argument. What I mean is that when we are exposed to the argument, we are immediately reminded of all the sound arguments for the existence of God. In this respect only, the atheistic argument succeeds.

Shrouded in Mystery

2009-10-11T17:41:00.000-07:00

Well, its not even anywhere near Easter time and the press is already coming out with yet another "debunking Christianity" story. This time about the Shroud of Turin.

An Italian scientist, funded by a group of unbelievers, was able to reproduce the shroud using entirely natural means, available in the middle ages (there is no earlier record of the shroud than, if I remember correctly, the late medieval period).

A few thoughts on this development:

1. Why is this news? I remember seeing an article in "Skeptical Inquirer" years ago which claimed anyone could easily make their own Shroud replica.
2. Even if the replica is sufficiently similar to the original, that, in-and-of-itself, does not mean the original was a fake.
3. Besides, I've heard that there were enough "slivers of the cross" sold by snake-oil peddlers to rebuild Noah's Ark. I mean back during the hey day of relics. Finding a sliver of wood was much easier than going to all the trouble of creating a fake resurrection cloth which baffled scientists, as to how the image arose thereon for over hundreds of years. Why go to all the trouble to create such an elaborate fraud?
4. Whomever allegedly faked the original would have to know details about the crucifixion of Jesus which, one could argue, were implausible for him to know. For example, if the nails were driven through the hands of Jesus (as they are traditionally portrayed) the weight of His body would have been to heavy so the body would have fallen off the cross. Instead, the nails went through the wrists as accurately portrayed on the Shroud.
5. Classically speaking, the case for the Resurrection never even appeals to the Shroud. So even if the Shroud is a fake that says absolutely nothing about the historicity of the Resurrection. If authentic, the Shroud is interesting and important but, at the end of the day, of secondary significance. If we have good independent evidence for the Resurrection-and we do-then the Shroud becomes apologetically superfluous. It is, if authentic, just more evidence on top of already sufficient evidence.
6. As mentioned above, the Shroud was unknown for centuries, so far as we can tell. During those centuries, Christians had no trouble believing in the risen Savior without a Shroud.
7. Authentic or not, it is hard to believe there would be a Shroud without there having first been a historical Jesus. What is more, it is hard to accept that there would be a Shroud of Turin at all, even supposing it is a demonstrable hoax, if the historical Jesus did not, in fact, rise from the dead.

The Miracle of Atheism

2009-10-04T18:04:00.000-07:00

The late J.L. Mackie published a book, right as he was at the end of his life, about atheism. More precisely, a book about philosophy of religion which favored atheism. Unlike Dawkins and other so-called new atheists, he actually knew about the arguments he was trying to refute. So the book actually wasn't that bad (though not very good either, if by "good" one means "rationally compelling"). The name of the book is "The Miracle of Theism."

So the basic outline of the book is that Mackie sets out a cumulative case for belief in God, then critiques it. He also sets out a cumulative case for atheism. He sets them side by side and concludes the latter is on much more solid ground than the former.

All the classical arguments, for and against God, are laid out critically. The heart of the case for atheism, in the book, seems to me to be the problem of evil. As I understand, Mackie died just as that problem, the problem of evil, was itself dying, so we may forgive him for overlooking the obituary. Nevertheless, he does interact with Plantinga's freewill defence. At any rate, it seems to me that Mackie's statement of the problem is fairly unique and, therefor, as well as for other reasons, worthy of examination.

As one may gather from the title of his book, Mackie views belief in God as miraculous, in some sense of the term. He does not find theism very plausible in other words. Still, various philosophers down through time have given what purport to be rational support for their religious beliefs and Mackie does take this fact seriously by giving the classical arguments a fair hearing.

He really does explain them, the arguments for God's existence, accurately, so far as I can tell. He does not misrepresent them. He then proceeds to give his concerns against their cogency. I disagree with his analysis here, but that is besides the point. If the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments are all logically unsound, that does not mean, in-and-of-itself, that theism is a false view. It could be that there really is a God. And why disbelieve in a God Who may really exist, if all one has to appeal to is the absence of evidence?

Of course, Mackie goes beyond this by offering a positive case for atheism. But here is the problem. His case revolves primarily around the problem of evil, which, if unsound, totally destroys his positive case. What is incomprehensible is that Mackie himself admits that the problem of evil, as a deductive argument, is unsound! He admits this in his book, in the very chapter on the problem of evil! So theism is the miracle here? Perhaps the a-key was stuck on his typewriter as he was writing the book.

Here, then, is Mackie's argument:

1. It is either logically possible, or else it is impossible, that God (who may or may not actually exist) could have created human beings such that they always freely choose the good.
2. It is not impossible, that God could have created human beings such that they always freely choose the good. We know this, for example, because any human can and does freely choose the good on at least one occasion so, it is certainly at least possible that he do so on every other occasion as well.
3. Therefore, God could have prevented evil from occurring but He did not so. And this is so, even taking man's putative freewill into account.

What I think Mackie is getting at here is that invoking freewill does not nullify the problem of evil. To say that it is logically possible that God could have created humans who always freely choose the good is, I suppose, true enough, but, only insofar as it goes. It kind of misses the whole point. I mean, logically possible or not, it need not be logically actual. In other words, if a man is created with genuine libertarian freedom, then it must be possible for the said man to choose evil. So if we find evil in the world, as a result of libertarian human freedom, we should not be surprised. Even God cannot, I submit, create a truly free agent who cannot, of his own accord, choose evil in a truly free way.

It is important to reiterate, at this juncture, that the problem of evil is the major and main part of Mackie's cumulative argument for atheism (keep in mind that this argument is one of the best cases for atheism by one of the best atheists in one of the best books on atheism, to date). Yet we see here that it, Makie's problem of evil, fails miserably. So the cumulative case for atheism as a whole fails miserably. And as I said before, even if all the arguments for religious belief are faulty, that does not, in-and-of-itself, establish atheism. So why be an atheist? Could it be that Mackie, and others, have less than rational reasons?

Keep On Rockin' In the Free World... We Salute You

2009-09-06T19:27:00.000-07:00

I've always been a bit disappointed that documentaries aren't more readily available from the movie industry. I recently had the privilege of watching "Heavy Metal in Baghdad."

I thought the metal scene where I live was bad. Apparently it is even worse in Iraq (more specifically, in Baghdad). There was only a single metal band in the entire country-that is, before all the members of this band moved to Turkey-and the documentary was just going there to chronicle their experiences and interview them.

It goes without saying that the situation in Iraq, under Saddam's regime and since then, is bad. Which goes a long ways toward explaining why the metal scene is essentially non-existent there.

The Black Scorpions, as the band is called in English (actually, their official name is in Latin, as opposed to Arabic or whatever language/s is spoken in Iraq), cut their teeth by listening to Metallica and Slayer. And the Metallica influence is very clear on their song "Massacre" which is available for listen on their MySpace page. It deals with the massacre of civilians in war torn Iraq.

My heart was really going out to the guys in this band as I was watching the documentary. All they wanted to do was to be free and express themselves through their music. For example, the bassist repeatedly complained that they were not able to grow long hair in Iraq even after the capture of Saddam.

On a more personal note, a young man (not in The Black Scorpions but friends with them) in the documentary was asked if he believes in God. Of course, that whole area is saturated with Islam and heavy metal gets a bad rap sometimes from certain religious folks. In America from ultra-orthodox Protestants but in Iraq from certain Muslims. So the interviewer discussed belief in God (presumably Allah) with the band. They all are Muslims, I think. At any rate, the gentleman not in the band said that he did believe in God but it is hard because He allowed the suffering in Iraq. Why didn't He intervene to stop it, the young man asked. You see how practical apologetics can be? Of course, a person in his shoes probably isn't looking for analytic philosophy but compassion, emotional support, and prayer. Nevertheless, if he was looking for solid intellectual answers, they are there. Thoughtful reflection on, and response to, the problem of evil is practically synonymous with apologetics.

At any rate, the program, produced by MTV, was eye-opening and informative. And I think any fan of harder music might wish to check out the movie if they are able to get ahold of it. Not for the kiddies though as there is mature content including much swearing.

The Blog Continues... The Vlog Begins

2009-08-30T20:05:00.000-07:00

Greetings y'all! Now yours truly has a presence on You Tube. Be sure to check it out. "evangelical" was already taken so I am "evangelical1" there. That last symbol is a numeral one not a letter elle. I hope to eventually post a semi-professional movie there in which several people are discussing natural theology. It will be a while before that happens but, be looking for it. Shalom out.

Spoofernatural (NOT that Christian parody band)

2009-08-19T19:34:00.001-07:00

I have a confession to make. One of my favorite genre's of movies is the spoof. One problem with this aesthetic preference is that there have never really been a lot of spoofs to watch. Until recently, of course. Now there are a plethora of them.

I had high hopes for "Epic Movie" and was let down. Much of fantasy literature, at least in the early days, had definite Christian connotations. Even something modern like "Harry Potter", perhaps, has echoes of the Christian influence much more explicit in "The Chronicles of Narnia", for example. Some of the Christian influenced fantasy literature of yesteryear was recently made into movie form. And "Epic Movie" satirised it. I hope they did not realise that Aslan is really Jesus because, in it, they portray Him as having sex with multiple persons at once, male and female, and all underage. That is blasphemy.

But there is not stink in all of Denmark. I recently purchases "An American Carol" at my local video retailer. It was directed by David Zucker of "Airplane" and "Naked Gun" fame. I was totally shocked as I noticed a very Christian like vibe to the flick. I am not saying that Zucker, or whomever wrote the script, was a true believer-but there was a definite odor of Christian sensibilities to the picture.

Two parts of the movie particularly stick out in this regard.

One was while Bill O'Rielly was interviewing a character, on his Fox News show, who was supposed to be Rossie O'Donnell. He showed a clip from her new documentary. It was all about how fundamentalist Christianity was, on Rosie's view, just as bad as fundamentalist Islam. Seeing as how the movie is a spoof-and 'spoof' is practically synonymous with 'satire'-the message was clear. Remember, satire is bringing something to ridiculous extremes to paint a negative portrait of it. But I guess you'd have to see the clip from the fictional documentary to really grasp the satirical force of it. That message can best be stated rhetorically. How many present-day nuns or priests have committed acts of terrorism or performed suicide bombings? In contrast, how many Muslim terrorists are there? It is politically correct to say that Islam is a religion of peace. And many in Islam are peace loving, I understand. But the idea of jihad comes straight out of the pages of the Koran itself. Fundamentalist Christians believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Fundamentalist Muslims believe "death to the infidels". These are harsh words that may hurt your ears, but somebodies got to say it.

The second part of note, of the movie, was the one musical number. The spirit of general Patton brings the main character-who is supposed to be Michael Moore-to a college campus. While the Professors are lecturing they break out into song. In the lyrics to the song, the teachers explain they were hippies back in "1968!". As they became yuppies they got teaching jobs to indoctrinate the younger generation with there liberal, left wing, propaganda. They got their dogma, as they continued to sing, from "1968!".

What is so uncanny about the song-and-dance in the secular movie, is that Bill Craig, a Christian apologist, was just talking about this very same thing on his audio blog (he presumably has not seen the movie). On his blog he was talking about the idea that the counter-culture movement of the 60's failed. But the protesters didn't give up their cause. Instead, many of them got teaching degrees so they could brainwash tomorrow's generation through the back door. A less direct, and more subtle (and successful) approach. And since many in colleges are themselves soon-to-be teachers in elementary and secondary schools, the entire educational system has long since collapsed. The prophecy of men without chests has finally become fulfilled. Once the Logos has been crucified, logic (not to mention ethics and aesthetics) is soon to follow. Looks like Nietzsche wasn't so mad after all.

But I digress. Back to the main point of this entry. I was so unbelievably surprised, in a good way, by "An American Carol". It was so much more than Leslie Neilson enacting corny puns. There was actually a moral behind it! A good moral!! The moral was more political than religious. Nevertheless, the moral is one that can resonate with more explicitly Christian ones. Kudos to Dave Zucker and company.

Stay Tuned for Comming Attractions

2009-07-25T10:26:00.000-07:00

Greetings one and all! I have been having major computer problems as of late. Plan to be back blogging soon.

Review of "Terminator: Salvation"

2009-05-24T21:33:00.000-07:00

Last night I went into that den of iniquity that is the movie theatre. I went to see "Terminator: Salvation" and was not dissappointed at all. Terminator III sucked and I'm not sure how it ties in with the most recent movie. In talking with the brother of the Simpson's comic-book guy, apparently the television series takes place after T2 and retcons right past 'The Rise of the machines' into 'Salvation'.

At any rate, the movie was certainly better than the third installment which, in case I forgot to mention, sucked. The new one tied in nicely with the first one as well. There was even a trailor truck/road flare scene remeniscent of the first installment. And when John Conner was asked what his men should be told when they find out he is gone to sky net, he replied, "I'll be back." If only he would have said, "hasta la vista, baby" as he was about to blow it up. Oh well, there is always Terminator 5: It Really Really Is the Final Day of Reconning and There Will Be No More Time Travel to Take Out John Conner's Third Cousin Twice Removed From the Past Or Future" for that gem.

But seriously, the movie was awsome. Lots of action. Good fx. The signature techno drum-beat as a nerkid Ahnold, from the late seventies of the future, steps out of the steam (if you have kiddies, or eyes, there is no need to worry as 'Mr. Universe' is covered in steam and shadow). And a very interesting plot.

For starters, the model of the terminator from the first movie to the second was incredible. From the second to the third-well let's not go there. But for the new movie, a quantum leap was made forward. There was a unique prototype, which may or may not be mass produced in the next movie.

Second of all, such phrases as'judgement day' and salvation' cannot help but bring with them religious connotations. And here is where the real merit of the film comes for me.

We are not bound by past mistakes and present circumstances but have libertarian freedom. Such a concept is essential to at least some branches of Christianity. And we can choose the right over the wrong even when authorities illigitamtely command us to do otherwise.

And we are given a second chance with God. At first, we rebelled against Him. But we all have the oppurtunity to repent and obtain salvation (the subt-title of the film). This theme of second chances, founded upon libertarian freedom, permeates the movie. One of the main characters is, in a sci-fi kinda way, born again. Also, one of the main characters sacrifices his life for his friend, which Jesus said was the greatest love, and, one may say, indirectly for the whole world. But delivering up one's life for the salvation of the world is the gospel itself.

I never tire of finding the Good News hidden in fictional stories, particularly sci-fi or fantasy. In fact, all stories, fictional or otherwise, it seems to me, are an echo of the one story. The cardinal point in all of history was the cross of Christ which split the calender in two. But I hope to do a separate post on this theme so I'll leave it aside for now.

FYI, towards the end of the picture there was a scene very reminiscent of the video game Contra. There were rumors floating around back in the day that Stallone and Ahnold were going to star in a Contra movie. Was the helicopter scence in 'Salvation' a sign of things to come? Like Nick Fury after the credits of "Iron Man" (not to mention the cap's sheild on Tony Stark's work bench)? Probably just a coincidence, in the case of 'Terminator: Salvation', but we can always dream.

At any rate, the movie was just plain good. Definetly better than the third. Probably better than the second. And possibly better than the first. I whole-heartedly recommend it to you all. Now I'm going to have to check out the television show. Don't ya just love robots?

The Gospel Was/n't Restored Under Smith: A Debate

2009-05-20T20:35:00.000-07:00

0. The format

Pro/con
1. Opening speech 1000
2. Rebuttal 300
3. Counter-rebuttal 200

Con/pro
4. Opening speech 1000
5. Rebuttal 300
6. Counter-rebuttal 200

7. Con/pro Conclusion 100
8. Pro/con Conclusion 100

You may open first or second as you wish. If you open first you’ll close second and vice versa. The resolution of the debate shall be “The Gospel has been restored under Joseph Smith.” You’ll take the pro and I the con. The numbers above are the maximum word counts of the respective speeches and must be strictly observed by us both. All eight speeches shall be in both of our possessions (in our email in-box’s) before either one of us post the debate as a whole. We both can do whatever we want with the debates so long as nothing is changed and the eight speeches are in the above order
--------------
The Gospel Was Restored Under Joseph Smith:
Joseph Smith is considered to have been a modern day Prophet. Contradictory to what many people think, I've heard everything people have said about the Prophet Joseph. They've all said that he's a fraud, that he made up the Book of Mormon, and that he's made up the entire first vision story. These are some pretty big claims to make to a church that is over 13 Million members strong, and these claims can be put to rest if people would just realize a few things.
The Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith, not written, but translated. It took him about 4 months or so to translate it. If you can show me one popular novel with over 13 million people that have read it that was written in less than 6 months, then I will reconsider some of my choices in this church. I'm very confident that you won't find such a book though. Because it's not possible to make up that much stuff in that little time and then make up an entire church based off of it. Also, people have found that there indeed was an ancient city known as Nahom, which is in the Book of Mormon. This city was over in Yemen, right around where the Book of Mormon said it would be.
There's nothing in the bible that says that God will not talk to his children ever again, so it's possible for Joseph Smith to have had a vision. And Joseph had a vision just like Moses had a vision. They were two different visions of course, but the fact that it happened makes all the difference. If you deny that Joseph Smith had ever had a vision, then you must deny that Moses had a vision too which would make you a non-believer in the bible because God told him where to receive the 10 commandments just as Joseph Smith was told where to find the Golden Plates.
The prophet Isaiah had said in the bible, "11) And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12) And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned." This is in Isaiah 29:11 - 12. Joseph Smith History 1:64 - 65 said that Joseph copied a lot of the characters from the plates and was given a certificate of authenticity by Prof. Anthon who later tore it up for whatever reason. The parallel is that it was considered a sealed book at the time. But Prof. Anthon had said that the characters were true characters. And he said that the translation was indeed correct.
In the bible, Isaiah 29:18 - 24 (emphasis added) says:
"18) And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. 19) The meek also shall increase their joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. 20) For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: 21) That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought. 22) Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. 23) But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. 24) They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine."
That was from my book in the making called Why Are The Mormons Right? The book of Isaiah in the bible is amazing because it talks about the Book of Mormon all over the place. It has been said that The Book of Mormon contains many little treasures that were either removed from the teachings of Jesus Christ or not recorded.
------------------
Rebuttal:
The argument of Yanez may be summarized under several points.
1. The Book of Mormon is too elegant, and popular.
2. Nahom was found.
3. A linguistic scholar authenticated the translation.
4. Isaiah prophesied about the Book of Mormon.
5. If Moses can have a vision of God, then so could Joseph Smith.
1. In some ways the Book of Mormon is very un-elegant. Foe example, there is a ridiculously large percentage of verses that start, “And it came to pass”. The reason why so many people read/believe/follow the Book of Mormon is because it is a central tenet of their faith. This is a faith which has constantly been promoted by proseltyzers. The missionaries are well trained in the tactics of sophistry. And at the first trip to the temple, members are asked on the spot if they will agree to all the oaths they are about to make (before knowing what the oaths are).
2. As I recall, what was actually found in Yemen was a city called NHM. Apparently the vowels were left out. In that case, the city could be Noohoon or any number of different cities.
3. But that is just scholar on the side of the Book of Mormon. All Egyptologists (including Mormons) who examine the papyrus the Book of Abraham was translated from admit it is the Book of Breathings which has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham.
4. I see no reason to automatically assume that that was what Isaiah had in mind.
5. What happened to Moses is irrelevant to what happened to Smith. Even if Smith did have a vision of God it was totally dissimilar from those of Moses. The ministry of Moses was authenticated by many signs which all Israel, and all Egypt, saw.

------------
Counter-rebuttal:
It's been stated that the Book of Mormon has a lot of verses that start with "and it came to pass." What's wrong with that? That's being a little nit picky. For Example: Since the Quaran doesn't have book names like the bible does, should that really be a reason as to try to get people not to believe in it? The prophet Joseph had just translated what he read on the plates.
What's wrong with the how the missionaries are trained? They learn how to teach people about the gospel to those who don't know about it. Some missionaries learn how to teach it in another language as well as the language to others. And what's wrong with not knowing the oaths that they are asked to take before going to the temple?
Of course the vowels are left out in Yemen. You must really think. If this is an ancient city, will they write in English if it's far from England? If you think about it, the NHM that is talked about are syllables for each letter, much like in Japanese
------------------

The Gospel was not restored under Joseph Smith:

We know this for at least three reasons.

I. There was nothing to restore.

The idea of a restoration presupposes the prior loosing of something. In this case many plain and precious parts of the Bible have been, according to Smith, removed. This claim does not stand up to scrutiny. The science of textual criticism has been able to reconstruct the original New Testament with certainty save for three pages. The three pages do not amount to any significant doctrines. Often, the doubt is which spelling is to be preferred. So then, nothing of significance is missing from the New Testament as we have it today.

And it is in the New Testament that we learn of the Gospel as it was preached in New Testament times. The Gospel Smith proclaimed is different from the New Testament Gospel as we have it today which, to repeat, is essentially the same as the autographs.

If the plain and precious parts removed were only removed by misinterpretation, then that, of course, is a different matter. While the Bible is not just a book, it is a book. And any book is interpreted according to the standard rules of interpretation.

Am I arguing, thus far, that sitting on pine trees is comfortable? Of course, I have said nothing about pine trees or comfort-ability. If one really really wanted to read that meaning into the preceding paragraphs, they could do so. But that was not the authorial intent. This is plain based on the ordinary rules of interpretation. The Bible tells us, in Ephesians 2 for example, that we are saved by grace and not by works. There is no way to reconcile this with the article of faith that says we are saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. No way to reconcile, that is, without doing serious injustice to the text. No matter what certain other texts seem to say about works, this text, and many others, make it plain that salvation is by grace alone.

Bottom line, nothing was removed from the Bible physically or through misinterpretation. Joseph Smith may have corrupted the Gospel, but he did not restore it.

II. Joseph Smith is not very reliable as the Prophet of the Restoration.

A lot could be said here but let’s focus on the Pearl of Great Price. One of the roles Joseph had as the Prophet of the Restoration was that of inspired translator. He translated ancient writings into English under the inspiration of God. At least, that was his claim. Is there any way to test this claim? Yes. For if the original ancient writing is translated by the appropriate language scholar and it bears significant resemblance to what Smith said it said, well and good. If not, not. The manuscript from which the Book of Abraham, in the Pearl of Great Price, was translated has been found to be the book of the dead. Nothing like what Smith claimed. If he got the Book of Abraham totally wrong, why suppose he fared any better with the Book of Moses or the Book of Mormon? Remember, the Book of Abraham was translated under inspiration, according to the claim. Can a prophet under inspiration utter false prophesies? Not according to Deuteronomy. This brings us to our final objection.

III. Joseph Smith is a false prophet.

Even if Smith accurately predicted the future 100% of the time, he would still qualify as a false prophet if he taught the people false doctrine (particularly polytheism). All of the unique doctrines of the LDS faith are considered heretical by all of Christendom. This is not because Mormonism stands in violation of some man-made creed but because it stands in violation of the Bible itself. For example, Mormonism teaches salvation by grace plus works whereas the Bible teaches salvation by grace alone. We already alluded to that contradistinction above.

So then, we see three very clear reasons why Joseph Smith did not restore the Gospel. First, there was nothing to be restored in the first place. Second, Smith is not a reliable translator (and Mormonism stands or falls on the basis of a translated work of scripture, namely, the Book of Mormon). Finally, Joseph Smith is a false prophet for, while it is prima facie unlikely he predicted the future with 100% accuracy, he clearly, in addition, taught doctrines contrary to the Bible.

The only conclusion we may reasonably reach in light of all the above considerations is that the Gospel was not restored through Joseph Smith. QED

------------

Rebuttal:

I would like to address the 3 points that were just made.
"There Was Nothing to Restore."
Quite the contrary. After the atonement of Jesus Christ, the Apostles had split up in hopes of keeping the church afloat, with no leader. Eventually, the priesthood authority was lost after the Apostles were killed. So not only was the church Jesus organized gone from the Earth, but so was the priesthood authority. Also, The Book of Mormon contains many precious truths that were taken from the Bible or they just weren't included. For example: We practice baptism for the dead, a practice that the Bible has evidence that shows it was indeed practiced in Corinth.
Also, if you want to whine about being saved by just grace alone, read James 2:14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, and 26. These 7 points are ALL about how faith is dead without works. Check out verse 18 in that chapter while you're at it. Or how about John 3:5 that says you must be baptized and confirmed to enter heaven? Or do you have a prophet that told you otherwise? Because I'm very sure that you're part of a Non-Prophet Organization.
"Joseph Smith is not very reliable as the Prophet of the Restoration."
Well, it's funny that you say that because he indeed had a professor in ancient language want to help him out until the prof figured that he wasn't going to get any benefits. Actually, the Book of Mormon was NOT translated "under inspiration," but by the power of God and he had to use the Urim and Thummim (which are mentioned in the Bible) to translate as well. I'm not sure if he used Urim and Thummim during the translation of the papyri, but still, just because a scholar said one thing,-****ran out of words at this point****

-----------

Counter-rebuttal:

1. Merely asserting there was a great apostasy begs the question.
2. Baptism for the dead, on your view, apparently IS in the Bible so THAT was NOT a plain or precious part left out.
3. Faith IS dead without works. This has nothing to do with sola gratia.
4. At most, John 3:5 says baptized people go to Heaven. This is NOT the same as saying baptism saves us.
5. The professer is irrelevant.
6. Translation by the power/guidance of God IS inspiration.

In summation, nothing you have said in your rebuttal refutes my three reasoned points.

-------------

Con closing statement:

I made three points, with supporting argumentation, in support of my position. My opponent has not sufficiently refuted these. In contrast, his opening speech was more or less anecdotal and does not stand up to scrutiny. We may conclude, therefore, that the Gospel was most certainly NOT restored under Joseph Smith. I enjoyed the debate and thank Teddy for his participation and congeniality. I welcome comments about the debate. Thank you all for reading.

-----------

Pro closing statement:

The problem i have with limited worded debates is that you can't limit words on proving a point in Mormonism. That's the main reason why I'm writing a book.

END

An Observation on Sagan's Cosmos

2009-05-19T08:41:00.000-07:00

The cosmos is all there ever was, is, or ever will be. Thus begins Carl Sagan's Cosmos. I recently watched the entire series and have much to say in destructive criticism. But that is for another time. For now, I'd like to pick out one very small portion of the series for comment.

It was Sagan's philosophical (I was under the mistaken impression "Cosmos" was a scientific documentary) debunking of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Russell made the same blunder in "Why I Am Not a Christian" and countless persons, before and since, I understand, have followed suit.

Let's face facts. The cosmological argument has been around for a very long time. Why people can't come up to date with it is beyond excuse. In the past, Dr. Sagan informs us, people answered the question of why there is a cosmos with, God did it. But, these pre-scientific and unenlightened religionists, we are further informed, were apparently not smart enough to ask where God, in turn, came from. If we counter that God is eternal and uncaused then, why not the universe? Contrariwise, if everything needs a cause, then so doesn't God.

Apparently Sagan forgot at this point the major portions of his program he devoted to the big bang at this point. The simple fact is that the cosmos screams contingency no matter where we look. Stars die. Our own star, as Sagan himself describes in the program, is burning out. The rain slowly but surely destroys rocks on the earth. Asteroids and black holes destroy celestial-solid bodies. On and on we could go. We can never step into the same river twice. The cosmos is in continuous flux. Everything, supposing the cosmos really is everything, is manifestly contingent whether considered in part or in whole. Therefore, it must have had a beginning.

On the other hand, to avoid a causal regress, which Carl ironically seems very concerned to avoid, there must be an uncaused first cause. What is more, an eternal causal agent must ever be and cannot thus, lack existence. Such a being, therefore, always (from our temporal point of view) be. Time came into existence at the big bang. So if a creator transcends the cosmos, this being also transcends the time which is so closely knit to the cosmos. And so God, if we choose to call the first causal agent thusly, must be eternal. In other words, God cannot have a prior cause.

So what is the problem? The universe had to have a beginning and God, supposing there is one, had to lack such a beginning. The only candidate for a beginner (or uncaused first cause) would have to be some type of causal agent transcendent to the cosmos. Such a being all men call God.

Now, when I said before that Sagan ought to be up to date on this argument when speaking as an authority on it, that was not quite correct. I'd be happy if he went only as far as the high-middle ages. Aquinas, for example, had quite a lot to say about the cosmological argument. But it seems it was much easier to blow him off with a wave of the hand, at a straw man, than to actually read what he had to say.

Instead of wasting all that time and money-which, by the way, came from tax dollars, I think-looking for little green men to save us (from what?), Dr. Sagan should have been searching for God. If we search for Him with all our heart we will find Him, the Bible promises us.

While Mr. Sagan has left us there remain today many skeptics still living. When confronted with a logically valid (and I would say logically sound as well) argument for the existence of God, I hope that they would take it seriously. More particularly, when exposed to the cosmological argument they have no right, in light of the above words, to give the who-made-God rebuttal. And if that is all they have, why, they are compelled, with irresistible logic, to admit there is some kind of a God.

Review of The Day the Earth Stood Still

2009-05-03T20:42:00.000-07:00

I was really looking forward to the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Now I'm really disappointed. The original was one of the best science fiction movies of all time (of the silver era it is second only to "War of the Worlds").

But don't get me wrong. There were some good special effects. Gort morphing into metal-scavenging nanobots was a nice touch. And the whole retiming of standing still of the Earth was interesting. But the new movie came off, to my own mind at least, as mere environmentalist propaganda.

Trees, it appears, are just too hugable to allow man to survive. Good science fiction raises important philosophical questions. The answers it gives to such questions are sometimes quit less than biblical. The Earth certainly is a beautiful place. Nature is truly wonderful. What is more, man has not always treated her 'mother' in the right ways. But are lions, tigers, and bears more important than humankind? Are trees and rocks more important?

I think not. The alien race, which Klaatu (and why no 'Klaatu barrada nictu' in the remake which was the central part of the original-not to mention in the third installment of the Evil Dead trilogy?) belongs to, apparently thinks so.

While it is true the alien race was preparing an ark-or many arks-it is my impression that two, or eight, men would not be aboard. The real message of the movie, of course, is that man isn't quite so bad off as we appear at first blush. And, when the going gets tough, the tough, in this case mankind, gets going, rises to the challenge, and shows how great we really are. But the underlying context is that mankind, heretofore, has been the greatest threat to the planet.

Call me a Ptolemaist, but mankind is the planet. It is the same message repeated ad nauseum on those nature shows. When Sharks Attack! When Crocodiles Attack! When Domesticated Yet Still Wild Exotic Felines Trained for Las Vegas Magic Shows Attack! You know the shows I'm talking about. "The real monster," the narrator tells us at the end, "is man. Man has done more harm to nature than all the poisonous snakes, spiders, etc. than they have done to man." What?!?! Those are just animals. The sanctity of life is the sanctity of human life. It is we alone who bare the imago dei. Where are all the tree huggers when an innocent human child is being butchered at a 'clinic'? Strangely silent.

I know, I know. I am being anal about one side issue within a much larger narrative. The movie itself was entertaining and, again, had good special effects. Apart from its perceived leftist agenda, though, I do think it did not live up to its predecessor. Not by a long shot. With John Cleese as the professor (whose enigmatic equation was solved by Klaatu, in one of the only scenes carried over from the original original) and the to-truly-halk-a-lougie guy (from Revenge of the Nerds II, if memory serves) as a clandestine apologist (for humanity, that is, not for Christianity) the movie was not all bad. There was even a sacrificial death at the end which reminds one of Neo in the Matrix-er, I mean-Jesus in the Bible. Still, I do not feel it was a particularly noteworthy movie. If I were to even consider buying this movie, though, I would get it in the special edition, and then only because it comes with a second disc which has the original version on it. I suppose the remake disc would serve well as a coaster.

Review of The Man from Earth

2009-04-18T22:23:00.000-07:00

I recently had the opportunity's to rent my first movie from one of those dvd vending machines they have. It was a neat little flick called "The Man From Earth". It was a small, low-budget, independent film. I was therefor surprised to see so many famous people in it. Perhaps 'famous' isn't the right term for many of the actors had faces immediately recognisable but, whose names one has never known.

Like all good science fiction, it raised interesting philosophical questions. And the plot-line was intriguing. It was about a man, talking to his university colleagues. He claims that he is a cave man, still living 14,000 years later. He is a bit like Socrates in that his great wisdom, from long life, is that he does not know very much. I do not think I like the answers he has come up with, but, at least he, or the movie itself, is asking the right questions.

As one might imagine, one of the main subjects examined is that of religion. Eventually it comes out that Dr. John Oldman, as the cave man is currently calling himself, was the historical Jesus. And this is the main complaint I have with the movie. Let me explain.

John went to study with the Buddha. Then he came to Palestine to teach Buddhism there. A great deal of legend immediately grew up around him. Particularly after he revived from his crucifixion. Like Wolverine, John had remarkable powers of healing and, during his crucifixion, he explained, he was merely tied to a cross.

There is so much wrong, apologetically, with the movie at this point. I know, I know, it is only fiction. However, the claims made can be taken in a certain sense as alleged historical fact. Fact which would be devastating to the religion which bases itself firmly in objective history. If, that is, it were true. As a matter of fact, much of what is claimed for the historical Jesus in the movie has been claimed for a long time by various skeptics in the real world. Most recently it appeared in 'Zeitgeist' and 'Religulous'.

One of the claims is that the Christ of faith is nothing like the Jesus of history. Older Pagan mythology, it is said, was regurgitated by the early Christians. First of all, there was not enough time for myth to develop between the events of the Gospels and their writing. Second, despite what some people might try and tell you, the Gospels do not bear the marks of mythology. Third, what Jesus has in common with Hercules-as claimed in the movie-is a complete mystery. Hercules was half-man and half-god whereas Jesus was fully God and fully man. Also, God did not have sexual intercourse with the then virgin Mary (which woul be logically impossible) as Zeus had when he sired Hercules.

The parallelomania that is the history of religions school, as I believe it is called, I thought had died out years ago. I am always surprised when I see it keep popping up.

Another problem was that John (who was Jesus, remember) says he never claimed to be God. The Bible, which is generally regarded as generally reliable history, records Him as saying that He was God. The claims that the biblical Jesus made to divinity were implicit, but unmistakable. Who can forgive sins but God alone, the would-be stoners of the biblical Jesus once asked. I and the Father are one, Jesus said. It is common knowledge that Jesus died, according to the Bible, for blasphemy. Blasphemy is when a mere man claims to be God. Textual critics have reconstructed the autographs and, even here, we see Jesus implicitly claiming to be God.

And then, I do not like how religious persons are portrayed in the film. This woman, who claims she doesn't even believe John, is a complete shambles when she hears what Jesus was really like. I guess her faith was about a femtometer deep (like the Roman Catholic's in the remake of 'Flight of the Phoenix' who merely served as subtle propaganda smuggled in where nobody would notice). She is at one point referred to as a "Christian literalist".

Nothing boils my blood more than the L-word. It is kind of like the F-word, fundamentalist, in that it is never used in its correct sense. A literal interpretation of the Bible, traditionally speaking, is to take the words in their plain meaning. Is it not plain that "shadow of His wings" is metaphorical? Indeed it is. So "literal" and "metaphorical" are not mutually exclusive, when the terms are properly understood. What the critic apparently means by "literal" is something like, "you uneducated fool! You ignore science and think the earth is only 6,000 years old. You are so unenlightened unlike liberal Protestants and total unbelievers."

When the circle of friends is deliberating on whether to accept John's story or not, the biologist, psychiatrist, and archaeologist all get to way in on plausibility (of John's story) but the "Christian literalist" is scoffed at when appealing to her Bible scholars.

And then the Bible itself is mischaracterised. A distinction is made between the wrathful Old Testament God and the loving New Testament God which would make any Gnostic blush. If memory serves, the Bible is also portrayed in the film as being hopelessly contradictory. The genetic fallacy is committed when the Decalogue is said to derive from Hammurabi's code as if that were a bad thing.

Now, apart from the whole anti-Christian propaganda, the film was not without its flaws. But on the whole, I liked the movie. The main body of which was an extended philosophical discussion. It is rare to watch a movie which consists of just people sitting around a room talking philosophically for 90 minutes. For that reason alone, I think the movie was good. There were no cheesy special fx to take away from the dialogue either. So it was an interesting movie to watch, entertaining, and it made you think. I couldn't help coming away with the feeling that Jerome Bixby was totally out to lunch, but I give him an A for effort. I whole-heartedly recommend the movie to discerning viewers everywhere!

The Big Show

2009-03-25T08:51:00.000-07:00

There is a television series on HBO about a fundamentalist Mormon family. The husband is married to several women. You know, I never really got the whole polygamy thing. Hen-pecking in stereo and an inordinate amount of money spent on viagra.

At any rate, there is an episode coming out soon (or perhaps it has already aired) where there is a temple marriage portrayed. There are two problems with this. First, fundamentalist Mormons are not allowed in the LDS temple. Only "true Mormons" are allowed in the temple so the show is factually in error. I can appreciate how a Latter-Day Saint would be concerned about this sending the wrong message to the masses. They have made it very clear that they do not practice polygamy. If one of their number is caught practicing polygamy they are excommunicated. Excommunication is a huge deal for a Saint because the LDS church is the only game in town. They cannot become a god if they are disfellowshipped.

The second problem is that the temple ceremonies-for example, weddings-are a closely guarded secret of Mormons. They solemnly vow to not reveal what goes on inside to anyone. I believe the penalty for violation is death (though I do not think anyone would actually be killed if they did reveal the secrets). LDS bloggers are all up in arms at the sacrilege.

They would say that the temple ceremonies are not so much secret as they are sacred. The Gentiles (and even some LDS people) are not clean enough to enter the holy site. It seems to me, however, that the real reason they don't want you to know what is going on in there has more to do with public relations than with sanctity.

I have heard from former Mormons that a lot of strange things go on inside there. In the endowment ceremony, people are asked to swear allegiance to the oaths they are about to make without even knowing what the oaths are! They can leave only at this point but there is tremendous peer pressure not to. After that they are stuck.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see how accurate the sealing ceremony is portrayed on Big Love once it finds its way to you tube.

Tell Me What's-a-Happenin'

2009-03-08T19:58:00.000-07:00

I recently finished the "Gospel of Judas". I mean a book of essays about the Gnostic text of the same name (including the Gnostic text itself). The Gospel itself exists in only one manuscript, a Coptic translation from the Greek autograph, as is supposed. And the manuscript is rather fragmentary. It is thus not entirely clear, taken in isolation, what is therein being said (at least to a layman like myself). But the basic idea, according to the essays, is that Jesus was a Sethian guru-Sethians were a sect of Gnostics-and Judas Iscariot was the only enlightened one of the 12. The others followed the creator God of the material world who is evil and, most certainly, not the father of Jesus. Jesus instructs Judas in the secret gnosis because he alone of all the apostles has the spark of the divine. After the impartation of the arcane metaphysics, Jesus instructs Judas to betray him to the authorities. The purpose of the betrayel is so that Jesus can die and thus escape the prison of his body. How such an exalted spiritual being as Jesus was supposed to be could die is not made clear.

Anywho, it is the essays (and other buzz about such Gnostic Gospels) which I really wanted to talk to you about today. It seems that scholars of late have been reading too many Dan Brown novels. What I mean to say, is that the picture is often painted that there were many different strands of Christianity, in the early days, and all were fighting for a voice. But then the infamous Constantine came along and imposed his peculiar brand of Christianity on the rest of us. He had his views stamped with the official status of orthodoxy.

But such revisionist history, while making for interesting fiction in dramatic novels, bears no resemblance to what actually happened. In the essays the original Gospel of Judas is dated at about approximately 150 AD. In fact, all the Gnostic Gospels are of the second century or later (unless you are John Dominic Crossan who feels the Gospel of Judas dates to the first century, but this is hardly uncontroversial). Moreover, the Gnostic Gospels bear the names of New Testament charecters but were certainly not written by them. For example, Judas died prior to 70 AD and his Gospel wasn't written until 150 AD. He wasn't even alive when he was allegedly writing!

Why all of this is important is because the canonical Gospels, and only the canonical Gospels, were written close to the time of the events they describe and were written under the authority of apostolic eye-witnesses. Not so with the Gnostic Gospels. It is incomprehensible to me why Crossan would put so much stock in Thomas and so little stock in Mark-but that's another story.

In other words, we expect the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to be very historically reliable and the Gnostic Gospels to be very unhistorical particularly where they contradict the older, more reliable, Gospels. The situation is as follows. Jesus comes along and founds the Christian movement. Even atheist historians ought to admit as much. Within the pages of the Christian scriptures themselves, Gnosticism starts to rear its ugly head. As time went on ecumenical councils were convened to clearly explain what the true biblical teaching was. In this way, new or gullible saints would not be mislead by wolves in sheep's clothing.

Modern-day wolves in sheep's clothing repudiate the councils (and their creeds) as being an addition to the Bible. Not so. It is the redressed heresies of the cultists that are additions to the Bible. These cultists misinterprate the Bible and deny creedal orthodoxy as an addition to the Bible. I was recently talking with an LDS gentleman online. He tried pulling this on me so I challenged him to produce a single historical quote which established (implicitly or explicitly) that the Mormon charicature of the creeds was correct. He gave an irrelevant qoute from the 19th century-long after the time of the councils-and said, contrary to what all Mormons have always said, that the councils were merely to clarify the Bible after all (though apparently, because of the alleged apostasy, they were misinterprating the Bible and purported modern-day prophets give the real meaning of the Bible).

But I am getting away from the main topic. Namely, there was, is, and always shall be one, and only one, Christian faith. I don't care what Elaine Pagels, Bart D. Ehrman, or Dan Brown says to the contrary. The Gnostics were not Christians. We know this because Gnosticism contradicts Christianity at important points. The God of the Old Testament, for example, is the Father of Christ. This is made clear in the canonical scriptures. The later Gnostic scriptures were an attempt of Johnny-come-latelys to sound Christian to fool the gullible Christians of the patristic period. The ecclesiastical fathers were wise to convene councils and craft creeds to help their brethren out.

There is at bottom no distinction between orthodox Christianity and Christianity pure and simple. And Gnosticism ain't it.

Review of Ridiculous

2009-03-02T20:24:00.000-08:00

No, I didn't misspell the title of the movie. Bill Maher did. Complete rubbish. Don't waste your time or money on this "documentary".

Bill Maher goes around to different people and talks to them about their faith. Or, at least, offending them and laughing at them while he pretends to be rational. It is very interesting his choice of interviewees. The only intellectual person of faith he consulted was Dr. Francis Collins. However, much of the interview with him was about the historicity of the New Testament. And Collins field of specialization is in genetics. So it seems like Maher set the deck at the beginning so that all people of faith would appear to be dumb.

Let's recount the faith's represented. As I recall, Christians are represented more than any other faith. This is understandable because that is the most popular religion, I think, in this country. He visits a trucker's chapel, a messianic Jew (who apparently converted to Catholicism), an ex-homosexual (which is possible despite what Maher would have us believe), Frances Collins, and the Holy Land Experience theme park. While at the theme park, the person playing Jesus asked him what would happen if he died. That is a really good question. New atheists like Bill tend to blow this off by saying, "if God wants me to believe He would make Himself more obvious." More obvious! How could anything be more obvious than the existence of God. Of course, if one refuses to look at good solid apologetics (and Bill did not look at any) it is easier to tell oneself that they do not really believe.

Now onto Judaism. He interviewed two Jewish persons. One who looked like an orthodox Jew but was anti-Israel. The other a man who invented gadgets to work on the Sabbath without violating Rabbinic tradition. For example, a steam powered wheel-chair (for example, a telephone which, I think, you select which numbers aren't dialed so you avoid dialing numbers but you can still make calls. This hardly represents Judaism accurately.

For Mormons, he went to Salt Lake City. He interviewed two excommunicated Mormons but no actual Mormons. Apparently he couldn't find any willing to talk to him. How likely is that? Not very.

For Islam, he spoke to, apparently, a tour guide at the Dome of the Rock. This man was about the only person Bill treated with respect. A young Muslim man in the mosque said, in Arabic, that Bill was not funny and his show sucks. That is about the only part of the entire movie that was actually true.

Then he talked to some weird guy who worshipped marijuana.

Is this very representative of mainstream religion? I think not.

If one does not heed my warning and actually watches "Religulous" then one will definitely need a close pin for their nose and hip-waders up to their pits because the bull crap is piled so high in this movie. On top of the propagandizing, Bill is very disrespectful to people of faith and blasphemous against faith.

But perhaps my biggest problem with this movie is the call to arms. New atheists are getting way much more attention than they deserve. Religulous is riding the coat tales of the movement. Even worse, it is encouraging people to become proactive in their disbelief. For the uneducated masses, they may even think the new atheists are on to something. However, the not-so-new atheists lost very badly a generation ago and now agnostics, who refuse to accept defeat, conveniently forget those who have gone before them and pretend they are saying something new. Well, theists have been successfully defending their faith for at least the last 2,000. We've heard it all before and have provided answers to it all before.

For example, Mr. Maher thinks that faith is a bad thing and reason is a good thing. But faith, ideally, is based on reason. They are not mutually exclusive at all. That is the kind of propaganda we'd expect to find "Religulous" or "The God Delusion" but not in the real world.

By the way, nowhere in the entire movie to Maher offer an argument for atheism. He just laughs at individual faiths and assumes atheism is true. Who is the one using faith and not reason here.

If somebody is gullible enough to be taken in by Samuel Harris, Richard Dawkins and others, then they may find "Religulous" enlightening and informative. For those of us in the know, however, it, like all the rest of the recent flood of fundamentalist atheist hogwash will see it for what it is. A piece of PR totally lacking in substance.

Update on Ben Stein's 'Expelled'

2009-02-26T19:09:00.000-08:00

A while back I did a post on the Ben Stein movie 'Expelled'. Well, just the other day I heard that Ben Stein was uninvited from giving the commencement speech at a particular college. Apparently the institution wanted to be "a marketplace of ideas" and "inclusive" of everyone. Everyone, of course, except for people like Stein who are willing to stand up and challenge the status quo. This is exactly the kind of behavior I've come to expect from secular educational institutions and secularism in general. Secularists claim to be so tolerant, o Athenians, but if you disagree with them, their true colors show loud and clear.

O Death Where Is Thy Sting?

2009-02-23T08:50:00.000-08:00

When we are very young, the concept of death has not occurred to us. But then, a goldfish, gerbil, cat, or dog dies. Perhaps a grandparent. When we first learn of death it is quite a shock for us. Almost too much for our little minds to take.

As mature adults, perhaps, we learn to ignore death and push it to the back burner. We become busy with work and family. Still, at the back of our minds, we know it is coming.

It has often been said that the problem of evil is the major intellectual objection to Christianity. What the problem of evil ultimately boils down to is that we don't like death. We don't like it when we, or a loved one, dies.

While the problem of evil in general has some superficial plausibility, it does not really carry much weight logically/philosophically. But I wanted to talk to you all today about something much more specific. In particular, the anti-death aspect of the problem of evil.

Do not get me wrong, theodocists don't like death anymore than anybody else. It is a hard concept to reflect upon or 'accept'. However, death is not quite so bad as it may first appear (it is still bad though). In a sense, we even see the merciful hand of God in death. Let me explain.

Where did human death come from in the first place? I take it on faith that we die today because of the sin of Adam. In this context 'Adam' is not only a particular individual but all of mankind en toto. So then, we ourselves were faced with a choice. And libertarian freedom is itself a great good, by the way. Our choice was to obey God as He wanted or to do as we wanted. We were warned very clearly by God that if we ate that forbidden fruit we would die. We were told, "don't do it; you won't like it." It was against God's will for us to rebel against Him and He likes the inevitable consequences of sin-death-even less than we do.

After our Fall in the garden, we were expelled. Even though the garden was paradisaical, it was merciful of God to expel us. Why? I answer that we were expelled from the garden so we could not eat the fruit from the other tree, the tree of life, and live forever. If we stayed in the garden we would live forever in our sins which would be very bad. Moreover, if there were no human death, then Christ could not have come and willingly suffer just like the rest of us and ultimately die for us. If Adam can not die than neither could the second Adam die for us and redeem us.

Immediately after the advent of death, God is already pouring out His mercy on us. Our dying is ultimately our problem. Even after we ignore His guidance, He is still bailing us out of our problems He told us not to get ourselves into.

All of the above is accepted on faith. I do not expect unbelievers to accept it. What unbelievers can however accept is that death is, in a sense, not so bad as it could be. What do I mean?

To see what I am talking about, let us reflect on how people die. It seems to me that there are two main ways in which most people die. First, sometimes a person will die unexpectedly all of a sudden. I had a young friend (about 45 years old) who was driving along a few years back, hit a moose, and died instantly. And we've all heard the horror stories of a high school athlete who drops dead of an unknown heart problem in the middle of a game. Such events are very sobering to the loved ones left behind. But at least the person who died did not suffer.

Alternatively, a person may not be cut down prematurely but grow old gracefully. As we age our bodies progressively work less and less over time. "The mind is the first thing to go." The closer a person gets to the age of death, the less coherent they normally seem to become. When my beloved grandmother was dying I read through the stages of death information provided by the visiting nurses. One of the things mentioned was that the body's metabolism moves slower and slower until it stops. In the process the patient becomes more delusional and less coherent. Since they are not in their right minds they are presumably less aware of the dire straights they are really in. So while they should be worrying about their own death they are reliving the joys of their childhood. They are "in another place" or "somewhere else" than on their deathbed.

I cannot stress strongly enough that some persons, even children, do have drawn out, pain filled, slow deaths. And all of the above words would be little comfort to them and, perhaps even less so, to their parents. I do not wish to paint a false picture here. I am fully aware that death sucks.

Still, as a popular series of melodic-metal compilations says, death is only the beginning. And as C.S. Lewis wrote in "The Last Battle" (the final volume in the Chronicles of Narnia), this life is only the title page, whereas the next life (i.e. for the Christian) is the whole book!

Only one life
Twill soon be past
Only what's done for Christ
Will last

I Wanna Know What Love Is

2009-02-07T22:17:00.000-08:00

Saint Valentines Day is once again upon us. But just who was the saint that put the "saint" in saint valentines day? In case you don't know the story (it is supposed to be a true story) there was, in ancient times, a law that soldiers were not allowed to marry. Family life would have been a distraction in wartime. Well, a Christian man, named Valentine, would perform underground marriages for fellow Christians in the army.

Fast forward to today. We celebrate this man today, or, more accurately, the love he epitomised. We give chocolates, roses, and Vermont Teddy Bears to our significant others, or, if we are children, we exchange valentine cards with our Platonic friends at school.

If we are celebrating love, it would certainly behoove to pause for a moment and reflect on what "wuv... twoo wuv" weely-er-really is.

Before doing that, I remind us all that the original lovers in question, as we said above, were Christians. This is important to remember because "love" is different for the Christian than for others. This is not to say that an atheist mom, say, does not love her children. I think she does.

So then, what is love exactly? How shall we define it? Well, Aristotle distinguished two different sorts of definition. The first is that of description. We may define X by saying what X is like. Alternatively, we may define X by giving the essence of X. Let us take a look at "love" from both of these standpoints.

When describing what love is like, certain key components are necessary. First, love is directed primarily towards others. It is not selfish. Second, love is sacrificial. You have to look out for number two! And for a healthy love, there really ought to be both grace (and mercy, which is different from grace) and truth.

This brings up the concept of a grace/truth relationship. In a grace/truth relationship, when one party wrongs the other, the other is to respond, in turn, with both grace and truth. The truth is to confront the first party with open acknowledgement of the wrong done. The grace is the forgiving and-so much as it is possible-forgetting. A truly deep and healthy relationship ought to operate on this program. It goes without saying that the first party will also be operating on said program and not take advantage of the second party because they know they can get away with it. Grace/truth in reality makes interpersonal sin more difficult, not less, to commit. Finally, if just grace, or just truth, is present without the counterbalance of the other, the relationship shall be out of kilter and not really work as it should.

But all of this is rather dry. Isn't love supposed to be dynamic? Indeed it is! And this brings us to the second sort of Aristotelian definition. What is the very essence of love qua love? In a word: Jesus.

Christian apologetics is all about religious proof. And God proves His love for us by sending Jesus. If you look up "love" in the dictionary you'll see a picture of the "Old Rugged Cross."

Some time ago, Jessica Simpson and her hubby talked about how much they were in love. By the by, being 'in love' is ridiculously over-rated. Shortly thereafter they got divorced! "The Beatles said all you need is love, then they broke up!" Popular music is, of course, filled with the tired cliches of love that moves mountains and the like. In reality, love appears rather shallow, at least, in the lifestyles of most of the rich in famous. And so, on that note, I leave you today with some lyrics from my favorite song. It is 'Love Song' by Third Day. I'm not a huge fan of Third Day, or CCM in general for that matter, but 'Love Song' is my favorite song. The person speaking, in the song, is Jesus Himself.

I've never swam the deepest ocean, but I walked upon the raging sea...
I've never climbed the highest mountain, but I marched the hill of Calvary...
Just to be with you I'd do anything.
There's no price I would not pay.
Just to be with you I'd give everything.
Yes I'd give my life away...
Just to be with you I've done everything.
There's no price I did not pay.
Just to be with you I've given everything.
Yes I gave my life away.
Just to be with you.
Just to be with you.

Got a Kick outta This

2009-01-01T19:42:00.000-08:00

God Has Not Left Himself Without Witness

2009-01-01T19:04:00.000-08:00

Another year is through. A new year has just begun. And even in these post-post-modern days we live in, all the way into 2009, God has not left Himself without witness. We have just celebrated the birthday of God the Son. Isn't it amazing that 2000 plus years after the fact, even atheists celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ?

I am both perplexed and upset by the fact that people are trying to take Christ out of Christmas. I was into a snowmobile store on Christmas Eve day and the clerk wished me a merry Christmas. I was so ecstatic. If I hear "happy holidays" one more time in my life I am going to puke. I guess they don't want to offend anybody, besides Christians of course, and so when everyone is especially cheerful and good willing, celebrating the birth of Jesus, they aren't allowed to actually mention Him.

So then, much to the consternation of both myself and Stan Smith, Christmas is not as Christ-centered as it perhaps used to be. Still, as I said above, God has not left Himself without witness. Where does the goodwill and good cheer and peace on Earth and so on ultimately derive if not Jesus of Nazareth? I can think of no other place. I believe in total depravity, after all. Since Jesus has made such a difference, even in the lives of atheists, He must have really existed.

Speaking of Christmas, do you like Christmas music? I know, I know, a lot of people don't like it because "you can only listen to it at a certain time each year." Aside from that being irrelevant and false, I myself do enjoy it quite a bit. A while ago, I got hold of a Twisted Sister album of traditional carols, of all things. Not a bad album. More punk than hair metal, the album has, alas, only one religious carol. Still, coming from Twisted Sister, that is rather impressive. After all, Twisted Sister is said to be a Satanic band which glorifies rebellion and disrespect against parents. Apparently they're not going to take the secularization of Christmas either. "O come all ye faithful! Joyful and triumphant! Come ye oh come ye to Bethlehem! Come let us adore Him! Come let us adore Him! Come let us adore Him! Christ the Lord!" Dee Snider screams as the guitarist plays the same three power chords-apparently the only ones he learned-over and over.

And who could forget good ol' Charlie Brown? As a child growing up, almost all of my religious instruction was limited to Pig Pen (or whomever it was) explaining the true meaning of Christmas to Charlie Brown. By the way, the album of that cartoon is a pretty good Christmas album too. Smooth jazz.

The beginning of the new year, the rebirth that is Springtime, the metamorphosies of butterflies, natural theology, and blogs of apologists all witness to the existence and bigness of God. God has not left Himself without witness!

Peace on Earth.
Good will to men.

We Wish You a Molinist Christmas

2008-12-19T04:04:00.000-08:00

"The most wonderful time of the year" is once again upon us. And when reflecting on Christmas, a good place to turn our attention to first, is the trip to Bethlehem in light of the census. Comparing the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke, together with some considerations of Josephus, some people conclude that the Bible dates Jesus' birth in error (in one or both Gospels). However, the census Josephus mentions is no doubt a different census from the one Luke mentions and there is no problem.

But the dating is not what I wished to talk about today.

When "there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed" it necessitated the return of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. That is exactly where the Messiah needed to be born according to the prophecy, clearly written centuries in advance, in the fifth chapter of Micah in the Old Testament. Since God gave His word that His Son would be born in Bethlehem, God wanted Him to be born there (else He would be made a liar).

But Caesar Augustus was presumably not taking the census to fulfill Bible prophecy. He likely had reasons of his own, having nothing to do with biblical religion, for the census. For whatever reason, then, he wanted Mary (one could say) in Bethlehem as she was about to give birth.

God knew that if there was a Caesar Augustus, and if he found himself in the circumstances of the 4th century B.C. (Christ was apparently born in the fourth year B.C believe it or not) that he actually did find himself in, that he would decree a census requiring Mary to return to Bethlehem. God also knew that Mary was about to give birth to the Messiah who must, as we saw before, be born in Bethlehem.

I ask you, was Caesar free to issue the census which landed Mary in Bethlehem or was it really God's sovereign and fore-ordained decree? Yes!

You see how inter-related theology is? We started off talking about the first Christmas and ended up in the arena which has been debated for centuries by Calvinists and Arminians.

Merry Christmas one and all!

Steve's and Rob's American Testament

2008-12-07T12:32:00.000-08:00

I have recently been writing some comments in response to posts on the Mormon blog americantestiment.blogspot.com

That blog is an Mormon apologetics blog run by Steve Smoot and Rob Watson. They are Mormon apologists and the purpose of their joint blog is to defend the Book of Mormon. Sometimes one, or both, shall respond to my friendly criticisms and sometimes not.

I think that overall, the case against the Book of Mormon (and more precisely, against current Mormon doctrine in general) vastly far outweighs the case in favor. In my dialogue with the two gentlemen, Smoot and Watson, I believe this has shown itself true. In particular, much of their defence is manifestly ad hoc and so, according to Occam, should be shaved away. Once that is done, the original critique is made even stronger by what the opponents say against it.

I certainly welcome Steve Smoot and Rob Watson to comment on this post and give their own perspective of the discussion which has been taking place between us and their thoughts on this post here at this blog. I also encourage all of you to check out their own blog.

Historic Presidential Race in Biblical Perspective

2008-11-20T13:31:00.000-08:00

I am the president of procrastination and it looks like we're in for four more years. It should come as no surprise to anyone, therefore, that it took me until November 20th, to write a blog post I should have done on the night of November 4th.

The race to the White House this year was truly historic. This would be the first time in history that there was either a female Vice President or an African American President of the United States. As the chips fell, my expectation was realised, and with Obama's victory, we now have, waiting in the wings for inauguration, our first ever African American President.

What better time, then, to remind us all of the position of the Bible on women and various races. Often times, it is said by people who apparently do not know the Scriptures very well, that the Bible is sexist and/or racist. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Women. Woman was taken from the side of man, not the foot or head. Also, woman alone was 'meet' for man unlike the inferior animals. Both of these facts suggest that men and women are equals in the eyes of the Bible. While it is true that Paul said he did not permit a woman to speak in church, we must keep the historical context in mind. In the culture of that time, women were largely uneducated. So they would tend not to follow everything being said in the services. Imagine a high school freshman in a college senior math class. They would not be able to follow everything perfectly. The situation is analogous. In either case, the person would constantly be interrupting the instructor and nothing would ever get accomplished in the ensuing chaos.

Ethnicity. The most common charges of racism in the Bible are with respect to Jews and, in America, those of African descent. But the Bible was written by Jews, to Jews, about Jewish concerns (though, of course, many Jews today would likely deny this of the New Testament). So the Bible is clearly not anti-Semitic. What about prejudice with respect to African descendants? There is nothing in the Scripture that connects the mark of Cain to dark skin. The only other allegation I could think of are the biblical passages about slavery. Two comments here. First, just because the Bible talks about slavery, that does not mean that slavery is a good thing. Second, slavery as practiced in the ancient near East was different from slavery as practiced in the American south. This brings up a very important hermeneutical point. We must always be careful not to read modern events/experiences/perspectives into the ancient text of the Bible. Besides, it is in the Bible itself we read that God is no respecter of persons (i.e. all are equal in His eyes). And what is more, the abolitionist movement included many persons who were involved because of their Christian faith-not unlike the pro-life movement of today. There were, of course, slave owners who tried to justify their practices by appeal to the Bible but that does not mean the Bible actually said what they said it did. People have been reading all sorts of strange things into the Bible, that aren't really there, since day one. Is the Bible racist? I answer that with an emphatic 'no'.

So then, I see nothing wrong with either a female or a black leader of this country. The President (and Vice President) of the USA is the representative of the citizenry but who is that citizenry? The United States citizens are none other than the melting pot of many different men and women from many different nations. It is therefore appropriate to have that reflected in the ones we elect to represent us in high office.

A Human Mind-The Blog

2008-11-07T16:03:00.000-08:00

I have been spending some time over at Fabio's blog. Not the Fabio but another Fabio. ahumanmind.blogspot.com is the address if you'd like to check our our discussion.

Fabio ran across a list of questions for skeptics on an apologetics website and, for his blog, he was answering them. In my turn, I responded to his comments.

What I found in our dialogue together was a great deal of frustration. There is a general trend found in many atheists to merely ridicule faith and the people of faith. The problem is, the more they talk, the more it becomes obvious that they have no idea what "the faith" really is. In addition, such people will tend to view themselves as eminently rational and Christians (or whomever) as complete imbeciles. But then when the Christian approaches them with good reasons, they merely blow it off.

So the general procedure went as follows. Fabio would respond to a question with the common misconceptions of antitheists that Christians have already dealt with 2000 years ago. Next, I would clearly explain the factual errors he made and give a rational defence of my own view. In the process I would point out inconsistencies in his own position. He would then respond by misrepresenting what I said and ridiculing me. Instead of having a fruitful and illuminating discussion, the whole affair was apparently fruitless. That is too bad.

I am not saying all this to get revenge or pay back Fabio for injustices done. But I did want to shed light on this all to common occurrence in apologetics. The same scenario recurs again and again (though not with all skeptics). For example, in a radio debate between Walter Martin and Madeline Murry O'Hare, she spent the entire time ridiculing-nit picking, really-Walter Martin. She never said a single thing of substance during the entire debate and would not allow Dr. Martin to get a word in edgeways. All this after remarking how offended she was for the rudeness of an audience she had recently addressed! And my experience with Fabio was somewhat similar. All fury and no substance.

Why would such eminently rational people be so afraid of rational discourse? Perhaps they are not really so rational after all. And how could somebody, whose entire life revolves around debunking religion, write books, give lectures, and participate in debates yet have no idea what it is that they are denying even though it has continuously been pointed out to them for thousands of years? I guess they don't want us to confuse them with the facts. It is no wonder that such persons do not believe in Christianity if they really think Christianity is as they say it is. But it is all a gross caricature. It seems a caricature that these people refuse to spend a pico-second reflecting on or examining because they want the caricature to be true. I can only conclude that they are willingly ignorant.

It is my honest desire that someday Fabio shall give a fair hearing to the many infallible proofs of Christianity, really reflect on them, and, hopefully, eventually embrace Christ as his personal Lord and Saviour. Please, if you believe, keep him in your prayers.

Shalom out.

Happy Belated Reformation Day!

2008-11-01T15:17:00.000-07:00

A few days ago was October 31, 2008. On October 31st each year is an illegal holiday. I am talking, of course, about my mother's birthday. But aside from that, it is Reformation Day. And so what better time of the year to reflect on the Reformation?

The advent of Protestantism is traditionally thought of as beginning with the nailing of the 95 theses to the door at Wittenberg. These theses of Martin Luther dealt primarily with the issue of indulgences. You know the saying: when a coin in the copher rings, we'll be able to afford St. Peters Basilica.

So Martin Luther saw this abuse of power on the part of the Roman Catholic Church and tried to address it. According to the movie re-enactments that I've seen, he was in total shock to find the then current pope less than sympathetic to his goals. As time passed, I think, the Reformation became less about indulgences per se, and more about the extreme authority of the pope on the one hand, and soteriological issues (i.e. the doctrine of salvation) on the other.

Fast forward to the present day and we find the pope does not have anywhere close to the authority he has exercised in years past. We also find that indulgences are no more-at least as they were in Luther's day. A third thing we find today is efforts on both sides, Protestant as well as Catholic, to re-unite Christendom. And then, much to our politically correct chagrin, we find bigots coming along to celebrate Reformation Day when they ought to be dressing up like Optimus Prime and collecting as much candy as they possibly can from door to door.

But I suggest to you that the Protestant Reformation is something we all-at least if we are Protestants-should take seriously. Although, I must confess, a reform of the Catholic Church would have perhaps been better (and this was Luther's original intention) but that is beyond the scope of the post.

While the papacy has lost a great deal of its power it has also retained some of it. Officially, every Catholic is to submit to the pontiff in all non-temporal matters. Within Protestantism, however, there is no supreme merely human authority figure. While each denomination may have a ruling body of the particular denomination, there is no general human authority for the church as a whole.

It seems to me that this is a good thing overall. For, as far as I can tell from the Scriptures, the church is supposed to rest on the authoritative teachings of the apostles. The apostles all being dead now, we are left only with their writings. In other words, on the Protestant view, there is no apostolic succession. The Bible alone is our authority. Sola Scriptura.

But the more interesting point of dispute between the protesters and the Catholic Church is perhaps the soteriological one. Apparently, Catholics hold now, and back then as well, that salvation is partially on the basis of works. For example, baptism is necessary to get rid of original sin. While this is not a work done by the baptizee per se (since the said baptizee is normally an infant and thus no willing participant) it still seems out of step with the Bible. Other examples include participation in mass and confession. If I am correct, the mass is to nullify venial sin whereas confession is to nullify mortal sin. But Protestants claim that our sins were covered at the cross. There is nothing left for us to do. We have salvation and often view the so-called vicariousness of the sacraments as a concession to salvation by works. Or, more precisely, salvation by grace plus, which is not, perhaps, salvation by grace at all. It appears to be a denial of sola gratia.

Does this mean that Catholics-I mean true Catholics that believe all the things Catholics are supposed to believe and, in addition, actually know what that is-are not saved? I will plead the fifth on this score. At the very least, I think it is safe to say, that Roman Catholics have got what appears to Protestants to be a faulty view of salvation. Whether they are saying the same thing in different words or if they are heretics (if one wants to use the h word) is a matter that I shall not comment on here except to say that the issue is a complex and confusing one. It is always hard to have intelligent dialogue with an "opponent" when neither of you agrees on the definition of terms and often there is the tacit assumption, on the part of both parties, that technical jargon is being used univocally.

So it seem to me that Roman Catholicism may indeed have an incorrect view of soteriology. This is not to say that the reformers got it right either, however. Rome was not built in a day so we should not expect it to be unbuilt in a day either. When I say "reformers" perhaps what I really mean here is "reformed".

Calvinism is no doubt an important facet of Reformation Day. And I am no Calvinist. Therefore, while I appreciate the good that was in the Reformation, or came out of it, I am not in total agreement with all aspects of it. I must say before continuing that I definitely count reformed believers as true Christians or brothers and sisters in Christ.

Still, they did not go far enough. Or more perhaps more accurately, they went too far. At least by my lights. Let us now turn our attention to the "five points of Calvinism." Those five points (or doctrines) are summed up in the ingenious acrostic "TULIP".

T: Total depravity-This first point is relatively uncontroversial in Protestant circles once properly understood. Man is basically not good after all. We are vile sinners outside of a relationship with Christ.

U: Unconditional election-This is the heart of the controversy right here. Perhaps the best way to view this doctrine is the way that Bertrand Russell viewed the ontological argument. It is a lot easier to feel that there is something wrong with it than it is to say precisely what is the problem. After all, God would remain 100% just if we all went to Hell. The fact that a handful of us are elected to escape is an added bonus. What's more, according to this doctrine, God's choice of the elect need not be arbitrary. While Calvinists say not everyone gets into Heaven, that is also the case in more Arminian soteriologies. All that being the case, I must confess that it just seems better to allow everyone a chance. God has created us with free will, and free will is good, so why wouldn't He allow us to use it in following Him? On the Calvinist view there is a kind of free will though it is in bondage to sin. In a sense, the Arminian (i.e. non-Calvinist conservative Christian) also believes this. But God can allow the Arminian to choose Him in spite of his total depravity can He not? Our free will is, I think, the ability to choose to do anything humanly possible and all things are humanly possible with God's help. So then, the Arminian allows for more exercise of free will than the Calvinist, it seems to me. And why believe in Calvinistic predestination in the first place? There are two and only two reasons why anybody ought to believe in such a doctrine. First, philosophical considerations. For example, if God knows what we will do in the future, some might say, we must do it so we are not free to do otherwise. But philosophical arguments for predeterminism are, it seems, inconclusive. Second, certain Bible passages which seem to teach predestination of a Calvinistic sort. But these verses can apparently be easily given other interpretations. For example, when Jesus said to His followers, "you did not choose me. I chose you," it is very easy (for me) to suppose that they could have said "no we will not follow you." So I think that we are not obligated to accept Calvinistic predestination. In other words, there is no sufficient reason, as best as I can see, for adopting a belief in unconditional election.

L: Limited atonement-I am not quite sure I understand precisely what is meant by this term. Apparently the idea is that God's goal, in sending His Son to die, was that the elect would receive salvation through the said death of the Son. However, Calvinists will say that the non-elect would also be saved through the cross if only they turn to Christ (which they won't do because they are not elect). But isn't this what we nasty Arminians were trying to tell them all along? The only people that will be saved are the people that will be saved. But everybody else could be saved too if only they would turn to Christ (which they won't do because they aren't one of the people who will be saved, ex hypothesi). Maybe it is like total depravity in that pretty much everyone accepts it once they understand it. Still, this doctrine seems even more controversial than predestination so one is certainly tempted to think this doctrine of limited atonement is uniquely reformed. Or, as I said at the beginning, mayhaps I do not accurately understand the meaning of the phrase.

I: Irresistible grace-This is the other side of the unconditional election coin. If election is not conditional on anything (even our accepting the gospel, apparently) then saving grace would be irresistible. Election is unconditional if and only if saving grace is irresistible. And since God sovereignly decrees our salvation-supposing Calvinism is true-we simply have no choice in the matter. On the other hand, if our election is not unconditional, then grace must be resistible. Obviously God is still sovereign. He has sovereignly decreed not that a particular sinner shall be saved but that a particular sinner exist with the free will to choose to follow Him or not.

P: Perseverance of the saints-Sometimes called "eternal security" this is the "once save, always saved" view. I actually agree with this view. Here are two arguments:
1. Jesus Himself explicitly said, "no man can snatch them (Christians in general, I presume) out of my hand." I am a man. Therefore I cannot snatch myself out of His hand, say, by committing apostasy. 2. One of the things a saved person is saved from is Hell. Being saved from Hell means you won't go there someday. A true apostate, however, would go to Hell so, by contradiction, eternal security is true.

Now, as I said before, Rome was not built in a day. The reformers did much doctrinal good. But it is surely unreasonable to expect them to do everything. They had too much on their plate in breaking away from Rome to precisely work out every detail of soteriological theory. Indeed, reformation was always said to be an ongoing thing. Continual reformation has always been the watchword of Protestantism in contrast to the stale traditionalism (note the "-ism") which Roman Catholics had fallen victim to. As the dust of the Reformation began to settle more time was given to focus on the precise formulation of Biblical salvation. Ironically, the reformed (i.e. Calvinistic) church, I tend to think, fell into the very same trap they were fighting against. They seem to have fallen into a theological rut. Not that theological truth can change over time, but perhaps Arminianism or Molinism is more in keeping up with the times of the contemporary evangelical, or Protestant, church.

In any case, these are how things seem to me. To any reformed people whom I've offended in the post, you have my sincere apologies. Please remember that I said at the outset that this is an in-house debate. You are not heretics and are still Christians. I am proud to call you brother or sister. So there you have it dear reader. I mean, some of my personal reflections on the Protestant Reformation. If the length of this post is any indication of importance, the Reformation most certainly does still matter. Until next time, goodbye. Sola Christus.

I Don't Wanna Rock!

2008-10-27T22:41:00.000-07:00

There is a robust industry of potato farming where I live. This Fall, I participated in the potato harvest by working for a short time on, appropriately enough, a potato harvester or combine. One of the things we had to do was pick rocks out of the conveyor belt. Sometimes large. Sometimes small. Always painful on the fingers. By the end of harvest season one may be tempted to say they never want to see another potato again. But not me. I personally have no problem whatever with potatoes. It is the rocks I don't like!

May I say, I had a lot of fun most of the time. On the other hand, one of the unpleasant aspects of the job-besides sore fingers, of course-was working with certain people who seemed to have an extreme grudge on their shoulder against me. Paul tells us that we are to get along with others as best as we can. If they absolutely refuse to get along with us, what do we do?

Enduring such tribulation, I began to reflect on the seeming fact, that no matter where one works and no matter what one does, there is always someone who just arbitrarily decides that they are going to hate one's guts.

I am sure that the Christ-like thing to do in such situations is to approach the other person to talk over the problem. Of course, if the other person is not willing to talk things over with you, then there is really nothing you can do besides pray for them and try to ignore their shenanigans as best you can.

But surely this state of affairs is frustrating. I like to get along with everybody. Of course, as an apologist, I am constantly telling people, "no, you are wrong," and that could get very annoying for those I am in dialogue with, I would venture to guess. But I hope nobody gets the wrong idea. Disagreeing is part of the package that comes with being an apologist for the Christian faith. I by no means derive my jollies from being contentious or argumentative. Again, it is my desire to get along well with all.

So I find myself frustrated when others apparently dislike me. It was particularly hard to swallow when the offending party was a minister, in a Christian environment. This person made many claims to me which I could not help but realise, as time passed, were not true. When they said, "I've been honest with you from the beginning," that was, I think, especially painful. I expect that sort of behavior from jobs in the world, but not at jobs run by Christian institutions.

But there was really nothing I could do. Just pray for the other person. We are instructed by Christ Himself to pray for our enemies-though I hate to use the e-word. And of course, it being easier to see the mote than the beam, it never hurts to pray for ourselves as well. Perhaps we are at least partially at fault in such circumstances as on-the-job conflict at times.

In any case, these tribulations are relatively minor. I never got fired and life does go on. Such affairs build character in us too. Still, all this goes to show that even if we are not formally in full-time ministry as, say, pastor of a church, we still have Christ with us at work and need to follow Him there just as much as on Sunday mornings. I hope I am a faithful follower at all times. I leave you with a question. Though now it is a cliche it still behooves us to ask it of ourselves at all times and in all situations. What would Jesus do?

Moist Your Mind... With Intelligence

2008-10-24T18:38:00.000-07:00

I finally saw the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" today.

The vast majority of the documentary film was spent restating more or less standard creationist (i.e. non-atheistic-micro, but possibly not macro, evolutionary) concerns. And there is certainly nothing at all wrong with this as the film was aimed at a general audience, I presume, and general audiences are not necessarily familiar with such material.

There are two points, with respect to the film, that I would like to note here.

First, there have, it is claimed in the movie (and I have no reason to doubt this claim) been several persons who have lost their jobs because of their perceived affiliation with some strand or other of the creationist movement. The people in question are primarily professors but there was at least one journalist mentioned. In the course of the movie these people are named, as well as the organisations they previously worked for, and were given an oppurtunity to appear on film. The alleged offending party at their organisation-say a university campus-were also given the chance to present their side of the story.

If these allegations are true, and they almost certainly are, then I can sum up my feelings towards the situation with a single word. Appalling.

Before the host Ben Stein went straight to the horses mouth, he swung by Skeptical Inquirer Magazine. The man in charge of that publication said that there has been no such discrimination so far as he knew. Of course, his magazine and staff had nothing to do with the purported discrimination itself. And I am not sure we should expect him (his name escapes me at the moment) to know about such clandestine matters as campus faculty politics. Still, this move by Ben, or whomever, was amusing because the rest of the film was tracking down the various offended and, to a lesser sucessful extent, offending, parties. I say this is amusing because Christians are all to used to hearing skeptics make great claims that turn out to have no basis in reality.

At any rate, as the movie progressed Mr. Stein asks what he can do to help keep academic freedom alive and well at university campuses. In a special feature on the dvd, he announces that there is a petition circulating around for just this very purpose. For more information about the petition go to expelledthemovie.com

The main focus of the documentary, besides exposing a kind of religious persecution, was the intelligent design movement (or ID). It has been interesting for me to watch the reaction of mainstream evolutionists to the ID. And this brings up the second point I wished to make with respect to "Expelled". It is now my thesis that the hard-core young Earth creationists really did have a point all along.

But let me back up a bit. As I explained in a previous post, I have come to believe in an old Earth. With smart people like Alister McGrath and John Polkinghorne being full-blown theistic evolutionists, why, I was on the verge of becoming one myself. After all, the Bible explicitly says animals were made from the dust of the earth which is essentially the same idea that as that of chemical evolution out of "a warm little pool," it seems to me. I even went on wikipedia and saw that the general descent of life matches more or less the Genesis account (i.e. the order of the animals is the same in both "accounts" it would seem). And since all truth is God's truth, nature cannot contradict Scripture. As a Christian I care a great deal about truth so I want to take scientific truth very seriously.

But, there is a catch. Sometime ago I was watching a clip of Dr. Francis Collins. He is either a theistic evolutionist, or, at the very least, an advocate for the compatibility of Christianity and neo-darwinism. He is a biologist and wrote "Searching for Darwin's God". In this clip he was addressing a room of his colleagues about a recent high profil ID trial which he had apparently just testified at. The whole room was laughing (at his instigation?) about how silly the ID movement is. But what he said about the ID movement was-more precisely, his description of irreducible complexity-was nothing like I remembered it. I checked it out and found that he had grossly misrepresented it.

But badly misrepresenting a scientific view, especially when its proponents have been careful, and infinitely patient, to clarify the misunderstanding, and laughing at it is precisely what evolutionists have always accused the hard-core creationists of doing. Similar argumentum ad pot-calling-kettle-black was no doubt also found in the movie "Expelled" by biologists speaking out against ID.

It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that mainstream biology is willfully ignorant not only of the hard-core creationism in vogue in the past, but also of the currently more respectable ID points of view. In other words, it appears that non-religious scientists are really not the rational, reasonable, unbiased people they want us religious people to believe.

So it appears that macro-evolution with atheistic connotations is the only game in town for biologists that are not religious as Bill Craig would say. And furthermore that they will not even consider an alternative viewpoint. I want to be crystal clear on this point. I am not claiming that macro-evolution from a single common ancester never occured or that there is no scientific data pointing in that direction. That may (or may not) be the case. All I am saying here is that creationists of all stripes (including theistic evolutionists) are not getting a fare shake and that we do have a legitimate point to make. I would think, what is good for the creationist goose, is good for the non-religious evolutionary gander.

Trust Your Media-anic

2008-09-23T18:26:00.000-07:00

Some time ago, I was visiting my grandmother-she is in a nursing home-and, at the suggestion of my mother, I turned the t.v. to a news channel. I was interested in a story they were telling about the 'Gabriel Tablet'. This archaeological find may, according to some, shed light on the historical Jesus. Now, as a conservative, I break out in a rash whenever I hear about 'the quest for the historical Jesus' though, of course, there is nothing wrong per se with such an idea. I was delighted to see Ben Witherington (a fellow conservative evangelical) being interviewed on this program which, I should also mention, was not on Fox News (so it was presumably leftist).

So they talk about the Gabriel tablet for a short-too short-then go back to their lead story. Apparently Jessie Jackson had said something less than flattering about Barrack Obama. He subsequently made it crystal clear that he was very sorry about getting caught saying such things. They went on and on about this foolishness for some time, occasionally alluding to an extra-marital affair that Jonathon Edwards was said to have had four years ago.

So, they talked for about a minute on this archaeological find which allegedly gives new information about Jesus (albeit, unsympathetic to traditional Christian beliefs) and spent the much of the rest of the time with the usual garbage associated with political campaigning.

With this, we come to my main point. It has neither to do with liberal religious scholars or liberal politicians. Instead, I am pointing out how backwards the liberal media is. What is more important, the latest presidential race gossip or Jesus? To ask this question is to answer it. Yet we are subjected to the sophomoric, or rather junior high-ic, hooie we've all come to expect from the liberal media day after day.

So there I am, with the two women I love most (after my wife, of course) complaining about how bad the media can be sometimes. My mother told me, "for goodness sake, not everyone is a zealot [like you]". She may have a point there. But the point I was getting at, and am getting at now in this post, is that the media often is not the objective, informative, and relatively comprehensive information source they presumably want us to take them as. One certainly does not have to be religious fanatic to recognise this fact.

My Experiences at LDS.NET

2008-09-08T20:54:00.000-07:00

Wow, it is surprisingly difficult to keep updating a blog! I find myself doing other things and putting it off until-my goodness-so much time has passed since my last post. What have I been up to in the interim? One thing is posting on "lds.net" (not to be confused with "lds.org").

lds.net Its a real cool place to be a Mormon. There are also those of other persuasions there, however, such as myself. The main message I have been trying to convey in my time there has been the great problems that I percieve in the personal testimony concept.

Everything in Mormonism seems to boil down to the personal testimony. For those of you unfamiliar with the LDS sub-culture, "personal testimony" means something different-surprise! surprise!-for them than it does for Christians (or anybody else, for that matter). As they use the term, they have prayed about the Book of Mormon, and perhaps other LDS truth claims, and received a feeling that it is directly from God. "I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God," they say, because they have had a feeling that they take to be God saying, "Joseph Smith is a prophet of God."

I am amazed not that there are so many people who are Mormons. Instead, it is incredible to me that there are any Mormons. Every Mormon has, by very definition, had such a feeling, and, it is primarily or exclusively because of that feeling, that they are Mormons! Don't they realise that feelings come and go? Do you ever feel like not going to work in the morning? Of course, but your reason tells you that you ought to go to work anyhow, because you need the money to live. It is not God telling you, "don't go to work today." You are just tired. Feelings are at best a secondary epistemological apparatus. Yet these people have hung their entire life, and afterlife, on a mere feeling. That sounds very dangerous to me.

A second point that I have found myself stressing to the Saints at this sight is that the Bible absolutely does not teach Mormonism. Though I have not mentioned this at the site, I have come to see the entire Bible as one large polemic against LDS doctrine. At any rate, this second point is intimately connected to the first, for, it seems the Mormon misinterpretation of the Bible ultimately boils down to what the Mormon prophets say the Bible says. The most important Mormon prophet, of course, being Joseph Smith himself. And how do they know that these prophets are giving them the right meaning? Because they have prayed, and subsequently received a feeling, that these false prophets (according to Christian orthodoxy) are authoritative. At least, this seems to be the case.

One issue that I was about to address when I got booted off (more on this below) was that of the Book of Abraham. The Mormons believe in at least the following texts as inspired:
1. The Bible
2. The Book of Mormon
3. The Doctrine and Covenants
4. The Pearl of Great Price
Now, the Book of Abraham is a part of the Pearl of Great Price. The Mormons believe "...the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated [and transcribed?] correctly..." They further teach that the Book of Mormon was translated from gold plates that are now in heaven. The Doctrine and Covenants are more or less what God told Joseph. Finally, the Pearl of Great Price was translated by Joseph from Egyptian papyri. Not counting the Bible (which all true Christians recognise as being from God, as opposed to the other 3 which tend to be universally rejected by all true Christians), then, the only one of the above scriptures which may be tested, by comparison to the original manuscript, is the fourth.

And what do we find when we examine the Egyptian papyri? What Joseph says they said, under divine inspiration, they do not say. One would think that such a discovered truth as this would immediately end, once and for all, all Mormonism. After all, if Smith has been conclusively shown to claim infallible translation ability on certain works, and the only one we may examine is totally wrong, that would tend to throw in doubt his claims as the modern-day prophet to restore the gospel, and the whole foundation of Mormonism would crumble. Why has that not happened?

I have seen only two responses to this problem (if anybody knows of others, please let me know). The first reply is that Smith may have had, under divine interposition, access to some sort of esoteric meaning in the papyri that Egyptologists (who often are not Mormons) don't have access to. I think that merely to state such ad hoc moves of desperation is to refute them so let us move on to the second, and more believable (though still implausible) rebut offered us by LDS apologists.

This second claim is that perhaps the part of the papyri now extant, was a different part of the texts owned by Joseph Smith. It is quite true that Joseph did in fact have more papyri than we now have (i.e. of his own collection, much has been lost). While that is true, there are still some problems. In the Book of Abraham itself, we read in 1:14, of a figure at the beginning (do not quote me, but I believe that in older printings, the exact phrase was "the beginning of this record" wherein 'record' was taken to mean 'entire scroll' by some LDS apologists!). The figure at the beginning of the Book of Abraham is a picture common to many Book of Breathings which is sometimes also called the Egyptian Book of the Dead (or, I suppose, Necronomicon for all you 'Evil Dead' fans-though the Necronomicon in the movie was, I understand, a fictional invention of Lovecraft).

So what do we have? Joseph Smith had a papyrus, with the Book of Breathings picture at the beginning and some of that very same scroll has been translated by Mormon scholars as the Book of Breathings. The Book of Breathings has nothing to do with Abraham. Rather, it is a magical book which helps dead Egyptians in the underworld. Mummies were buried with it. These Mormon translators will sometimes say, "well, the part that is now extant is the Book of Breathings, but, maybe the Book of Abraham was later added on to it, Smith had it when he was translating, but that later add on was lost to history."

But it gets even worse! There is also extant what are called the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Mormon scholars, who accept the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, admit the existence of these papers. The papers were written by the scribes of Joseph Smith. In them, there is a page/s which is divided into two columns. On the left side is Egyptian which one finds in the Book of Breathings. On the right side are English expressions. It appears that Smith (it must be remembered that he 'translated' in the early days of Egyptology before there was necessarily an understanding of the Egyptian language by specialists in Egyptology) had this key made up to 'translate' the Book of Breathings. He had claimed that Reformed Egyptian (the original language, purportedly, of the Book of Mormon) could say many English words using only a single symbol. And we find this idea manifested with respect to the key in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. What the Mormon scholars want us to believe, is that a. Smith translated a portion of a scroll, part of which was the Book of Breathings, still extant, and part of which was the Book of Abraham, lost to history; b. this translation was done under divine guidance; c. he (and/or his scribes) later went back to compare the original Egyptian to the inspired translation (apparently they somehow confused the Book of Breathings itself, with the allegedly added Book of Abraham when they did this) and; d. finally, enemies of the one true Church today, as they call themselves, have misinterpreted the unispired reverse translationeering (to coin a new phrase) as a key to the inspired translation.

I am afraid that both possible explanations are rather implausible and we probably ought to reject them both without a moments hesitation. But then Mormonism collapses as I said before. It is important to realise before going on that what has happened is that the only testable, uniquely Mormon scripture, has been tested and found wanting. It was then removed from testability for, say the defenders, the real Book of Abraham has been lost to history. That is very convenient don't you think?

As I said before, I have been kicked off of this website until mid-September. So wake me up, when mid-September ends. Perhaps the old saying about the truth, is itself true. But this shunning did not happen all at once. First, I received a warning. Somebody had written into a discussion forum there, at lds.net, and I told them what I thought about them joining the Church (this was the question they asked of members of the site in general, as I recall). My own comments were construed as being derogatory against the Church and so, since then, I have been on my best behavior. I have toned down the abrasiveness of my criticisms. I have explicitly stated that my concerns are only my own opinion about what appears (and things are not always as the appear, of course) to me to be the case about Mormon doctrine. And yet, I find myself banned for derogatory comments against the Church (and insulting people too, I think). I tried to email the site to express my confusion and ask for clarification but, because I am banned from using the site, I apparently cannot even contact the moderator about this problem!

If the people at FAIR (a group of LDS apologists) have all the answers, and if the personal testimony of members is so unquestionably indubitable, one wonders why the lds.net site is so afraid of hearing an alternative perspective. The internet infidels allow me to express my views on their forums. Sometimes Mormons express their views in evangelical churches. What's so bad about me stating objective facts in a public forum? Could it be that God's one true church, ain't so true after all? Is that at least a possibility? If so, then the personal testimony idea may be considered sufficiently undermined.

And you know, now that I mention it, why do Mormons want to be considered a part of the Christian Church anyway? According to the Book of Mormon, all churches save for their own, follow the Devil, and all creeds, which all churches have always followed, according to Joseph Smith's first vision, are an abomination in the eyes of God. They are not likely to mention this when they come to your door, it seems, but then there are a lot of things they don't appear to want to tell you when they come to your door. Perhaps the truths of the one true church aren't.

In conclusion, I very much welcome an LDS person, other Mormon person, or lds.net itself to reply to what I have said here. In the marketplace of ideas, we all have a voice. Please, exercise your freedom of speech and critique this post. May the grace of Jesus Christ rest upon all who read this.

Reveiw of Horton Hears a Who

2008-07-25T11:21:00.000-07:00

Some time ago I was browsing through the stacks of a bookstore and came across a book written by Dr. Seuss. I pulled it from the shelf and as I read the introduction I was surprised to learn that the book was intended for adults. But it looked like all Dr. Seuss books. I am not certain now but I believe the book was "Horton Hears a Who."

Some time later I was listening to a podcast of the radio program "apologetics.com" and John Snyder, the host, was reading that book, "Horton Hears a Who," to his audience in the context of National Right to Life Day. Was it, he asked, a pro-life allegory? In a memorable line from the book (and the movie) Horton declares, "a person is a person, no matter how small." The idea certainly fits whether the allegory was intentional or isogeted.

Then a little while after that I had the opportunity to watch, for the first time, the movie version of the Seuss classic at a makeshift drive-in. I went expecting to see a polemic against the so-called pro-choice movie in cognito. While that aspect was, apparently, present in the movie, there was a whole other level in which the movie may have been viewed (intentional by Seuss and/or the author of the screenplay or otherwise).

And so there are at least three levels on which, it seems to me, the film can be taken. The first level is that of merely a funny and entertaining cartoon for children of all ages. The second level is that of clandestine propaganda against the pro-choice, falsely so called, movement. But the third level is what I'd like to focus on in this 'review'.

I was struck in the movie with the apologetic overtones. Though never explicitly on the surface, I could see that the movie was quite possibly, a kind of a defence of religious faith. For example, the atheistic kangaroo (who was played, I think, by Carol Burnett) tried to persuade, very loudly but without a lot of sound reason, the other jungle dwellers that Horton was being silly. After all, they could neither see nor hear Whoville so it must not exist. In contrast, Horton could hear them and, in a sense, see them. Perhaps that was just a subjective delusion on his part, though, the kangaroo may have retorted.

Then within Whoville, the mayor had a hard time to get his fellow citizens to believe in Horton and the larger world outside of Whoville. When he finally came clean and said that Horton, who was trying to save them, was a giant elephant in the sky, they all looked up. He responded with, "don't bother looking for him because he is invisible." This is precisely what theists sometimes tell atheists.

Still, while we cannot see God, or Horton, in the traditional sense, their are signs all around us. We have the Scriptures and the prophets like Whoville had their mayor, a kind of prophet, and the Horton horn. Also we have a revelation of God in nature. Whoville had a scientist who saw the signs of Horton in nature. "How did you know?" she asked the mayor. This was with respect to the earthquakes when Horton fell and the climate change when he, Horton, moved to colder areas.

Yes, the perceived theological undertones gave the movie a special appeal for me. And there is one scene which was particularly poignant to me. The jungle has Horton locked in a cage. They are about to throw the clover, whereon Whoville resides, into the fire. Horton (played by Jim Carrey) says, with tears in his voice, "you are making a big mistake!" This scene immediately brought to my mind the scene from "Liar" when Carrey's character, an unscrupulous lawyer who is finally beginning to see the light, says to the judge, "I hold myself in contempt!"

As I said before, I am not sure if the deeper meanings of pro-life and pro-faith were intentional but they do fit in nicely with the narrative. If we apply the three-fold meaning to this scene what do we get? The exciting climax of the story for children. The shocking realisation of the multitude of children killed by abortion by women (and in a sense, men too) who don't realise that they are making a mistake. Remember, a person is a person, no matter how small. Finally, how many people head for the flames on the excuse that they cannot see or hear a God so He must not exist? What about all the signs of God in general and special revelation? They stick their head in the sand. Perhaps they just want to party (remember the Whoville anniversary party) or listen to the 'arguments' of another (as the people of Whoville where easily persuaded by the kangaroo).

If you are interested in any of the three levels then I think you will like this film. It was hilarious. Not just for kids. It had the obligatory Bugs Bunnyish allusions. Jim Carrey and Steve Carrell (who played the mayor) are certainly favorites in more adult oriented comedies. It was family friendly. It had a very strong (intentional?) pro-life message. And one is very tempted to say that it affirmed theistic faith in a subliminal sort of way. The flick definitely produces food for thought (and discussion).

In my own opinion it is probably one of the best movies of all time. I know that is saying a lot but I really do think so. Certainly at or near the top of the list amongst cartoons I have seen. I give the movie five out of five stars. I think we'll all want to add this picture to our movie libraries.

King Heathen's Call to the Deconverted

2008-07-10T15:34:00.000-07:00

I am ashamed to admit this but recently I have become addicted to You Tube. And a few days ago I got the idea to search that video library for testimonies of people that have left the Christian faith. I found one video posted by a young man calling himself "King Heathen" who was calling for deconversion stories. I then started watching some of those.

There were a few general trends that I saw in the first dozen or so (these were the only ones I watched of 92 videos). Every person is different, of course, but generally the reasons for deconversion fell into one, or more, of the following categories (perhaps among others):

1. I had a bad experience with the people from my church.
2. I read the Bible.
3. I had some questions that nobody would (or could?) answer so then I decided, eventually, there were no answers so it, religion, must be false.
4. Belief in God is analogous to belief in Santa Claus. We outgrow the latter and we ought to, in turn, outgrow the former as well.
5. I did not know there was anything else to believe. What about them in this life? What about them in the afterlife?

Before addressing these concerns I must say that for some of the people, their deconversion was apparently a fairly traumatic experience. I in no way intend my thoughts on the above reasons to be attacking them individually or collectively. My heart goes out to anybody suffering emotional pain. There is one woman in particular, from the You Tube videos, that I feel especial concern for. Furthermore, I take the struggle with doubt very seriously. I myself have struggled with, and sometimes still do, struggle with doubts. It seems to me to be a good thing to reflect upon the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of one's faith but that can be a stressful exercise to go through. I know from personal experience how hard struggling with doubt and critical examination of one's own faith can be. I therefore do not wish to belittle or make fun of anybody else that has shared in either or both of these trials.

Let us begin, now, an analysis of the videos from my own personal perspective. The five reasons listed above were the main reasons and, I must say, I find them very unpersuasive reasons (except perhaps psychologically persuasive on the subjective level of each individual exreligionist). Let us look at these reasons one by one.

1. Sometimes professing Christians do not act as they should. To say that that fact makes Christian doctrine false does not logically follow in any way. This is a common fallacy of logical reasoning. Namely, the genetic fallacy and/or the ad hominem fallacy. The inference that Christianity is false on this basis is, in a word, a non sequitur.

2. The idea here is that supposedly the Bible is riddled with contradictory material or obviously false stories. I have been studying the Bible for years and came to the opposite conclusion. A common example given was that Genesis teaches there was no evolution and science contradicts that. However, when one reads Genesis one nowhere sees an explicit denial of evolution. There are two places that one might construe as an implicit denial but I see no reason to so construe them. The first place (actually several places) is where the Bible speaks of God creating biological life. But nothing could be more obvious that the method of His creating may have been, for all Genesis says, through biological evolution. But, you may object, He is said to create from the dust of the earth. Isn't that exactly the same thing that is said to have happened with chemical evolution (which is thought to have started biological evolutionary processes, I understand)? The second place is when the various creatures are said to reproduce after their kinds. Ask an evolutionary biologist, "do cats give birth to cats, dogs to dogs, and so on?" What do you think s/he will tell you? He will say, "of course!" And this is neither more nor less than what we read in a certain part of Genesis.

You see, there is a real problem that the beginning Bible reader does not seem to be aware of. Ignoring this problem leads to charges of biblical contradictions ad infinitum. However, once the problem is recognised, and taken seriously, the alleged contradictions tend to evaporate. The problem is that the interpretation of the Bible is a complex science. I am not trying to say that only enlightened proponents of orthodoxy such as my self may understand it correctly. Please do not accuse me of special pleading. The Bible is not unique in this. The Koran (which I reject as being a revelation of God) also holds special problems with respect to hermeneutics. As do the writings of Aristotle, Herodotus, and any number of books. The Bible was written over a long period of time by many different people. This fact alone presents special hermeneutical problems. It was written in three different languages, none of which are English, which fact presents further problems. It was addressed to cultures vastly different from our own which further complicates the issue. I am not saying that it is impossible to correctly understand the Bible or that all the experts agree on the interpretation. Rather, I am trying to say that if a twelve year old (as many of the deconverted I saw on You Tube seemed to be when they started reading the Bible for themselves), who is new to the Bible, starts reading it we should not be surprised if s/he immediately has no resolution for all apparent conflicts. How many 12 year olds do you know that have a detailed understanding of ancient near eastern history, language, etc?

3. This seemed to be by far the most common reason unfortunately. I say it is unfortunate because there are good answers to the good questions people ask of Christianity. I can remember in my own life when I was in the upper grades of high school struggling with doubts. I would go to pastor after pastor, and mature Christian mentor after mature Christian mentor, and it became very frustrating. There common method of dealing with my doubts was to pray. I am a firm believer in the power of prayer and I do not deny that it helped me in this case too. However, why didn't they give me, in addition to prayer support, the wealth of very good philosophical and other arguments that Christian apologists have for the faith? People have been questioning and attacking Christianity from day one and many intelligent believers have been developing good arguments against the arguments of the "cultured despisers" and in favor of Christianity. The fact that good people suffer did not suddenly fall in Bart Ehrman's lap only recently. No, Christians and everybody else have always had to deal with the problem of evil in some way or other. Christians have had 2000 years to deal with it and there are good answers to this good question. A partial answer is that God cannot prevent us from doing evil things to each other without taking away our freedom. I don't know about you but I do not like the idea of being a robot. I enjoy my freedom. A lot more could be said but let us move on to the next item.

4. This is an objection one runs into not infrequently though I am not sure why. I mean, it is a blatant false use of analogy. I see nothing remotely similar in the two things being matched together. In some cases we start believing in Santa because our parents tell us he is real then stop believing in him because our parents tell us that. We know, as parents, that we are just playing a game with our children (though they don't know it is a game until they become older) when we tell them about Santa. I do not think there are any sane adults who believe there really is a Santa. The only reason anybody would believe in Santa is because they are a child and were taught about him by adults. As soon as the children are out of the room or to bed for the night the self-same adults look at one another and say, "oh yes, Santa is real. You know what I mean. Wink wink. Nudge nudge. No what I mean." On the other hand, many of the smartest people throughout history have believed in God. Socrates,Plato, and Aristotle define ancient philosophy. They all believed in God. Most of the Church Fathers used philosophy to defend their faith in God. One common argument for acceptance of Christians in Rome (to not become lion food, say) was that the Christians, like the pagan Romans, also believed in a God. Aquinas who defined philosophy in the middle ages attempted to prove God's existence (and succeeded?). Today, the president of the American Philosophical Association is an evangelical Christian. He certainly believes in God. He has given over two dozen arguments for the existence of God from philosophy. Antony Flew was an atheist but converted to deism on the basis of the new school teleological argument. Alister McGrath is a professor of historical theology at Oxford University. He converted from atheism to Christianity on the basis of argumentation. Are there any philosophical argument for the existence of Santa. The best I can think of is, "he is a logically possible being so it may be the case that he exists though we have no good reason to suppose he actually does." Again, there is no analogy whatsoever between Santa and God or at best only a ridiculously weak analogy.

5. When we are young I suppose it is only natural to think that everyone believes whatever our parents tell us is true. As we get older we do learn about other perspectives. How do we know we have the right view? Perhaps, we may not know that, immediately, but I think it is too radical to say that because there are many views, none of them are true. This is the case whether the view under consideration is with respect to religion or otherwise. They cannot all be right but one of them just might happen to be. I have found Christianity to be that. I was not raised in what could be called a Christian home, either. But you don't have to take my word for it. There is plenty of good evidence that you can examine for yourself if you have not already done so. At any rate, what about these other faiths? Are they wrong? Well, according to the law of non-contradiction they cannot all be right since they contradict each other. While only one, at most, may be right, that is not to say that the others are all totally wrong in every aspect. As a Christian I believe that Christ is the only way to Heaven. I have to admit, therefore, that a Jehovah's Witness, say, will go to Hell when they die because they do not have Jesus (not the biblical Jesus anyway). Is this fair? We all deserve Hell but God has gracefully granted us a way of escaping what we deserve. His name is Jesus Christ. If one rejects that way of escape it is one's own fault, not the fault of God. As I just said, it is what we deserve, therefore it is eminently fair. Is it good? No. God Himself has said in the Bible that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He also says there that He is not willing that any person should perish. Like any loving human being, God does not want you to end up in Hell. He has gone out of His way to provide against that inevitability. He pleads with you and I plead with you to come to Christ today. There is no other escape. What about those who have never heard? What about those born into a different faith community from Christianity? I'd be more concerned about myself if I were you. Still, it is a legitimate question. I am not quite sure how to answer it yet though I shall continue to give it thought.

What are we to conclude from this examination? It seems to me that the people who deconverted, whose videos I just finished watching, may very well have been sincere in their faith prior to leaving it but I do not see were they had good reason to deconvert. I really don't. It may be that they were speaking in generalities, and that if they had got into specifics they would have had sufficient reason, but based on what they said in the videos, they were rationally unjustified, so far as I can tell, to deconvert. On the other side of the coin, one could perhaps say that they were also rationally unjustified in becoming religious in the first place. "My parents made me go and I thought everyone believed it," was the main reason. While there is a place for authoritarianism, though I hate to use the word, in Christian faith, I saw little, if any, rational justification for the religious belief explicated in the videos. This is not necessarily a bad thing. However, I think it goes without saying that if one begins their faith non-rationally then later obtains rational reasons for faith in the other direction-namely, atheism-it only stands to show deconversion would take place. At least that seems to be the case to my way of thinking. But all of this only serves to underscore the very very important need for good apologetics in the Church today. In reality, from an apologist's point of view, we have every good reason to believe, and no good reason to lack belief, or totally believe against, Christianity. I would much like to hear from people who posted one of those videos we've been analyzing or another person who has deconverted from a religion. Please let me know your takes on what I've said here.

Copernican Revolution in Creationism

2008-06-29T11:44:00.000-07:00

I am a creationist. It is common for anti-creationist speech (propaganda?) to say that creationists are like old dogs. And we all know how hard it is to teach them new tricks. In other words, so goes the allegation, creationists just believe whatever the Bible says and their thinking never changes.

But I got to tell you, that I, for one, have undergone tremendous change over the years in my own thinking on the issue of creationism. I guess the first cardinal point in my own journey came when I took an introductory-physical geology course at a secular university. This served two functions in my journey as an evolving creationist, if you'll pardon the very bad pun. First, it got me to question the faithfulness of extreme creationists (a la Ham, Hovind, etc.) in their quotation of evolutionary sources. Second, I had the opportunity to observe first hand that evolutionary scientists are not the blubbering idiots that extreme creationists seem to think they are.

About this same time I went to hear Kent Hovind speak. During the Q & A time I asked him why he tied the big bang in with evolution. As I remember, he said it was the beginning of the process (which he denied ever having occurred) culminating in macro evolution. But I had come to be open to the big bang. It was useful apologetically a la kalam cosmological argument. Furthermore, I could not see in the Bible where it says God absolutely could not have created the cosmos 6000 years ago by means of the big bang (I have since come to see that if there was a big bang-and it seems essentially certain that there was-it must have been billions of years ago).

During my years as an extreme creationist I did not give Dr. Hugh Ross a fair hearing. I saw him as a kind of heretic (though his heresy was relatively minor). I remember reading one of his books and thinking he was compromising the Scripture to be too accommodating to heathen science. Later on, however, I started to see that he was on to something with his view of an old world. And this brings us to the second major turning point. I still have some more thinking to do on this point but I am willing to admit now that it is more or less certain that the cosmos is billions of years old. And what is more, this seems to me to be consistent with the Bible if not explicitly taught by it.

So geology 101 and Dr. Ross giving me permission to be an old-earther (and retain orthodoxy at the same time, which is very important to me) were the first two steps. And may I say that I am still a work in progress when it comes to creation/evolution? And may I further say that when one critically reflects on the problem for oneself it seems that one shall see that creation/evolution is an incredibly complex issue? In fact, with one notable exception it is probably the most complex issue in all of Christian apologetics.

One of the reasons why it is so complex is that everybody defines their terms differently. For example, what exactly is evolution? An extreme creationist would perhaps take evolution to mean macro evolution. They do admit theistic micro evolution but deny that they are theistic evolutionists. This makes no sense to me. And in my informal debate with a naturalist, I get the impression that he (exapologist is his username online) thinks that Dr. Behe denies evolution. He, Behe, even accepts macro evolution. Even common ancestry of all species. Rather, I think I'm right in saying that he defines evolution, when denying it happened, as naturalistic evolution. The point is that people in the debate need to start carefully defining their terms. So far very few, if any, have done so.

And that is the first step in any debate if real progress is to be made. Instead what normally happens is people just talk past each other and often agree more than they think (though they probably do have significant differences as well).

As was said above, my perspective has changed a lot over the years on the question of creation/evolution. What is my point of view at present? I answer that, I do not see a conflict between evolution and the biblical account of biological origins but neither am I persuaded that all species share common ancestry. I find myself leaning towards, though not yet totally embarrassing, progressive creationism. By 'progressive creationism' I mean that God created the various kinds of animals in progressive stages. So maybe He waits for the trilobites to become extinct then a thousand years later He creates angle worms, for example.

I would say, that while it is vitally important that God created the cosmos out of nothing and that He now sustains it and rules over it, it is relatively less important (though still fairly important) when and how He did it. This is my Father's world. He is thus free to intervene in a miraculous way at any point in time that He so wishes. That is also vitally important. I think I've hurt a lot of ears in this post but it is an honest revelation to you, dear reader, of where I currently stand. This is a fascinating area of inquiry. I therefore look forward to reading any and all comments you post to this entry at this blog.

Golvellius

2008-06-18T17:00:00.000-07:00

Has anybody out there in the blogospere ever heard of a older RPG called "Golvellius: Valley of Doom"? I beat it today! It is a pretty neat game. It is like a Sega version of the original Zelda game. But it has its own feel as well entirely different from Zelda. I was surprised at how long the game was. Anywho, let me know if you've played it before and what you thought of it. Please and thank you.

Rest in peace righteous rocker. Rest in peace.

2008-06-18T13:49:00.000-07:00

Review of Rambo

2008-06-11T14:01:00.000-07:00

John J. has come full circle. John J. Rambo that is. And sure enough, by the end of the 4th Rambo movie, he's walking down the long road. And he's on his own-dah...dah dum.

I grew up in the eighties and was a huge fan of Rambo. But this newer movie was very different from the others. "First Blood," the first movie, was a rather good movie-the most unique of the four. As a kid I watched it with much pleasure. Apparently what happened next, was that it made some money and so the movie-makers decided to morph Rambo into an action hero franchise and market him to kids. The second movie was cheesy (though I did not notice as a child) and the third one was even worse. And then there were the Saturday morning cartoon incarnation of the Rambo universe. That was definitely marketed towards kids.

Now, all of us kids-mostly boys-grew up with Rambo. He was our hero. Fast forward to today and Stallone hasn't done anything lately (accept, of course, "Rocky Balboa," and, if you go back a little farther, "Spy Kids 3-D") for movies. All the old franchises are being resuscitated lately and, of course, the boyhood fans are now adults. So I guess Stallone thought he'd come out of retirement once again to revive his second major serial character only this time make it more edgy and adult oriented.

Most parents would not be comfortable allowing their children to watch the new one, I think. That is how edgy and adult oriented it is. There are plenty of f-bombs in the film and also much gore. Of course, in a Rambo movie, you would expect to see a lot of violence. But did we really need the 27th decapitation? Wouldn't the first 26 (primarily by gunfire) suffice? Still, Rambo and his buddies are hardened assassins so you would expect a good deal of swearing and, when people step on landmines or have their heart literally blasted out of their ribcage with a canon, one would expect to see blood.

And there was certainly a lot of blood, and severed limbs (not just heads) in this movie. In fact, I think that, apart from some horror movies, this is probably the goriest movie I have ever seen. Even horror movies aren't normally this gory. "Dead Alive" (sometimes also called Brain Dead) certainly was more gory and "Evil Dead II" was as well. But "Saw," for example, was slightly more tame than Rambo part four it seems. Even the Kill Bill movies were relatively tame compared to this movie.

This, as it seems to me, is not necessarily a bad thing. As I almost said before, this new Rambo movie is more realistic than the other Rambo movies. He actually talks in this one and he does not take on the military of an entire country on his own. Rather, he is fighting a Burmese army as, for all intents and purposes, a Burmese soldier. So it is two armies fighting each other not one man, who doesn't talk, fighting an entire country and winning.

Another difference from the older movies was that Stallone does not appear shirtless in the movie in a state of hyper-saturation from body oil. Considering his age that could be a good thing. That being said, however, his short sleeve T-shirt reveals arms which do look quite buff. Also, there did not seem to be as much action for Rambo to do. The last 15 minutes or so I got the impression that Stallone is old and since it is his movie anyways, he would just stand behind a very large gun and shoot a lot of bullets (while making a tomato paste out of the enemy). Keep in mind that this is after an hour of him leaning against the motor of his pontoon boat.

One part that surprised me was that even the Burmese children were portrayed as getting killed. Very rarely do we see children getting killed in an action movie or any kind of movie in general. I think that anachronism was wholly intentional. There are some third-world countries which heavily persecute Christians. In the Rambo movie, Christian missionaries are going into Burma to help them but many of the Burmese are already converts. And they are being persecuted by a dictatorial government. There is one memorable quote in the film where Stallone's character says, "live for nothing, or die for something...it's your call." Could it be that Rambo was coming around to the missionaries point of view that Christian and medical aid to Burma was a helpful-worldchanging kind of thing? At any rate, what I am trying to say is that it seems the movie is not merely "let's shoot lots of bullets" but actually trying to expose the plight of persecuted Christians in places like Burma. I may be reading into it what is not there but that is the impression I felt while watching the movie. Perhaps the six o'clock news, in real life, was not covering persecution of Christians (and perhaps others) and their martyrdom like they should have, in my estimation. Who better in the fictional world of movies than Rambo to draw our attention to the barbarism against fellow believers and save the day?

In the final analysis, I must say that though better than the second and third installments, "Rambo" is not as good as "First Blood" but it is still quite good especially for an action movie. I tend not to like action movies too much. They just seem mindless and formulaic. I think the plot line was good in theory though not fleshed out as much as it should have been. I give it three out of five stars. If you were a childhood fan like I was you'll definitely want to see it. And while not the best movie of the year (Stardust?), it is certainly worth watching, at least if you are an adult male. But again, while the first three were perhaps appropriate for younger children, I suggest you don't allow anyone in your household that is not at least a teenager to watch this film.

New Atheism...What's Up With That?

2008-06-07T09:08:00.000-07:00

Is it just me, or are there an obscene number of people, recently, coming out of the closet, so to speak, as being militantly anti-Christian? And many of these people claim to have been ministers of one sort or another. Dan Barker, John Loftus, Gary Lenaire just to name a few. Reading through their arguments for loosing their faith it becomes apparent that their faith must not have been very strong. Obviously, I am unable to peer into their heart and determine their true motivation. Nevertheless, their arguments are so bad that one cannot help but suspect either an ulterior motive or, at the very least, an extremely shallow faith to begin with.

Be that as it may, whether or not the so-called new atheist is a deconvert or not, why, even old new atheism was once new agnosticism. I mean to say, new atheism is nothing more nor less than agnosticism, albeit a militantly anti-Christian agnosticism. You see, in the good ol' days of yesteryear, an atheist was a person who said, "I know God does not exist," and, an agnostic said, "I do not know if God exists or not."

Then the atheists were defeated again and again in debate so they retreated into agnosticism. But (to save face?) they started calling themselves atheists again only with "atheism" redefined to mean "without theism" or "lacking belief in God." While it may be true that "atheism" literally means "without theism," one must not go on literal meaning necessarily. Indeed, does not "inflammable" literally mean "flame retardant?" And nobody would use an inflammable substance to put out a fire. People immediately saw through this ruse and, thus, new atheism was born. If this analysis is false, and it may be, it is certainly at least the impression that I personally have of the situation.

But new atheism is not mere suspension of judgment as I said before. Instead it includes a militant opposition to Christian doctrine and practice. Why would somebody speak out against Christian truth? Do they see it as a threat? Do they know it to be true but really really really want it to be false? Perhaps we cannot say what their true motives are. What we can do, however, is examine their arguments and see how manifestly awful they are. Now, I do not mean to suggest that I dislike the conclusions of their arguments and so I reject them on that count. Rather I mean to say that the arguments themselves are just plain bad when viewed objectively.

Take the poster child as an illustrative example. I am speaking of Richard Dawkins. In a chapter of his book "The God Delusion" he gives a critique of the classical theistic proofs. This is not arguing against Christianity per se but is a pre-requisite, perhaps, for giving a positive case for atheism. As I remember, he a. misrepresented Aquinas' cosmological arguments then argued against a straw man, b. said he did not like the ontological argument then proclaimed we should reject its soundness on the basis of his personal feelings, and c. ridiculed a modern argument which he apparently got from Swinburne (but it was a new argument and so not as distinguished as the classical proofs and, therefor, perhaps not as good as the older, more established proofs). QED? I think not.

Now, if one is temporarily suspending judgment because they have yet to examine the evidence for Christianity that is one thing. But I think the new atheists have already made up their minds in spite of the evidence. When reminded of the overwhelming case for Christianity, many of them blow of the arguments with a wave of the hands-waving at the meager supply of straws before them as they try in vain to grasp them. They refuse to see the truth it seems.

If you are a new atheist then I really don't see where you have a leg to stand on. Do you disagree? You no doubt will. Please post a comment or two explaining your own point of view.

Shalom out.

Informal debate with a naturalist

2008-06-02T04:20:00.000-07:00

Salutations blog readers! I (evangelical) am in the process of critiquing atheistic arguments at 'exapologist.blogspot.com'

If you are interested in checking out what I have to say there, then just go to that site, click on 'Index', then click on whatever argument you'd like to read about. My own comments are posted at the bottom of the the page as is standard practice when commenting on another's blog.

p.s. I must confess that Exapopologist is eminently cordial in our dialogues together. EA, if you ever read this, I commend you for such.

The Funniest Thing You Will Ever See In Your Whole Entire Life

2008-05-30T02:37:00.001-07:00

Don't Trust Mormon.org

2008-05-29T22:21:00.000-07:00

I just watched the short (just over a minute) film "How Can I Know This is True?" It is available for download, free of charge, at mormon.org

In the streaming film a woman, a very hot woman by the way, is talking about how she was always so rational. Then she reads the Book of Mormon and prays about it. She then admits, as though this were a good thing, that when she was trying to decide if it (the Book of Mormon) is true, is the word of God, that she "wasn't thinking about it-she was feeling."

And you know, that is a really remarkable statement. I wasn't thinking about whether the Fermat's last theorem was true, I was feeling (that would have saved an awful lot of time and effort don't you think?). I wasn't thinking it was a good idea to drill a hole in my head, I was feeling. I wasn't thinking that I should join Hitler's genocide, I was feeling. I wasn't thinking it was good to fly a plane into the twin towers, I was feeling.

I can remember very clearly speaking with some Mormon missionaries. I would continually ask them, "why should I believe what you are proclaiming?" I always got the same answer, "just pray about it and you'll feel it's right." Well, maybe I am missing something, but to totally base one's life-and afterlife-on feeling does not seem very wise to me.

I am a man. Men are rational creatures. Even by male standards, though, I tend to be exceptionally rational. I can see the evidence for biblical Christianity and perceive it as compelling. But Mormonism? I mean, feelings are certainly a valuable part of the human psyche so I am in no way anti-feelings. And yet, everything has its proper purpose. Is it the purpose of inductive science to establish deductive mathematics? Is it the purpose of a sewing machines to feed babies?

Again, it is the epitome of folly, it seems to me, to base an entire religion, an entire worldview, an entire life on feeling that something is true unless I have badly misunderstood the sense in which "feeling" is traditionally used in LDS testimony.

To be fair, in the video, the woman also says that God told her that Joseph Smith is a true prophet. So this is more than just a feeling perhaps. But there is a real problem here because God has told me that he (Smith) is not a prophet of God. It is too bad there wasn't some objective court to appeal to when considering competing religious claims. Oh wait-there is. And this is precisely what Christian apologists down through the ages have appealed to in their rational defences of the faith.

How can we know that Mormonism is false? I suggest we use our minds instead of our hearts in determining truth. It is an easy matter to see that Mormonism is not biblical Christianity (though they strongly affirm it is). All we have to do is examine what the Bible teaches then place that side by side with their own teachings. If the two systems are mutually exclusive, why then, quad erat demonstrandum.

One glaring example of contradiction, perhaps the most glaring, is that Mormons are polytheists and the Bible, I think very explicitly, says there is only one God. It is a well-known saying, well known in LDS circles anyway, that, "as man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become." In other words, if you are a good Mormon, you will someday become a god so, therefore, for the Mormon, there are many gods. And this is polytheism. In contrast, in the Bible, if one has spent five picoseconds reading the Old Testament then one sees that the major problem there, was getting everybody to agree that there was only one deity. And that lesson was a very hard one for the Jews to learn but learn it they did by New Testament times. And that is part of the reason why to this day some Jews do not accept their messiah Jesus. How could a man be God when only Yahweh is God?

And strict monotheism is not absent from the New Testament either though, of course, it also teaches that Jesus is God. So if you read on the official LDS website that Mormons are Christians too, don't you believe it for a minute-if by Christian they mean biblical Christianity. And when the Mormon missionaries come to your door and ask you to pray about the Book of Mormon there is no need for it is already manifest that it cannot be true (the reasons not all being discussed in this post).

So then, you can know that biblical teachings are true through good evidence (not here discussed) or you can feel that Mormon teachings are true. I think it is clear which side of the debate I, for one, fall on. All that being said, I would not like to give a fair hearing to the other position. Any Mormons in the blogosphere are encouraged to leave comments to this post setting the record straight. As a matter of fact, I'd love to have the opportunity to have a formal and friendly debate with you on this blog. Please let me know if you are interested.

Prince Caspian Review

2008-05-29T16:23:00.000-07:00

It had been a while since I read Prince Caspian so before going to see the new one recently, I visited my local library and "rented" the old version on VHS. To the best of my memory it was itself quite faithful to the book. The differences between the old and the new Prince Caspian videos are multitudinous.

I must say that I was impressed with the faithfulness of the first new movie to the book "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." I was less impressed with the second offering. It seems to me they took a lot more liberties with the latter than they did with the former. The opening scene of the first movie was absent from the book though, more or less, implied in it. Further, the scene on the ice was a clear departure from the book. Other than that, with the possible exception of a watered down version of the anological trilemma, there really wasn't a whole lot different between movie number one and book number one. By analogical trilemma, I mean when the professor is reassuring the oldest brother and sister that they ought to believe their youngest sister about the magical wardrobe as incredible as it may seem.

So there were too many changes in Prince Caspian the movie from Prince Caspian the book, in my opinion. What other complaints are there? Well, there was way too much fighting in this one (and also the first one). Yes, it is true, that there is fighting in the books. Moreover, violence itself is not a problem. There is plenty of violence (and sex, now that you mention it) in the Bible itself. My problem is not with violence per se. In fact, I rather enjoyed the first installment of the Saw series. Those movies are about a man who enjoys torturing people in unique ways, albeit with a view to ethical reform if the people happen to survive the ordeal (they normally don't survive). My problem is with violence as a spectacle which takes away from the real story under consideration.

And what is the real story of the Narnia series and, more particularly of Prince Caspian? I remember watching an interview of the cast of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" and one of the people said that it, the first movie, was just a good story and can be interprated any way one wants. Not so. Jack clearly intended certain meanings to be taken from his Narnian series. He specifically said, in a letter to a child, that Aslan is supposed to be a real person who really exists outside the novels in our world. He then went on to imply that that person is Jesus Christ. It is not that Narnia is an alegory for Christianity. Rather, Narnia is a parallel, albeit fictional, Christianity you might say.

And there are certain ethical themes in the various books. For instance, Edmunds lust for Turkish Delight is an illustration of gluttony (one of the seven deadly sins). His gluttony lead immediately to the negative consequence of the betrayel of his friends and siblings. And after that, it led to his death. Or, it would have, if Aslan (who is Jesus, remember) did not die in his place on the stone table (the ten commandments, by the way, were written on stone tables in our own world). The Chronicles of Narnia are blatantly, though not explicitly Christian stories. Now, even in the new movie Prince Caspian they included the ethical idea of faith. If you have seen the movie or read the book, you know that the older siblings do not believe the youngest's eyewitness testimony to having seen Aslan in spite of everything that happened in part one. In other words, they had a lack of faith which is sin.

But, while this ethical idea was included, along with the heinousness of pride, the focus of the movie seemed to be not primarily on ethics, which is closely linked to theology in my view. Instead, the focus seemed to be on fighting battles. And such "cheap thrills" normally imply a lack of substance. But there is no lack of substance possible when one is talking about Jesus so all the fighting was superflous at best and watered down the real story at worst.

Now, this is not to say that the movie did not have its good points as well. I enjoyed the movie (though I have other complaints as well I'll spare the reader here). I thought prince Caspian was cast much better than he was in the older movie. That is one example of a positive. The special effects were good. The movie seemed more mature than part one which is a nice feature for adult audiences. And it did stay close to the essence of the Narnia series of books as a whole and Prince Caspian in particular. So it was not all bad.

In the final analysis I would have to say that I could pobably give it five stars if there was less gratuitous violence and less deviations from the book as I remember it. For these perceived flaws I can only give four stars or less. I do recommend it for fans of the books, the older movies, good fantasy fiction in general, Christians with an imagination, and everybody else.

This Blog's Purpose

2008-05-28T21:25:00.000-07:00

The purpose of this blog is to be an extention, not only of myself, but also, a soon to be founded ministry. There are, of course, many different sorts of ministries. This one is a ministry focused on Christian apologetics (i.e. the intellectual defence of the faith). As for the blog itself, it shall consist primarily of random thoughts for the day normally revolving around something of cultural interest and/or important for Christian apologetics. And the cultural analysis shall be from a particularly Christian perspective. Thanks for reading! Tell all your friends about this blog!!