One would think that someone who had studied Christianity and has the equivalent of a P.H.D would have better arguments than this! Round 2.

Round 2 is a little long but bear with me, Loftus made a lot of errors in this chapter.
Hypocrisy

On pg 35. Loftus states "I'm going to begin with what many Christians assume about their faith. They assume a certain kind of rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief and though, especially atheism." After reading this one must ask him self, how many is many? Loftus states that many Christians assume we have a rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief, but how many Christians do this? how many is many? 2? 5? 5,000? is there a poll? where is Loftus getting his information from?
He says it again on pg 37. "Many Christians maintain they have a superior foundation for knowing and for choosing to do what is good." but how many is many? what is even more interesting is on pg. 190-191. On page 190 there is an objection written stating "Jesus said that some people wouldn't believe even if God raised a man from the dead." to which Loftus replies

"The word some here needs to be unpacked when it is said, "some people today would not believe." How many does the word some mean? Who knows?"

but wait? didn't Loftus just use the same logic on page 37? so how can he criticize the objection for using the word 'some' when he uses the word 'most' in the same logic. Loftus criticizes the objection on pg. 191 for doing the same thing he does on pg. 35 and 37, this of course is hypocrisy.

Bait and switch, deceptively playing with facts:

On pg 37. Loftus states the following:

Many Christians maintain they have a superior foundation for knowing and for choosing to do what is good. They claim to have objective ethical standards for being good, based in a morally good creator God, along with the best motivation for being good, which is an eternal reward in the presence of a loving God. These Christians also claim that the atheist has no ultimate justification for being moral, much less a motivation for acting on those morals, especially when they conflict with her own personal self-interest. They claim that atheists do not have a good reason to condemn murder, brutality, and torture, nor do they have an ultimate reason to refrain from murdering, raping, and torturing other people themselves.
Dr. William Lane Craig quotes with approval Fyodor Dostoyevsky's characater Ivan Karamazov, who said, "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible." Craig summed up the moral case against atheism using these words:

then Loftus quotes Craig. Now after the quote is the deceptive part, he states, further down on pg. 37 and onto page 38.

Before we move on to the philosophical arguments for this claim, let's pause and ask first why there is no evidence for what Craig claims. If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic. There should be great mayhem in this word, the likes of which should send the rest of us into the asylum. In other words, why don't non Christians act consistently? No one says to herself, "This is the reasonable or logical thing to do but I refuse to do it," unless she is mentally challenged. Do theists like Craig want to claim that nearly all non-Christians are mentally challenged...that the overwhelming majority of us don't live consistent lives with what we believe?

Notice some things. If you look at how Loftus started his argument you will see a pattern.

1. They assume a certain kind of rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief and though, especially atheism."
2. They claim that atheists
3. These Christians also claim that the atheist has no ultimate justification for being moral,
4. Craig summed up the moral case against atheism

as you can see, Loftus starts out by talking about strictly atheism. Now notice a pattern after he quotes Craig.

1. If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic.
2. In other words, why don't non Christians act consistently?
3. Do theists like Craig want to claim that nearly all non-Christians


A close look at the paragraph reveals Loftus deception. He starts out talking about atheism, then ends his argument talking about non-Christians! but as facts and empirical evidence tells us, non-Christains are not exclusively atheists. Muslims are non Christians, as are Buddhists, Hindus etc. etc. Loftus uses a bait and switch. he starts off talking about atheism, then substitutes atheism for non-Christian, but why did he do that? perhaps when he said non-Christian he meant atheist. This of course is also incorrect, the reason Loftus needed to switch from atheism to non-Christians is because if he hadn't even to the uneducated his entire argument would've fallen apart, only with deception can he even attempt such a ridiculous argument.

If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic. There should be great mayhem in this world, the likes of which should send the rest of us into the asylum.

As you can see, if it were just strictly atheists Loftus's billions number would be laughed at.(more evidence here)

Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist/antitheistic/antireligious: 1.1 billion

That number includes deism as well, and desists are not atheists. Even if you would lump deists in with atheists the number barely reaches over 1 billion, it is certainly not enough to support Loftus ridiculous assertions of 'billions' of people acting according to Craigs logic causing great mayhem in this world.

General arguments

Loftus tries to use the Euthyphro dilemma to refute the divine command theory to which he states:

God could've commanded us to do something horribly evil by simply declaring it good. If God is the creator of morality like he's purportedly the creator of the universe, then he could've declared any act good, and there would be no reason above God to distinguish Him from the devil. He then brings up God calling to slaughter the Caananites as an example of this. This of course is the premiere tactic of the atheist, bring up a seemingly horrible act found in the OT and hopefully the Christian won't be educated enough to refute it, I'll keep it short and if anyone wants to further press the issue I would be more than happy to do so. God ordering the destruction of the Canaanites was a good and moral act because of the following reasons.

1. The annihilations are judgments.
2 These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
3 These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
4 Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
5 Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
6 Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
7 These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.

Like I said, if anyone wants to challenge me on the issue I will be more than happy to go further in depth about it, but this is about pointing out Loftus's infantile arguments and exposing them as such. On pg. 39 Loftus states:

"The divine command theory is in such disrepute in today's philosophical circles that only modified divine command theories are being discussed. Christian apologist J.P. Moreland actually claims, "I'm not a divine command theorist...[T]his view implies that morality is merely grounded in God's will as opposed to his nature. That's not my view. I think God's will is ultimately expressed in keeping with his nature. Morality is ultimately grounded in the nature of God, not independently of God."

Loftus criticizes this view with the following:

"But this difference Adams speaks about makes no difference. It does no good to step back behind the commands of God to his purported nature, for we still want to know whether or not God's nature is good. God's nature cannot be known to be good without a standard of goodness showing that it is. Unless there is a moral standard that shows God is good beyond the mere fact that God declares that his nature is good, we still don't know whether God is good. Again, God is, well, just God.

This of course is incorrect, it does a lot of good to step back to Gods nature. We can know Gods nature is good by looking at his actions and applying His own views of what is right and wrong. If Gods nature is good, and God gave us morals through the bible, then He should act consistently with His own views of what is right and wrong, then we can know whether or not Gods nature is good. Loftus is correct stating that there is a moral standard that shows God is good beyond the mere fact that God declares that his nature is good, and that moral standard is of course the morals found within Gods word.

He quotes Louis P. Pojman:

"the modified divine command theory becomes equivalent to: God commands the good because it is good, and the good is not good simply because God commands it." Therefore "we can discover our ethical duties through reason, independent of Gods command. For what is good for his creatures is so objectively. We do not need God to tell us that it is bed to cause unnecessary suffering; reason can do that."

This of course is just Loftus relying on his academic appeals to authority. I quote him saying:

How would you know whether my arguments are infantile? In order to say that you would have to have some kind of credentials to say so, especially when professors are using my book in their college classes. Do you really think these professors would bring into their classes something infantile and ridiculous? I think not.

I cannot criticize his arguments (or anyone elses for that matter) unless I have credentials. This is nothing but fallacious reasoning and also a silly assumption since I have never even said what type of credentials I have or do not have. That is the reason why my credentials(or lack of them) will always remain hidden, it forces people to actually deal with the arguments, not on the credentials of whose making them.

In any case Pojman is wrong, God commands what is good because it is His nature to command what is good, not because it is good already. Keep in mind I am not arguing that we cannot find out what is good based upon reason, what I am arguing is that using reason to find out what is good and is not good is not as effective as listening to God in the first place. Pojman makes a very common error, he says "We do not need God to tell us that it is bad to cause unnecessary suffering; reason can do that." Sure, reason can most definitely tell you it is bad to cause unnecessary suffering but unnecessary suffering is an easy one, what about sexual promiscuity? God says sexual promiscuity is wrong, the atheist says it isn't(if there is an atheist that says sexual promiscuity is wrong I will gladly concede this). According to Pojman and Loftus we don't need God to tell us if it is right or wrong, reason alone should suffice. Well the evidence shows that homosexuals are the most sexually active and also enjoy the shortest life span. This is just one example that shows reason alone does not suffice.

On pg. 43 Loftus states

"let's first consider the motivation that a Christian has for acting good and not bad. Christains claim that if we disbelieve and disobey God, we'll "fry in hell," as Nielsen describes it. Yet obeying for this reason "Is pure prudence masquerading as morality....[T]hat is hardly a good moral reason for doing anything."

This is of course a complete and utter misunderstanding of Christianity, Christians are not to obey God because of fear of hell fire, we're to obey God because He simply knows what is best. He created the universe it's laws, He is more smart and wise than any human being, that is why we should obey God, fear of hell fire of course is one of the reasons, but it is not the only reason.

on pg. 42 J.P. Moreland asks the question "what is the point of an atheist doing good and moral deeds? why should I do these things if they are not satisfying me or if they are not in my interests?" Loftus responds with the following:

"It doesn't follow from the lack of an "Ultimate motivation" to be a good person that the atheist doesn't have a sufficient motivational grounding for a being a good person. There are plenty of motives here on earth to be a good person, and it starts with an overall life plan.

This does nothing but beg the question. What is the point of a life plan for the atheist? why have one? why have a life plan other than self satisfaction and selfish pleasure? He quotes Pojmam, "To have the benefits of the moral life-friendship, mutual love, inner peace, moral pride or satisfaction, and the freedom from moral guilt-one has to have a certain kind of reliable character. All in all the benefits are eminently worth having. Indeed life without them may not be worth living." This sounds nice, but it doesn't answer the question, it simply asks a new one! what is the point? what is the point of inner peace, mutual love, moral pride or satisfaction? that question was never answered. Lofus just declares life without them may not be worth living, that of course is Pojmans personal opinion, it does not answer what the point is.

on pg 41 Lotus states:

"Even if Christians did have objective moral standards, they cannot be objectively certain that they know them or that they know how to apply to specific real life cases. Just look at Christianity's past and you'll see what I mean. Believers will still disagree with each other on a multifaceted number of ethical issues, whether they start with the bible as God's revelation or the morality gleaned from a natural law theory. Then he quotes Sam Harris, "We decide what is good in the Good Book"

This is also wrong, you cannot look at people to determine that, for all Loftus knows the objective moral standard exists but the Christians simply are not following it. Are you seriously going to say that because judges and lawyers argue over laws that they aren't certain that they know them or that they know how to apply to specific real life cases? so why on earth are you going to say that because Christians argue over certain things that can't be objectively certain that they know the moral standards.

Finally he quotes Kai Nelson:

"The religious moralist...doesn't have any better or any worse objectivity. Because, suppose he says, 'We should love God...Why obey His commandments? He basically would have to say, 'Because God is perfect good, and God with his perfect goodness reveals to us the great value of self respect for people. He shows that people are of infinite precious worth.' But even if you accept this, you could go on to ask 'Why should you care? What difference does it make anyway whether people are of infinite precious worth?' Faced with such questioning, you will finally be pushed into a corner, where you say 'It is important to me that people be regarded as being of infinite worth because I just happen to care about people."

This of course is Loftus trying to pressure the theist into relying on his considered convictions. The question why should I care? can easily be answered, 'Because I am loyal to God and trust that He knows what is best for me, after all trusting in a being that is practically infinitely smarter than the smartest human being is more logical that trusting in something else.'
The real point of course is Loftus question found on pg 37. Why don't atheists(now that his deception has been exposed I am using the proper term) act consistently with Craigs logic? The answer can be found in a quote from W. Somerset Maugham’s, which states

“do what thou wilt, with due regard for the policeman around the corner.” The fundamental irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions, and it is here that his general lack of intellectual conviction is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have rational reasons for attempting to live by their various moral systems, the atheist does not. Both ethics and morals based on religion are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist, he is therefore required to reject them on rational materialist grounds. He can, of course, make a perfectly rational decision to abide by ethics and morals to which he does not personally subscribe because it would be dangerous to do otherwise in a society where he is outnumbered. This is W. Somerset Maugham’s semi-rational atheism, which states “do what thou wilt, with due regard for the policeman around the corner.”
So the atheist seeks to live by the dominant morality whenever it is convenient for him, and there are even those who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them. But even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.
One need only ask an atheist what his morality is, and inquire as to how he developed it and why it should happen to so closely coincide with the dominant societal morality to discover that there is nothing rational about most atheists’ beliefs.

-Vox day the irrational atheist.
There are more errors, suffice to say there were too many to list. These are the main errors, I might post the other ones at a later date, but in any case stay tuned for rd 3.

Hatton didn't surprise me.

I really don't know how anyone expected Hatton to win. He was Knocked out by a Mayweather left hook to his un protected jaw as he was diving in. Hatton simply cannot deal with any sort of speed, his style just doesn't allow for it, there isn't much to say about the Pacquiao Hatton fight that wasn't already blatantly obvious. Hatton cannot deal with speed and while the fight itself was predictable the after math is a bit more puzzling. Where does Pacquiao go from here? I would love him to fight Floyd and this would be a good fight for Floyd as well since he is missing one of those career defining fights that all of the greats had. I think Pacquiao has the potential to make it a really challenging drawn out war for Mayweather, but it seems we must wait a couple fights. Mayweather is apparently wanting to fight Marquez.

"I am not wasting any time with a tune-up fight," said Mayweather. "I'm going straight to the top. Marquez called me out immediately after his victory over Juan Diaz in February and now he gets his wish. What he is going to find out is that you should be very careful what you wish for."

Mayweather continued, "the rest of those fighters who called me out can get in line too because they are going to get their chance...one at a time and slowly but surely. It's going to be a great return and a wonderful 'experience.' Don't blink - I'M BACK!"

I don't blame Mayweather for going straight to the top, but I will start accusing him of ducking the better competition if he does not fight some of them after the Marquez fight.

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.