– In response to Hookflash vs. World‘s Carnival of the Godless entry.

In your post, you presented the argument from Evil.

The Argument from Evil essentially goes like this: If God is willing but not able to prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent. If he is able but not willing, then he is not benevolent. If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God? If he is both able and willing, then why is there evil?

Well, let me give you an example, from the theology I know, to answer that argument, and see what you think, ok?

Let’s take it at a run. Should you be interested in the dialogue after that, we’ll continue. It’s a tough one – most good questions are.

———-

I’m interested in why you are reducing the individual questions to either-or. I’m also curious as to why you are making the assumption that those two choices are, in fact, the only two options in those particular cases.

I would define “free will” per the dictionary: “The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.”

Note the “or”. Let’s focus on the second half of that. “unconstrained by the divine will”, as that is the meaning pertinent to the discussion. Every will is, by necessity, not entirely free. Circumstances impinge, and always will. Within those circumstances, we have the ability to choose our own course of action, to the extent to which we are able.

Read the rest of this entry

Reminder: I do these every day. If you post something, and would like it included, as part of my “apologetics” portion in every “Daily Cut”, email me. It saves me time, and you get faster service. Thanks!

Apologetics:

Wittenberg Gate administers a worldview test to Charles Darwin and Christopher Columbus. What do they score? Go check it out.

Ryan Wetzel gives us Circling on God: Part 3. I highly suggest you read it. Oh, and he has some Firefox plugins, too.

Ales Rarus is discussing purgatory. Be nice.

Update: Weapons of Warfare adds to the discussion above.

Dawn Treader has a question: Can Blogs Be Used Effectively In Apologetics? So… go read, and answer.
Every Thought Captive responds first.

Vox Apologia III is up at Revenge of Mr. Dumpling.

Go read it.

Let me give you a short crash course on the origin of the term “fundamentalist”, and how the subversion of the word has become popularized, as you say (correctly) it has.

“In response to a wave of liberalism sweeping the denominations in the first three decades of this century, Bible-believing Christians tried to mount a spiritual defense of Christian truth. Here again the common understanding today is terribly distorted … A key strategy in the defense was the publication of twelve paperback volumes from 1910 through 1915 called The Fundamentals … At the heart of the defense was the affirmation of the “essential fundamentals of the faith” by a broad base of Christian laymen and the defense of these by leading Christian scholars. The fundamentals themselves are usually identified in terms of 5 essential truths: 1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible; 2) the deity of Christ and His virgin birth; 3) the substitutionary atonement of Christ’s death; 4) the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead; 5) the literal return of Christ.

As Bible-believing Christians today we have nothing to be ashamed of concerning the early “fundamentalists” attempts to defend the truth of the gospel. Indeed, the specific doctrines which were defended as The Fundamentals are what have always been affirmed throughout the ages.”

“Dr. Machen and the other men never thought of making this an “ism”. They considered these things to be a true expression of the historic Christian faith and doctrine. They were the fundamental truths of the Christian faith – doctrine which was true to the Bible; truth which they were interested in and commited to … Soon, however, the word fundamentalist came into use. As used at first, it had nothing problematic in its use either in definition or connotation. I personally, however, preferred Machen’s term “Bible-believing Christian” because that was what the whole discussion was all about.

As time passed, however, the term fundamentalist took on a connotation for many people which had no necessary relationship to its original meaning. It came to connote a form of pietism which shut Christian interest up to only a very limited view of spirituality. In this new connotation, many things having to do with the arts, culture, education, and social involvement were considered to be “unspiritual” and not a proper area of concern for a Christian … Fundamentalism also, at times, became overly harsh and lacking in love, while properly saying that the liberal doctrine that was false to the Bible had to be met with confrontation.”

– The Great Evangelical Disaster, Francis Schaeffer, 1984

This is what Fundamentalism meant, and what it has become. When you know the background, the history, and the origin of “fundamentalists”, you know what we mean when we say it has been perverted, and distorted.

When we talk about “Euthanasia”, we have to make one thing perfectly clear.

It’s very simple. “Euthanasia” is a Euphemism, defined as “The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive.”

What is offensive about Euthanasia? It is the act of murder, ostensibly conducted either at a person’s request, or for “their own good”.

That is what is offensive about Euthanasia. Permit me to be Southern Baptist for a moment, and let you know what I’d call it: “A stench in the nostrils of God.”

My thesis? Euthanasia has no Biblical basis, nor does it even remotely fit God’s will, in any way, shape, or form.

Get the picture? Good. We’ll move on.

Read the rest of this entry

Updates:

Jesus General is a humour site with serious intentions. One of these is to reign in the insane cabal who have hijacked your Government and who are currently waging an illegal war on a sovereign country with the sole purpose of stealing the wealth of that country.
The second is to expose religious nutters who seek to justify your ill-advised governments actions as somehow sanctioned by God, but who in reality would be burning people for heresy given half a chance.

Yes, I confess. My ultimate goal is to have you on the rack, plucking at your eyes, until you do my bidding. Then I’ll burn you at the stake… (/sarcasm)

I mean, really. Is the self-deception really this deep? Please tell me, since I have a very understated emphasis on politics on this site (mostly because I am sick and tired of dueling with lefty delusionals who have no clue what logic means), and have since it started…

So, tell me- what do you think about SUDAN? Hrmm?

What about Christian bashing (and please.. I read the comments, and the entries over there. Don’t even bother telling me it’s anything else.) is “serious”? Don’t give me that bullcrap about “it’s just pointing you to the light, not an attack on Christianity as a whole”. That’s all it is. Bull.

Updates:

I must have hit a nerve with “Jesus'” General. Two posts in as many days.

Welcome, troll minions – have a debate!

Plenty of subjects to comment on, and debate about, over in the archives on your right, or in the subject listings on your top left.

Enjoy your stay – and watching my traffic meter jump.

Announcing:

Vox Apologia:

The Vox Apologia III will be held at Revenge of Mr. Dumpling.

Subject: Euthanasia

Submissions must be recieved by midnight tonight. See here for more details.

Carnival of the Godless:

Is up – right now. Now, you apologists out there: You, my dear friends, are your own worst enemies, if you don’t read what they are saying. Additionally, you are failing to respond to my challenge, if you don’t find someone to engage with from among these folks, or the blogrolls of these folks.

So, go, and see. Find someone to talk to – and do it today.

After Action Reports:

I’m French, and going to Hell:

Patriot Boy, at the so-called “Jesus’ General”, takes me to task (satirically) for being French. That, and not equating his obvious satire with the Word of God.

I’m really hurt.

Ok, I’m lying. But, if you ever want to see what the secular community _really_ thinks of you: read that blog. It might be informative. Hope you have a strong stomach though.

His little troll minions, incidentally, invaded Eric’s Evangelical Underground.

He has a point though, when it comes to tradition becoming more important than doctrines – doesn’t he Rand? Protestants shouldn’t have anything to do with those “Nazi Jew” Catholics, as you so descriptively compared them…

But anyway. The comments section is a gold mine of distortion and twisting of the Christian faith, incidentally. If you can stomach it. It’s some interesting stuff to look at, if you’re interested in seeing how people who _hate_ Christianity think of us. It also gives you lots of links to other sites that are anti-Christianity.

What was I saying about “going out to defend”?

Here’s your chance. Get crackin.

Joshua Claybourn emailed me a while back, and asked if I could do an analysis for traffic, instead of links.

I found some interesting things. Click “more” to see what I found. In the center is a small analysis.

Read the rest of this entry

Is what he tells you, when you walk in the door. I have one of his cd’s I have yet to peruse, too.

Well. Let me tell you about Michael Rood.

Be fore you do anything else: Read this. When you come back, read the rest of this post.

Read the rest of this entry

Welcomes:

To the Aggregator:

Huntington Apologetics – a new Apologetics-focused blog, in a “group” setting. It is also a “ministry” blog!

The Huntington Apologetics Team (The HAT) is a ministry of Living Hope Bible Church in Huntington, WV. We strive to give rational and orthodox answers to questions that plague Christians and non-Christians alike. Though we are all members of Living Hope Bible Church and subscribe to its general doctrinal statement, not all of what we say will represent the opinions of the members and/or elder board of LHBC.

From their “about” section.

Welcome to the aggregator, and glad to have you!

(Incidentally, they are covering a subject dear to my heart today – Science Fiction authors. How? Go Go read what they have to say about Carl Sagan.)

Apologetics:

Wittenberg Gate encourages us not to lay down our weapons. Excellent point, and some good examples about how we do that every day. It’s an especially pertinent point for us, as apologists – because we live and die by the sword – The Sword of the Spirit.

She also, among other things in her This and That post for today, directs us to some articles from The American Thinker – which you’ll notice is also on my blogrolls to the right. I won’t tell you exactly which ones she’s referring to… you have to visit Dory at the link above!

Weapons of Warfare has what Andrew refers to as a “lighthearted dialogue” about “The God-Rock problem“. It’s a fun read. So.. read.

Andrew also has a list of Informal Fallacies. Another fun hobby of mine, so I enjoyed it. So… go enjoy it too, or something. kthx.

Funky Dung has a question: “I wonder, though, how we are to know when a debate is not worth continuing and how we are end it without feeling guilty for abandoning someone, particularly a brother/sister in Christ, to his/her grievous errors. Thoughts?”

So… have any?

In another post, he’s found that someone is saying “There will be no Roman Catholic in the Kingdom of God.” Among other things. Like, oh this nugget?

Let me make my position clear: A Christian Roman Catholic, to me, is as opposite as a Nazi Jew.

That, however, is… yeah. You get the picture. I might have to have a little chat with “Rand” later. Do I agree with Roman Catholic theology on everything? Nope. Is it permissible, proper, or even Biblical, to say things like the above? No. (There’s my editorial for the evening. That made me mad.)

If the above blogger had the Lamb’s Book of Life spread out in front of him – I’d believe him. Sadly – he does not. Read Funky’s reply, at Ales Rarus.

blogma is moving soon. Tim Challies is designing his site. I’m going to be in prayer about envy for the next week. HE IS CAUSING ME TO STUMBLE! (hehe. Ok, no he’s not. But man… lucky stiff.)

Every Thought Captive is blogging about Lions and Tigers and Bears. No, there is no yellow brick road. I know, your hopes and dreams are crushed. I’m to blame for the endangerment of your fragile psyche. Yes, I feel guilty… Ok, ok. Just go read it. Sheesh. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

Aw, shucks. Twernt nothin’.

Allthings2all asks: Are you really talking to someone? Good question. So… go read it, and see.

Minor Prophet has a prayer request.

Crap. He just mentioned Hal Lindsey. Well… since he brought it up.. do what the man says. Make up your mind.

More importantly… Where have all the children gone?

NOMINATE ME! Err… umm. Nominate your favorite Evangelical blogger, for each of the categories he gives you. He has a lot of cool nominated people. And stuff. So… are you gonna visit, or what?

Blog of the Week:

Ales Rarus, as blogged by Funky Dung.

He’s 27 years old, and married. (Edit: Sorry FD.) He’s a PhD student in AI. So, yeah.

He was actually raised Lutheran, and is now a Catholic. The name of his blog is a play on words: Ales, for “bird of omen”, in Latin, and Rarus, for “odd”. Avis Rarus, he says, means something like “odd fellow” – so, it’s one of those complicated things that Joe might understand (he whose blogroll is categorized in Latin…).

Anyway, I think his blog is a great read – and, it’s interesting to get a better picture into the Roman Catholic side of Christianity. So there, Rand.

By the by – read his “why I blog” section, on your lefthand side. It’s interesting.

Update:

No “Daily Cut” today, incidentally. I had fun, though. So, well… I think everyone will live.

I was wrong, no netzarim/nazarene heresy. Different types? Yes. He isn’t Messiah-ONLY, as far as I can tell. He’s a converted, “Messianic Jew” (read, “American, who has adopted Judaistic tendencies) with a particularly Jewish “take” on things – which, incidentally, is very, very interesting. If wrong, in most things.

I had to leave halfway through (we were at 3 hours, and it was 10 pm already – it was _half_ done.), so I didn’t catch the final part.

He did say some things I don’t agree with, and he made some connections I wouldn’t – but, I learned a LOT about Hebrew scholarship. More later. I had a good time, though, definitely.

So, the moral of the story is: Being a Berean is fun.

< ---------------------------------->

I’m going to check out a tour coming through town tonight, hosted by a Michael Rood, of the “Rood Awakening” show on Sky Angel.

It almost seems like he’s promoting the Messianic-only view of the Nazarite heresy. (I’ll explain later).

I’ll update this later.

Where did I say anything about your opinion of the TNIV? If you think I ever said anything about your interpretation, then you must have been misreading me, which might explain a few things.

In your comments section. You said: “The reason you can’t see it is because you were looking for something against those who oppose the TNIV.”

Nope. I wasn’t. Actually, I think the TNIV, like the NIV, is a paraphrase – and not a very good one. I prefer literal translations.

What I WAS looking for, was substantiative evidence of what you were saying. I read your post, and went straight to their post, to “see if it was so”. So, I read what you were saying about their anti-TNIV leanings – and even tried to make the connection – which I did – but only in their word “Considering” – which I read as “in consideration of”. When applied, contextually, I get a sense that they do, actually, not think highly of the TNIV – however, the wording does not, in any way, suggest to me any sort of accusation that TNIV supporters would be, in their opinion, “anti-Christian”.

Here’s why. Read the rest of this entry