Feb 4
Hookflash has an answer to my reply in his comments section.
This is a continuation of this discussion. Click “more” below to read the entire entry. It’s a bit long for a full post on the front page.
Feb 4
Announcements:
Vox Apologia IV will be hosted at firstpete315. Head over there for submission information. The subject, is “What happens to those who have never heard the Gospel?”
The Evangelical Blog Awards have been narrowed down to 5 finalists, in each category.
For our particular category:
Best Evangelical Blog-Apologetics
Joe Missionary
Real Clear Theology
Razor’s Kiss
Bible Archive
Weapons of Warfare
The last three blogs are members of the Apologetics Aggregator.
Apologetics:
21st Century Reformation is discussing The Global Village and Materialism.
Weapons of Warfare takes on The Raving Atheist’s “Basic Assumptions” in his “Debunking Atheism“.
Ryan Wetzel concludes his Circling God series.
The Minor Prophet tackles Satan and Demon Possession. Go comment, and stuff. Interesting topic.
They also cover “The Truth About the Crusades” – which, as we know is an atheistic/agnostic favorite “soft spot”. So, go check it out, and see what you think.
Imago Dei discusses The Myth of Moral Neutrality.
Cults:
Kabbalist leader says: The Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves: By rejecting Kabbalism?
(HT: The Raving Atheist)
Discourses of the day:
Still looking… got one to share?
Around the ‘sphere:
Found on American Digest – “You are only one little link, lost in the immensity of God’s blogroll” – image can be found here. I like it.
Feb 3
Privacy:
No personal information will be given to any third party, for any reason, at any time. The site Admin (me) is the only one permitted, or able, to view ANY personal information, which will be used for contact or moderation purposes ONLY.
In addition, I collect general statistical and demographic information, including times of access, browser types, Internet addresses of referring pages, and pages visited most often. When you visit razorskiss.net I also recognize your domain name (e.g. aol.com or interport.net).
I collect IP addresses for the purposes of system administration, and to monitor the level of activity on my site. I collect information from visitors to my site regarding the referring URL, your IP address, which browser you used to come to the site, the country, state, the pages of my site that you viewed during your visit and any search terms entered on my site.
Trackbacks:
If they do not relate to the subject at hand, and/or seem only to be an attempt to get traffic – they will be deleted. Warnings may be given, but are not required.
Comments:
If they do not relate to the subject at hand, and/or seem only to be an attempt to get traffic – they will be deleted. Warnings may be given, but are not required.
No profanity. Period.
Feel free to disagree: However, any comments which are overly harsh, overly hostile, or overly personal (attacks), I reserve the right to either edit, or delete. This IS private property, and technically, all comments, posts, and anything else on this domain, or any other I own, belong to me. Thus, I reserve the right to do with them as I will.
Do NOT, under any circumstances, link to a site with offensive content. (Opposing viewpoints are not offensive, but they should be viewpoints – and expressed as such. ie: Pornography does NOT count as an “opposing viewpoint”.)
Do NOT, under any circumstances, include profanity or vulgarity within the name you use to comment, within the site name you link to, or within the email address you list. Violators will be given one warning, at the email address they entered. If it is invalid, you invalidated your warning.
Ground Rules:
Requirements:
You MUST enter a valid email address. I spot check them occasionally – if it is invalid, your comment will cease to exist.
You MUST enter a valid webpage address. If you do not have a webpage, leave it blank.
Politics:
I do not want to see politics discussed within any topic I don’t have listed within the “Politics” post category. I am not here to talk politics, and you aren’t either – or your comment will have any political commentary removed – unless I specifically say the subject is politics.
The largest percentage of major blogs are politically oriented. Yes, I link to them – because I read them – but I don’t write about it often. If you’d like a political discussion, I suggest you visit one of the blogs listed to your right under “Politics”.
I hate to be a spoilsport, but that’s not what this blog is here for. This blog is here to discuss why you think the way you think, why you believe the way you believe, and why you hold the values you hold. If you’d like a discussion about one of the things above – feel free to comment. Otherwise… don’t.
Discussion:
If you disagree, do so in a manner which encourages, and promotes discussion. Stating your opinion has no bearing on discussion. This is usually easily discerned by the words you use anyway. Tell us why you hold a certain opinion/belief, and the basis you rest those opinions/beliefs on.
Some Basic Assumptions:
Jesus is the second member of the Trinity – the Creator God of the universe, and Savior of all of mankind who choose to accept Him. Any contrary definition must be defined, please (unless you plainly state you have an alternate religious belief, and adhere to the doctrines of that belief).
The Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. Specific claims to the contrary will have to be provided before I do anything other than refer you to this statement first.
“Judge not lest ye be judged” will be your verse of last resort. It is, perhaps, the most quoted verse there is today. Unfortunately… the vast majority of the time, it is quoted out of context. If I see it before I see you cite any other verses, you will be referred to this statement. As Inigo Montoya said: “You keep using that word… I don’t think it means what you think it means.” (See here for further reference of what judgement means.)
Homosexuality is a sin like any other. Abortion is murder of children. Sex outside of marriage is a sin, like any other. Definitions to the contrary must be precise, and professing Christians must support their definition from the Bible.
More may be added later, to any of the preceding sections.
Feb 3
Announcements:
Vox Apologia IV will be hosted at firstpete315. Head over there for submission information. The subject, as you can see on your right, is “What happens to those who have never heard the Gospel?” Toughie – and a goodie.
Welcomes:
To the Aggregator:
Making the Cut:
Every Thought Captive, with a thoughtful analysis of where the Emergent Church is going right right
Alex Forrest, giving us Geisler’s take on apologetics.
Allthings2all – “The Spiritual Meaning of Grasshoppers“. Must read.
Evangelical Underground, with “Tolerance in Love“.
firstpete315, with Marital Validity among Divorce: Revisited. As a divorcee myself, this subject has a bit of impact. Go check it out.
blogma, with Dogma Dienstag: Is there only one true scripture?, and Westminster Shorter Catechism – Question 5.
Bible Archive, with Elijah: The Proclamation. He also wonders whether the “Death Star” of the blogosphere should be deployed, and how it should be deployed, when it comes to Joel Osteen.
Challies looks at The Minister in the Garden.
Update:
Wittenberg Gate asks: Are you bad Enough to be a Christian?
Discourse of the day:
Hookflash, with “Midafternoon musings“
Feb 3
Here’s a “What’s coming up” breakdown.
(postponed. I mean, seriously.. who cares?) A response to an assertion that Jesus’ General is not a satire of Christianity. (/postponed)
Part two of my response to “Argument from Evil”.
A critique of Joel Osteen’s theology (or lack thereof).
Commenting/Trackback rules.
A discussion about the Evangelical Disaster, by Francis Schaeffer.
A spotlight series targeting “real word blogapologetics”.
A reiteration of my “Challenge: Be an active Apologist”
So, that gives me plenty to do between now and this weekend. I got home at 9:30, and spent most of it replying to comments here. So… g’night.
The Apologist’s Evening Prayer
From all my lame defeats and oh! Much more From all the victories that I seem to score ;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh; From all my proofs of Thy divinity, Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.
Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head. From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee 0 Thou fair Silence fall, and set me free. Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye, Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.
-C.S. Lewis
Feb 1
Apologetics:
Vox Apologia:
firstPete315 is next week’s host. His “welcome” post is up here.
Aggregatees:
Ed “What the” Heckman goes Spongebob Cache Diving. If you’re interested in the spongebob debate, this looks to be a well-researched look at what was really on the WAFF site. I’ve heard a very similar story on American Family Radio’s, “Today’s Issues”, incidentally. Just as another tidbit, Tim Wildmon, Don’s son, was scheduled to be on the O’Rielly show mentioned in Ed’s entry. He was bumped just before the piece aired. Hrmm.
Ed contributes to the discussion between Rand and Ales, but concerning Mary. Well, Ales is discussing. Rand won’t. So, yeah.
Ales Rarus also weighs in on spongebob.
21st Century Reformation talks about the Cost of a Morally Beautiful Community
Mr. Dumpling is “a little” obsessed with insects. Really. Go see for yourself. He spends “too much time” on the internet too. Heavens to Betsy! We let him visit here??
No, seriously, he has an “about me” post up. However, I must mention: I, like Amy, am crushed by the nondisclosure in his final FAQ answer. I don’t know if I’ll ever recover from it. Thanks a lot Dave. Sheesh. (heh.)
Oh, and I actually had two im conversations, and left my computer for an extended amount of time – at night. You should all be shocked and appalled.
From all of us here at The Daily Cut… (ok, ok – just me) good day!
Jan 31
– 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.
Jan 31
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.
Jan 30
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.
Jan 30
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.