If you really look at it, it is really quite pointless.

Paul says it best.

1 Timothy 1:3-7

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

Christians arguing with each other over evolution and creationism is pointless, it does nothing but bring division in the body of Christ. The bible can be read and interpreted in various ways, valid ways mind you, as there is a difference between a valid interpretation that is grounded in scripture, historical context and evidence, and an invalid interpretation that quote mines scripture, ignoring historical context and in many cases empirical evidence. Both parties whether they adhere to theistic evolution or young earth creationism, agree that life begins with God. Between believers anything more than that is simply as Paul said, Idle talk.

The biblical case for fighting.

I wanted to make this my first post but I just couldn't resist baiting some of the common assumptions that would go along with the theme of my blog. As many of you might already know, or will soon figure out, I approach discourse like I fight. I know that fighting and Christianity are viewed as incompatible and I know that setting up a blog combining the two would garner a lot of criticism from Christian and non Christian alike, unfortunately(due to my blog be unknown at the moment) I only got one.

Chuck O'Connor said...

How can you rest on your Christian theology and also enjoy fighting? Didn't Jesus say, "turn the other cheek." Sheeesh.

Well Chuck, I can rest my Christian theology and also enjoy fighting because fighting is completely biblical based, in fact, God Himself engaged in what looks like a BJJ match against Jacob.

Genesis 32:22-32

22 And he arose that night and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven sons, and crossed over the ford of Jabbok. 23 He took them, sent them over the brook, and sent over what he had. 24 Then Jacob was left alone; and a Man wrestled with him until the breaking of day. 25 Now when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob’s hip was out of joint as He wrestled with him. 26 And He said, “Let Me go, for the day breaks.”
But he said, “I will not let You go unless You bless me!”
27 So He said to him, “What is your name?”
He said, “Jacob.”
28 And He said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel;[a] for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed.”
29 Then Jacob asked, saying, “Tell me Your name, I pray.”
And He said, “Why is it that you ask about My name?” And He blessed him there.
30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:[b] “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” 31 Just as he crossed over Penuel[c] the sun rose on him, and he limped on his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the children of Israel do not eat the muscle that shrank, which is on the hip socket, because He touched the socket of Jacob’s hip in the muscle that shrank.

Interesting, I wonder what kind of hold God put on Jacob to hurt his hip. In anycase, calling it a BJJ match might be a little far fetched, but the point is quite clear, God and Jacob fought. Another interesting Law regarding fighting.

Exodus 21:18-19 (New King James Version)

18 “If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, 19 if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.

It says that if men fight there are no legal ramifications as long as no one dies and the victor pays for the loser for the loss of time and his medical bills.

So what about the "turning the other cheek" objection that was brought up by Conner?

Matthew 5:38-42

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

There is also a parallel of this saying in Luke.

Luke 6:27-31

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

When Christ gave this parable the main premise and purpose is about loving your enemies, resisting the natural fleshly urge to hit someone back when they hit you, it is about overcoming our own personal sense of justice, the world says hit someone that hits you back, God says to turn the other cheek and leave room for His vengeance(Romans 12:19). He says 'pray for those who mistreat you,' the context seems to be in regards to enemies and those that seek to mistreat us, and how we should not respond to them the same way they respond to us, which is a far cry from sport fighting. The Apostle Paul also has words on the subject.

1 Corinthians 9:25-27 (New American Standard Bible)

25Everyone who (A)competes in the games exercises self-control in all things They then do it to receive a perishable (B)wreath, but we an imperishable.

26Therefore I (C)run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not (D)beating the air;

27but I discipline (E)my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

While other translations use the word fight, the NASB uses the word box!, that about sums it up, I look at sport fighting the same way Paul does, as a way to exercise self control in all things, as an inspiration for Christ. A clarification must be made however, watching or participating in sport fighting for the sake of seeing knockouts, blood, broken bones etc. falls under "love of violence" which God does not like.

Psalm 11:5


5 The LORD tests the righteous,
But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.

A brief instruction of what the word contradiction.

A very common criticism often hurled at the bible is it contains contradictions, but 9 times outta 10 the person making this assertion is ignorant as to what a contradiction really is.

What does the word contradiction mean?

Oxford dictionary definition of contradiction

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/contradiction?view=uk

contradiction

• noun 1 a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another. 2 the statement of a position opposite to one already made.

— PHRASES contradiction in terms a statement or group of words associating incompatible objects or ideas.

Second

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction

1: act or an instance of contradicting
2 a: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b: a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other
3 a: logical incongruity b: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

Contrary

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contrary

1: a fact or condition incompatible with another : opposite —usually used with the
2: one of a pair of opposites
3 a: a proposition so related to another that though both may be false they cannot both be true — compare subcontrary b: either of two terms (as good and evil) that cannot both be affirmed of the same subject

Contrary 2

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/contrary?view=uk

• adjective 1 opposite in nature, direction, or meaning. 2 (of two or more statements, beliefs, etc.) opposed to one another. 3 /kntrairi/ perversely inclined to do the opposite of what is expected or desired.

• noun (the contrary) the opposite.

— PHRASES to the contrary with the opposite meaning or implication.

— DERIVATIVES contrarily adverb contrariness noun.

— ORIGIN Latin contrarius, from contra ‘against’.

Lets look at the root words.

Two words, contra diction.

Contra defined

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/contra?view=uk

We have the word Contra defined.

contra-

• prefix 1 against; opposite: contraception. 2 (of musical instruments or organ stops) pitched an octave below: contrabass.

— ORIGIN Latin contra ‘against’

Diction defined
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=diction&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

diction

• noun 1 the choice and use of words in speech or writing. 2 the style of enunciation in speaking or singing.

— ORIGIN Latin, from dicere ‘to say’.

Inconsistent defined.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/inconsistent?view=uk

inconsistent

• adjective not consistent.

— DERIVATIVES inconsistency noun inconsistently adverb.

Inconsistent

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inconsistent

: lacking consistency: as a: not compatible with another fact or claim
b: containing incompatible elements
c: incoherent or illogical in thought or actions : changeable
d: not satisfiable by the same set of values for the unknowns
— in·con·sis·tent·ly adverb

an inconsistency is not a contradiction. Take a look at the following statement.

The victim was killed with a knife.
The victim was killed with a gun.

Taken at face value this looks like a contradiction. However if I added the following.

The victims body was found with knife wounds and gun wounds.
A contradiction more specifically is defined would resemble the following

In logic, the Principle of contradiction (principium contradictionis in Latin) is the second of the so-called three classic laws of thought. The oldest statement of the law is that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive. A may be B at one time, and not at another; A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time; but it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same quality. This is the statement of the law given by Aristotle. It takes no account of the truth of either proposition; if one is true, the other is not; one of the two must be true.

So I cannot be dead and alive at the same place at the same time. I can however, be alive at one moment and dead the next, or I can be alive in one place and dead in another place, the most important part of the definition are the following words "at the same place and at the same time."
Let us take a bible 'contradiction' from here and apply the real definition of the word.

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

It says in Exodus that God is a man of war, and in Romans, which was written thousands of years later that God is a man of peace, for it to be a contradiction it would God would have to be a man of war and a God of peace at the same time or in the same place.

Barkers Easter Challenge destroyed, completely and utterly destroyed.

Barkers Easter Challenge

HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

I have tried this challenge myself. I failed.

It doesn't surprise me that he has failed, not one bit, here are the answers to his questions.

What time did the women visit the tomb?

• Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
• Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
• Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
• John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

The women went to the tomb at dawn; they were actually at the tomb at sunrise.

Who were the women?

• Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
• Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
• Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
• John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and other women, basically everyone listed in Barkers question was there.

What was their purpose?

• Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
• Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
• Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
• John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

To anoint the body of Christ with spices, Barker is being dishonest here. By his logic, a widow should not throw flowers on her dead husband’s body if other people have put flowers on it before she did. Considering the fact that Jesus’ mother was there, it is entirely plausible a distraught mother would want to personally anoint her own son with spices.

Mark 16

1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

• Matthew: No (28:2)
• Mark: Yes (16:4)
• Luke: Yes (24:2)
• John: Yes (20:1)

No. Mark, Luke, and John must be read with Matthew in consideration. Matthew states the angel moved the rock, mark, luke, and john merely assume the reader has read Matthew already. See my narrative for an in depth explanation.

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

• Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
• Mark: One young man (16:5)
• Luke: Two men (24:4)
• John: Two angels (20:12)

This is Barker revealing either his ignorance of Christianity, or his intellectual dishonesty. Considering the fact he was a pastor for around X amount of years, my bet is on the ladder. In any case, it was two angels. Angels look like men and in the bible are often confused for men. As a pastor for 16 years barker should know this. See my narrative for an in depth explanation.

Where were these messengers situated?

• Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
• Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
• Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
• John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

Barker has allowed no room for real life scenarios here(assuming angels are real). Angels, just like every other living being, move around. The angel in Matthew moved from heaven to the tomb. Angels move. Where were they situated? They were situated in all of those positions.

What did the messenger(s) say?

• Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
• Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
• Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
• John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

It was a group of women. One angel was talking to one part of the group, the other angel was talking to the other. The women had trouble remembering or understanding (or both) the message so both of the angels reiterated the message. John happened at a completely different time than the other accounts, when Mary came back to the tomb. Matthew Mark and Luke describe the initial entry.

Did the women tell what happened?

• Matthew: Yes (28:8)
• Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
• Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
• John: Yes (20:18)

Yes. The women split up. Mary Magdalene went to get Peter and the other women went to go talk to the other disciples. Jesus appeared to the group of women lifting their fear.

9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me

Mary Magdalene however was not in the group, and was not ‘too scared’ to say anything to anyone.

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

• Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
• Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
• Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
• John: No (20:2)

No. As I said the women split up, Mary was not among the group that saw Jesus.

When did Mary first see Jesus?

• Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
• Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
• John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Neither of those options, Mary saw Jesus after she talked to 2 disciples, and before she talked to the rest of them. The word disciples does not mean the entire group.

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

• Matthew: Yes (28:9)
• John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

Yes. Jesus just told Mary not to touch Him. That is not evidence that Jesus could not be touched, just evidence He didn’t want Mary to touch Him. There’s a difference. John is not saying Jesus can’t be touched, John is saying that Jesus told Mary not to touch Him. Can’t be touched and telling a specific person not to touch Him are 2 different things.

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

• Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
• Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
• Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
• John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
• Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Jesus appeared the 2 men in the country. I don’t know where barker gets off saying they are disciples. No accounts call them disciples, could they be disciples? Its possible and plausible, however it is also possible and plausible they are not disciples.

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

• Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
• Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
• Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
• John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

In a room in the evening. This is Barker being intellectually dishonest again. Each of those appearances are described as ‘appearances’ none of the appearances barker listed are described as first appearances. Of course there had to be a first appearance, but each appearance listed by Barker can be a first appearance.

Did the disciples believe the two men?

• Mark: No (16:13)
• Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

No. There isn’t even a reaction described by the group. Mark said no, luke does not give a reaction.

What happened at the appearance?

• Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
• Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
• Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
• John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

These are each individual appearances.

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?

• Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
• Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
• John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
• Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Jesus was on earth for 40 days. Mark and Luke do not state it all happened on Sunday, not to mention that if Jesus was on earth for 40 days, then he was on earth for at least 8.

Where did the ascension take place?

• Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
• Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
• Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
• John: No ascension
• Paul: No ascension
• Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

Mount of Olives, which is very close the Bethany. Also barker is being dishonest again. Luke says the outskirts of Bethany, not in it.

Here is the narrative as well;

Narrative

Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome, Joanna and the other women(i) went to the tomb of Jesus to anoint His body with spices(ii) at dawn. Just after sunrise(iii), they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The women seeing the stone moved entered the tomb(iv) and did not see the body of Jesus(v). While they were wondering what was going on they saw an angel sitting on the right side and they were alarmed. Suddenly the 2 angels(vi) (vii)stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground.

One angel said "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." And the other angel said "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' Because the women had trouble remembering and understanding the message the angels reiterated the message together saying “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’” (viii)

So the women left trembling, feeling bewildered, afraid and joyful(ix), however Mary Magdalene was not among the group. The women split up with Mary going to tell Peter while the other women ran to tell the other disciples(x). Mary mother of James, Salome and Joanna fled from the tomb trembling, bewildered, not saying anything to anyone because they were afraid (xi). Mary Magdalene ran to Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

So Peter and the other disciple ran to the tom with the other disciple outrunning Peter getting to the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Peter got there and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying and the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Then the disciples went home and Mary was still outside of the tomb crying, while she was crying she bent over to look at the tomb and saw thetwo angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. The angels asked her why she was crying. Mary told them they have taken her Lord away and she did not know why put him. Then she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize it was Jesus. Jesus said "Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"
Mary thinking he was the gardener said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where he is, and I will get him."

Then Jesus said, "Mary." And Mary turned him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!"(xii) While this was happening the other women were still fleeing the tomb, and suddenly Jesus appeared and said "Greetings.” The women came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me." Now, unafraid they ran to tell the disciples(xi) (xiii)with Mary Magdalene arriving around the same time Salome, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and the other women. The disciples did not believe them because their words were like nonsense.

While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. (xiv)

After the women had told the disciples about what happened at the tomb, Jesus appeared in a different form to 2 of them while they were walking in the country going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened and as they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.

He asked them, "What are you discussing together as you walk along?"

They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, "Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?"

"What things?" he asked.

"About Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see."

He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.

When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon."(xxx) Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread but they did not believe them either(xv).

While they were still talking, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."(xvi)

While he was eating with them He gave them this command "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized withwater, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."(xvii)

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (xviii) (xxx)

After that, He appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time(xix)(xxx), then to James(xx)(xxx). Then the disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go(xxi). Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias. Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. "I'm going out to fish," Simon Peter told them, and they said, "We'll go with you." So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?"

"No," they answered.

He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.

Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards. When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.

Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."

Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead (xxii). When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"

"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."

Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"

He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?"

He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."

Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" (xxiii)

After Jesus reinstated Peter the disciples saw him and they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."(xxiv) Then Jesus led them out to the vicinity of Bethany. When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them.(xxv)

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

So when they met together(xxx), they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

While he was blessing them, he was taken into heaven and after he had spoken he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight, he was taken into heaven and sat at the right hand of God. (xxvi)

They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Then the disciples worshiped Him and returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbaths day’s walk from the city with great joy, and they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.(xxvii) Then the disciples preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed His words by the signs that accompanied it. (xxviii) Then Jesus appeared to Paul. (xxix)

Everything is explained in detail here

You don't need to retire, just change your style.

It should come as no surprise that Chuck Liddell announced his retirement but I disagree that he is completely done, as it has always been my opinion that if one is still a legitimate skillful fight they should change their style before opting for retirement. I said the same thing of Roy Jones, both he and Chuck are still legitimate contenders in their respective sports, the problem is we all age and your fighting style must accommodate how your body changes. Roy Jones relied on his inhuman reflexes and hand speed but as he got older his reflexes and hand speed slowed and as a result he should adjust his style. One only needs to point to Bernard Hopkins, who at 43 successfully and convincingly beat Kelly Pavik who was currently undefeated and almost half Hopkins age! the reason for this is because hopkins has a style that accomodates his age and body while harnessing a weapon more deadly than the hardest punch, experience. Both Chuck and Roy have extensive experience in the ring and in the cage, should they decide to adjust the way they fight according to their age they both could regain and in most cases retain their top positions.

Now don't get me wrong, as I am all about a fighter choosing to retire if he feels like his health is in jepordy, but in Chucks case it seems like Dana white is the one making the decision.

Even though Liddell did not say it in the post fight interview, he is retired. According to Dana White, Liddell is going to retire. At the post fight news conference Liddell made an appearance and told the media "I'm not going to make any decisions until I go home to talk to everybody, talk to my people and my friends. ... But it's probably safe to say (I'm retired)."

While I don't doubt Danas sincerity, unless it is readily obvious that the fighters health is a serious risk if he choose to continue, it should be up to the fighter if he is going to retire or not.

Sometimes you might miss the white flag of surrender being waved

If you don't know what to look for

I regret to inform regular readers of this Blog of something I've just decided. I am not going to allow any more comments except from other team members here at DC.

This is not an anti John Loftus blog the goal of this blog is not to obsess over every post made at debunking Christianity, but I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to comment on this. As a fighter one of the things you develop either by training or experience is recognizing when your opponent has quit. Sometimes it isn't as obvious as him telling the referee "I quit" (or as Robert Duran put it "No Mas") or the trainer throwing in the towel, sometimes it isn't as noticeable, most fighters are too proud to openly quit, they have too much ego, too much testosterone, sometimes you have to know what to look for.

A tell tale sign of someone quitting is the defeated look in their eyes, they're afraid, unsure of themselves, they react to every feint you throw, they'll start throwing homerun punches or haymakers, trying to knock you out in a fit of desperation. The more suttle signs are when they start breathing out of their mouth, waiting out rounds, running away, or walking back to their corner in a depressed and defeated manner.

Well I noticed similar signs of surrender from John Loftus today, as he promptly declared Christianity debunked because of how China was portrayed on the Amazing race, then he stopped all comments from everyone but his staff members. His first sign is the equivilent of a haymaker, trying to knock Christianity out with one last desperate punch while his second one is a more subtle surrender, what I call a 'dishonest retirment.' A dishonest retirment is when an egotistic, self centered, self apointed big name had got beaten up by a no namer (in other words he got humbled) and declares in one way shape or form that, they're moving on to bigger and better things and they lost because they were bored or didn't train and the no namer got a lucky shot in or his game was off and other tired excuses.

The dishonest retiree no longer wants to fight the opposition, instead he spends the rest of his days in a gym surrounded by 'yes' men and other people telling him he's great, he wants his ego stroked, he refuses to go back into the outside world because and that is what we see Loftus doing, surrounding himself with yes men, shutting out the criticism or only allowing the criticism he can handle, just like the dishonest retiree only fights opponenets he knows he can beat, it is no longer about learning, it is about ego stroking, of course the dishonest retiree will deny that he is one, he will talk abotu how he wants to fight the top fighters, he will list off the people that support him, he will try to make the mediocre opponenets he beat sound like a big deal, but in the end actions speak lounder than words and in this case inaction speaks louder than denial.

Let me not forget, for I know what you Loftus yes men are thinking "WELL YOU HAVEN'T REFUTED HIS ARGUMENT THAT CHRISTIANITY IS DEBUNKED!!!"


This is just for you!

1.People that have never heard of Christianity live moral lives.

2. Christianity says it can ONLY provide an objective moral basis

3.Therefore Christianity is debunked.

This of course is a logical and factual error since the bible never says ONLY Christainity can provide an objective moral basis

2 Corinthians 10:2

" 2 I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. "

as you can see the 'world standard' that Paul is talking about is a standard that is outside of Christianity. The other argument went something like this.

1. People that live in china live moral lives even though they've never heard of Christianity

2. therefore God is not smart.

Man I didn't know Gods intelligence was dependent upon China? non sequitur anyone?

It is also nice to see Loftus judging china to be a good moral society(which of course is based on his own subjective morals) based upon the 'amazing race' show, it is the equivalent of judging oakland as a good moral society based upon the a tourist documentary of oakland, let us not forget about the oh so moral human rights in China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

I think Anderson Silva might actually be the Roy Jones Jr of UFC

In this case it might not be a good thing.

The most action we saw in the first 14 minutes of the Anderson Silva-Thales Leites main event at UFC 97 was when the two middleweights touched gloves before the start of each round.

With one minute left in the third, we saw Silva come with a flying knee. The rest of the time we saw very little, unless you count Leites dropping the mat every 14 seconds to try and pull guard "action."

Seriously, we've seen better fights in the parking lot at the Meadowlands between Jets fans after the Jets won a game.

So boring was this fight, at the two-minute mark of the third round, the Bell Centre crowd started a "GSP" chant. Georges St-PIerre, Montreal's favorite son and a guest in the crowd. Not even on the fight card.

If any of you remember back in 1998-2000 when Roy Jones jrs speed, reflexes and athleticism put him in a different category than his opponents, each fight, from Lou Del Valle in 1998 to David Telesco in 2000 was Roy facing mediocre, decent, 'nothing really special' types of fighters, one would assume that such a lopsided fight would produce an exciting, skillful, entertaining boxing match, but like most of you know, these fights were for the lack of a better word, boring, throughout the fights he would show glimpses of his superior skills and athelticism, short bursts, a flurry here a flurry there, but that was it, after these short revelations of his almost inhuman hand speed Roy would slink off into a defensive, inactive, "I am bored" mode, earning him titles such as "reluctant Roy."

Enter Anderson Silva, current UFC middle weight champ, who also possess the same skill and athleticism as Roy, and also similar to Roy, Silvas' last 2 fights have been snooze fests, like Roy he posses the same qualities to make his lopsided fights entertaining, skillful and exciting and just like Roy, Silva slinks off into a defensive, inactive, "I am bored mode." Now Silva has yet to earn a title I am aware of, but from the way things look I won't be surprised to see a couple of titles floating around like "Apathetic Anderson," or "Spiritless Silva," or "play it safe silva."

Like Roy, Silva should be taking advantage of these lopsided matches to put on a show, do something memorable, like an off the cage sisscor kick or something, but I think like Roy, Silva is reluctant to engage for fear of the underdog getting a lucky shot or a lukcy K.O. and being a fighter myself I can kind've sympothize with that, and the blame can't fall soley on Silva or Roy, as the promotors should be doing a good job in reconginzing how their fighters respond. If their fighters don't want to fight mediocre opponents for fear of getting knocked out by a lucky punch, the promoters should find more skilled opponenents, but therein lies the problem, Silva, like Roy, beat the most skilled opponenets in his weight division, so there's really nothing left, but this circles back to the fighter again, either take advantage of the mediocre opponenents or play it safe, in Silvas case it looks like the UFC is doing a better job at keeping their fighters competing at the top level as there are talks of Anderson Silva fighting George St. Pierre.

Dana White recently said in an interview that if Georges St.-Pierre is able to defeat B.J. Penn at UFC 94, he will then set up a fight between the number one welterweight St. Pierre and number one middleweight Anderson Silva.^[34] St.-Pierre did defeat B.J. Penn, so it remains to be seen whether St.-Pierre will be matched up against Silva after their respective fights with Thales Leites and Thiago Alves.

Let us hope that Silva learns from Roy and doesn't play around with his weight too much, since Roys career started to decline after started jumping weight classes.

On a some what similar note Anderson and Roy both expressed fighting each other.

Following his win over Dan Henderson, in an interview with MMA Weekly, Anderson Silva's manager stated: "Anderson would love to fight Roy Jones Jr. in a boxing match up under boxing rules to prove that MMA fighters are technical, too."^[35] UFC president, Dana White, later expressed that he would use his veto power to stop such a match from taking place.^[36] Anderson, however, has commented: "After my contract with the UFC is finished, I will set up the fight with Jones Jr. The fight has already been permitted by Jones himself." In April 2009, Jones himself confirmed he is still interested in fighting Silva: "I'm going to try and make it happen. He's saying he wants to fight me, so, OK, I'm ready. Let's brawl." Silva, when he was fighting in PRIDE, had promoted himself as "the Roy Jones Jr. of MMA." He even said he has a good chance at knocking out Jones because of Jones' age.

How very interesting that these 2 have so much in common and are talking about fighting each other, how intriguing is it that these 2 atheletes whom both dominate their respective sports are looking to challenge each other, one can almost call it poetic, or destiny.

One would think that someone who had studied Christianity and has the equivalent of a P.H.D would have better arguments than this!

Enter John Loftus, a pastor turned atheist who has the equivalent of a P.H.D in the philosophy of religion. He mentored under Christian apologist William Lane Craig and James D Strauss, but when it comes to actually presenting a valid rational argument this means little to nothing. Now don't get me wrong as these accomplishments are great and I do not seek to diminish them in anyway, but they have nothing to do with the merits of his claims, nothing, not one thing. Now I am not here to discuss his academic accomplishments, I am here to point out his glaring errors and support my claim that his book and the arguments at his blog 'debunking Christianity' are for uneducated ignorant Christians. Any Christian with a basic grasp of logic, history, theology , common sense and life experience should be able to see through these bad arguments, but enough of the pre fight hype, as I like to approach discourse the way I approach fighting, getting right to the action, and like all fights the combat takes place over multiple rounds, just like the exposure of his errors will take multiple blog posts.

Round 1

On page 85 he states "David Ramsay Steele reminds us that according to quantum mechanics "Things begin to exist without any cause all the time." So if some things can begin to exist without a cause, the universe could be one of them, which does not require a creator at all"

This might seem plausible to one that is ignorant in quantum mechanics, however there is no such thing as NOTHING in quantum mechanics. "Nothing" in reference to quantum mechanics has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum, so there is SOMETHING there, but it is referred to as 'nothing' because there is no matter, but there are physical fields, so there IS something there, not to mention an entire universe of existence around it. Furthermore, the things he is talking about that exist without a cause are quantum fluctuations, but to say they exist without a cause is outstandingly incorrect, since they pop in and out of existence due to the uncertainty principle, not to mention that these things happen when there is ALREADY something in existence, principles, fields, physics, etc.

On page 85 he also criticizes william craig on his premise (Kalam cosmological argument) that the universe began to exist. Loftus states "Craigs second premise is that the universe began to exist. It too has difficulties when it comes to scientific discussions abotu time, relativity, cosmic singularities and quantum mechanics." Then on page 266 he states "There is overwhelming evidence our universe originated from a big bang."


He quotes Wes Morriston on page 84 in response to william craigs assertion that 'tigers don't spring into existence uncaused' (they were talking about the kalam argument, premise 1. Everything that beings to exist has a cause of its existence) "We have no experience of the origin of worlds to tell us that worlds don't come into existence like that. We don't even have experience of the coming into being of anything remotely analogous to the 'initial singularity' that figures into the big bang theory of the origin of the universe. That is why the absurdity of tigers and the like popping into existence out of nowhere tells us nothing about the utterly unique case of the beginning of the whole natural order."

But on page 85, as I noted above me, Loftus tries to use quantum mechanics as an analogy that the universe could exist without a cause.

On page 85 he cites Richard Carrier as saying "though there are a few philosophers and scientists on his side, Craigs theory of time still goes against the current scientific consensus, and is far from being established," Richard Carrier is a historian and citing him in regards to realitivity, quantom mechanics and singularities qualifies as an fallacious appeal to authority.

On page 90 he brings up the multiverse which is a nonscientific concept, if we accept Dawkins’s naked assertion that a universal designer is more complex than the one known universe, a designer is probably less complex than any two universes and infinitely less complex than an infinity of them. Dawkins does not inform us of the degree to which God’s complexity exceeds the complexity of the universe, but if we concede, for the sake of argument, that a universal designer must be 1,000 times more complex than the universe in order to create it, and therefore 1,000 times more improbable, a universal designer is still more mathematically likely than the squared improbability of there being two universes of similar complexity. For example, if the probability of one universe is one in one million, then the probability of the universal designer would be one in one billion, but the probability of there being two universes of similarly complex natures would be a much more improbable one in one trillion.
-vox day the irrational atheist

Not only that but appealing to the multiverse is hypocritical since it goes against Loftus own control methods

1. The scientific method is the most reliable (and probably the only) guide we have for determining the truth about the world."

Since the multiverse cannot be observed, verified, and is untestable and as unfalsifiable the God hypothesis, and was created specifically to get around the telological argument, one wonders why Loftus would be appealing to it.


In his summary of the book Loftus states "a distant God is hardly distinguishable from no God at all" it is interesting however that a God that interacts with the universe but is hidden, is hardly distinguishable from no God at all."

After all a God hidden from us is completely biblical based (Isaiah 45:15) even Blaise Pascal said “what can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence of God nor his manifest presence, but rather the presence of a hidden God.” As Loftus so erroneously states that moving from the deist God arguments to full blown Christianity is like trying to fly a plane to the moon, but since the Christian God is a hidden God which is hardly distinguishable from no God or a distant God (as Loftus puts it) it seems that the deist god arguments that Loftus so happily concedes also favor a hidden God. So Loftus should correct his statement: a distant God is hardly distinguishable from no God at all which in turn is hardly distinguishable from a God that interacts with the universe but is hidden. Just as a good portion of the covert operations that go on against terrorists and drug lords are hidden from the American public, which to the American public, is no different than no covert operations being done at all.

It is interesting to note that I think arguing Gods existence is silly and pointless, since theists will use X as evidence God exists and atheists use that same evidence as God doesn't exist, the universe for example, theists point to the unvierse as evidence that God exists and atheists point to the universe as evidence that God doesn't exist, however this is no excuse for Loftus's errors regarding these arguments.

stay tuned for round 2.

Update: Fixed some grammatical errors, thanks Keith, however the errors in Loftus book are still there, my grammatical errors does not make them go away.

While personal experience is insufficient in convincing people, it is not completely insufficient.

From the evaluating Christianity website:

http://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/the-summary-case-for-atheism/arg1long/

A. Subjective Experiences Are Hearsay

As a threshold matter, when one person claims to have had a direct, revelatory experience of God, that claim is direct evidence only for that person. From my perspective, it is hearsay. I can’t evaluate your experience; all I can do is evaluate the fact that you’ve claimed to have such an experience.

Now, I have no doubt that religious believers who claim to have experienced God in some subjective or visionary way are, on the whole, generally sincere about those claims. But those claims are, of course, not restricted to Christians. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus – people of every religion claim such subjective experiences, and they can’t all be true.

The key part here of course is 'direct evidence only for that person,' logically of course, it is quite poor in regards of convincing others, however this does not discount the personal experience as genuine or true, it could in fact be true, it is also interesting that he uses the word 'hearsay' since hearsay is admissible in court under certain standards.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/evidence-witnesses/hearsay-evidence.html

B. Subjective Experiences Can’t All Be True
Because all sorts of believers have the same sorts of experiences — and they can’t all be true — we resort to methodological naturalism (see part 4) to evaluate these sorts of claims.

Critically, even Christians themselves use these techniques to evaluate claims of personal subjective experience when raised by non-Christians. One particularly compelling counterexample comes from Mormons, who believe that seekers should pray about the Book of Mormon to see if they receive a “burning in the bosom” – a subjective verification – that it is true. Here’s how an evangelical Christian apologist evaluates that argument:

What we must understand is that Latter-day Saints (LDS) believe these things for the same reason that people everywhere believe the things they do: they want to believe them. … This should come as no surprise to evangelicals who have read the Apostle Paul’s revelation of the roots of human idolatry in the first chapter of Romans. Fallen humans have affections and inclinations that they then prop up with beliefs, convincing themselves that their systems are true.

Another evangelical is a bit more direct:

Remember also that Paul never asked any potential converts to pray about his message. What he taught was found in the Scriptures and they could verify it and join the group of wise people, if they would repent and submissively place their faith in Jesus Christ to follow him. See Acts 17:11,12 cf. Acts 20:21; etc. … Yes, the devil can duplicate peace. That is what he does in transcendental meditation (TM) and also in Catholicism after one receives the Eucharist. The devil uses these and other experiences to deceive.

This is misleading and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity, since it specifically states that other religions have their own set of signs and personal experiences. In Genesis 7:11-13 it shows the Egyptians turning the sticks into a snake, just as Moses and Aron had.

¹¹ But Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers; so the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. ¹² For every man threw down his rod, and they became serpents. But Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods. ¹³ And Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

The point here of course is that personal experience found in different religious groups can be true.

In the most extreme cases, we think people who hear divine voices are suffering from paranoid delusions. Consider the sad case of Andrea Yates, who (apparently) sincerely believed that she heard the voice of God commanding her to drown her five children. On face, her case isn’t any different from what Abraham claimed to have heard directly from God in Genesis 22:1-10. Why, then, does virtually every Christian have no difficulty concluding that Ms. Yates was insane?

Actually I don't concede Yates was insane(there goes your 'virtually every Christian assertion) since I am not qualified to make that decision, of course I concede that Yates did not hear the voice of God in any way similar to Abraham since God stopped Abraham from killing his son, something the author seems to have omitted.

¹¹ But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”
So he said, “Here I am.”
¹² And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

I mean really? honestly? it was just 2 lines down(this is called quote mining). God stopped Abraham from killing his son so if the authors assertion that "On face her assertion isn't any different than Abraham," had any truth to it, God would've told her to stop.

I submit that whatever our “worldview” — in day to day life, we are called upon to evaluate claims like this from a variety of religious, spiritual, and other sources. Uniformly, we reject these sorts of experiences, standing alone, as being sufficient justification for the truths of the beliefs asserted in those experiences.

For all of these reasons, I conclude that this first set of arguments is insufficient to warrant belief in God

The conclusion should be changed to 'this first set of arguments is insufficient to warrant a convincing argument to believe God exists.' It is important to note the purposes of a personal experience, if someone asks why I believe Christianity is true I sometimes respond with "My prayers are usually answered, I have felt Gods presence etc," the atheist replies "well those are personal experiences, how do I know they actually happened," to which I reply, "You don't know they happened, but you asked why I believe Christianity is true and I gave you an answer," it is interesting how some atheists I have encountered don't know the difference between simply stating information and an argument to convince them the information is valid from their worldview, there is nothing wrong with stating you have personally experienced God, both atheists and theists need to realize that personal experiences aren't convincing arguments.

Kicking off the blog

My name is theological discourse as I do enjoy talking about theology along with fighting, hip hop music, current events, video games and many other things, all which will be extensively covered in this blog, I prefer my credentials to be unknown since I do not enjoy appeals to authority (or any logical fallacies for that matter). An argument, or anything for that matter, should stand or fall on its own merits, not on the credentials of the person giving the argument, nor his origins.