Aaron strugges with basic Christian theology.

Aaron states the following:

No no no. God is morally obligated to do the good. Creating a world with evil is not "the good". Even a 2 year old can see that, right?

Aaron is insistent upon constantly repeating the assertion that God created a world with evil. This is simply incorrect. The following scripture shows what God saw after He created everything:

Genesis 1:31
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Well gee, would you look at that? God saw ALL that he had made and it was VERY GOOD. So, let's break this down so Aaron and people like him who show startling ignorance in logic and basic Christian theology found in the first chapter of the bible. The creation of the world is described in Genesis 1. Not only did God call ALL that He created good after He created it(Gen 1:31), but even during the creation process itself, He called it good. So, it can easily be summed up as the following.

God saw All that He created was very good.
God created the earth.
Therefore the earth was very good when God created it.

So it looks like I've proved Aarons statement to be demonstratively false, along with all of his other statements found in his video. How will Aaron respond? no doubt how hes been responding, with baseless assertions and inaccurate accusations trying to hide his inability to refute the any of the points I've brought up.

A whole lot of nothing.

This is definitely the case in Aarons situation. He makes 2 rather ignorant claims on his blog and on this blog.

Theological Discourse is a fellow blogger who I initially encountered after making a youtube video on the logical problem of evil, he posted two (comical) videos in response to mine, both of which demonstrated that he clearly wasn't attempting to comprehend the argument. He further posted a blog in August on the problem of evil, in some sort of alleged rebuttal to infidals.org. You can find that post here.

I already responded to these stupid baseless assertion on YT. He just asserts with no evidence whatsoever that I was not attempting to comprehend the argument. These are nothing but baseless assertions.

As you will see Theo's response leaves to little to respond to, mainly because he doesn't actually say much of anything about the problem of evil, save a few meaningless assertions and some bible verses that do not really address the problem of evil.

Now he once again asserts with no evidence that I didn't say anything about the POE, which is clearly incorrect. He then declares that the assertions I made are 'meaningless' and states that some bible verses do not really address the problem, really? why might that be? because Aaron says so? comical ignorance right here, more baseless assertions from a frustrated atheist who can't refute a word I said. Not only that, but those assertions are simply incorrect since the bible verses directly refute his stupid claim that God did not create everything 100% good which can be found from 2:14-5:00 in this video here. Every single stupid assertion he made was refuted.

The main problem lies in that Theo doesn't realize that the problem of evil is not asking if an all powerful, all knowing, all loving and wholly moral being can tolerate evil; it's asking why such a being would create a world with evil if it has the powers (all-omnis) and the moral obligation (wholly good) to do otherwise.

This is Aaron taking my rebuttal to a SPECIFIC ARTICLE and applying it to ALL POE ARGUMENTS. This is also Aaron completely inable to refute a single thing I've said on the video. All he does is give baseless assertions without a shred of evidence to support them.

Theo do your homework a little better next time please.

No, YOU need to do your homework in logic and stop assuming stupid things. My response to a specific argument should not be applied to anything other than that specific article.

Now onto another ignorant statement he made.

If go to that video you will see that 3 other people posted responses and all of them got a response, I actually posted my 5th response video on that subject last night. Maybe if you watch those you will have some of your questions answered.

In other words, he responded to everyone except me. I wonder why that might be? He does not want to respond to my arguments despite me giving a rebuttal to EVERY SINGLE POINT HE MADE.

Your video didn't say anything, sorry but you didn't bother to actually say a single thing about my argument.

This is hilarious. Notice that my video responds to EVERY SINGLE POINT HE MAKES and he simply dismisses those responses with baseless assertions that they are 'meaningless' and 'don't say anything about the POE,' yet provides NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support those stupid assertions. Honestly, who do you think you are fooling? Don't come at me with these ridiculous baseless assertions in a disingenuous attempts to hide your inability to refute a single argument or point I've made with actual logic and evidence. It's that simple. Get your weight up, you're still in the amateurs. It is entirely ironic and hypocritical that Aaron would state my blog has lacks content, when his responses to me have no content WHATSOEVER. Nothing but baseless assertions and thinking my rebuttal to a SPECIFIC argument is a rebuttal to every single POE argument. Not only that be he COMPLETELY IGNORES the greater portion of my post, concentrating on only one part. The irony and hypocrisy of Aarons 'content lacking' statement is hilarious.

Mayweather wins.

From now on I will be doing predictions for every big upcoming ufc and boxing fight. I figure I'll start off with an easy one regarding the upcoming boxing fight Floyd Mayweather Jr vs Juan Manuel Márquez. I predict Mayweather winning by unanimous decision. Why? because of Mayweathers fighting history. Since he's been active in the lower weight classes where Mexican fighters usually dominate, and having fought big named Mexican fighters from Diego Corrales(R.I.P), Carlos "Famoso" Hernández, Genaro Hernandez, and José Luis Castillo (twice!) Mayweather should have no problems and no surprises with Marquez.

Update: looks like my prediction was correct, mayweather wins by UD. The post fight interview was also very entertaining as well.

Paul and women.

There are a lot of misconceptions regarding following scripture.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church

The interesting thing about it, is most people read it completely void of historical context. A couple of things to keep in mind when reading this verse.

1. Paul was writing to the Church in Corinth.
2. The early Christians were responsible for elevating the status of women back in that day. Evidence for this can be found here and here
3. This status included women being being able to attend and even participate in church services, which is a far cry from the OT in which the religious services were mostly male.

So if the status of women was elevated and women can attend and participate in church services, then it seems, like all new people eager to learn, were asking tons of questions, after all, they were new correct? this is a first time thing for all of them, so it is only natural if they ask questions, but the men, they've been doing this for centuries, so they have a handle on the whole thing. I think this is a viable option in regards to the meaning of the passage. I don't think Paul condemning all women to speak in church, obviously they could pray and prophesy according to 1 Corinthians 11:5, he recognized Junias as an apostle in Romans 16:7, and recognized Priscilla teaching Apollos the way of God in Acts 18:24-26. So Paul obviously recognized womens ministry, I think the historical data shows that Paul was addressing specific instances happening in the respective places of who and where he was writing.

Brutally honest, if not a little crazy.

I just got finished watching the documentary on former Heavyweight Champion Mike Tyson and I have to say it really provided a lot of insight. Mike Tyson is one of, if not the most honest fighter I've ever seen. The fight game is honest, it not only requires honesty, it demands honesty. If you're fighting someone who has more power than you, you must be honest and recognize he has more power than you and plan accordingly. Mike is honest, he spoke about his fears, saying 'when I was in the locker room I was scared, but as I got closer and closer to the ring I got less and less scared,' he spoke about his relationship with Cus D'Amato, stating that it was like a father son relationship. I think his combination of honesty and dedication, not only to the sport, but to his trainer, was a huge factor for success. He said Cus D'Amato's word was like the bible when it came to boxing.

The documentary also gave some insight into the training techniques of Cus D'Amato. Mike said that he wasn't even allowed to box for the first two weeks because Cus D'Amato would talk to him about strategies and the psychology of boxing, training him in the art of psychological warefare. In the documentary it showed him getting into the ring and working a technique. He said he would stare at his opponent with a scowl on his face and the opponent would stare back at them. It showed the opponents eyes adverting for a split second and Mike said 'once he looks away I know I've got him, that is the chink in his armor, he lost the fight before it began, some people loose the fight in the locker room but this guy lost the fight right when he looked away'. It's also interesting to note that Mike said he was on the decline when he started losing his 'mental' and 'spiritual' edge. It had nothing to do with power! Boxing is spiritual! Cus D'Amato would tell Mike.

The dvd also confirmed a lot of the reasons why I thought Mike started to decline. The first blow was the death of his trainer, Cus D'Amato, the 2nd blow was both his marriage and divorce to Robin Givens, the 3rd blow was his rape charge, all the while engaging in sexual promiscuity and allowing people to leach off of him. Mike described his sexual promiscuity as 'they would take from me and I would never receive anything back' and he described his leeching as 'I hung around a lot of leeches, but in a way I liked it, I liked having them suck my blood, then I would go out and buy my blood back with my money.' In the end, the most remarkable thing about Mike is his ironic conclusion in the sport of Boxing, as he fell victim to a tragedy described by none other than Cus D'Amato himself.

"To see a man beaten not by a better opponent but by himself is a tragedy."
- Cus D'Amato.

I've changed my mind!

Yes, that's correct, I've changed my mind. Over the past week my favorite superhero has officially become Batman and I have Batman Arkham Asylum to thank for that, along with the DVD of anime shorts entitled Batman: Gotham Knight. That game made me appreciate Batman for the gritty, down to earth, superpower lacking human he really is. Everything he does is done through pure humanity, there is nothing super about it, he has no flight, no super strength, no super speed,and because he doesn't have any powers, in my opinion, this makes him a better superhero because he does just as good as the other superheros all while lacking their powers. If you don't have an Xbox or PS3 I suggest watching the anime.

I do love a good prediction....espcially when I make them.

If you remember I said G.I. Joe was going to suck.
Looks like the critics agreed.

40% rating from Rotten Tomatoes

Consensus: While fans of the Hasbro toy franchise may revel in a bit of nostalgia, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is largely a cartoonish, over-the-top action fest propelled by silly writing, inconsistent visual effects, and merely passable performances.

C- for Yahoo movies:

Critics Reviews Average Grade: C-

Boston Globe, Ty Burr
"...a loud but proficient slab of explode-o-rama summer blockbuster nonsense, perfectly entertaining if you like that sort of thing, extremely skippable if you don’t." more... B-

Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert
"There is never any clear sense in the action of where anything is in relation to anything else." more... D+

Chicago Tribune, Geoff Berkshire
"That G.I. Joe is completely ridiculous should come as a surprise to no one. That it's not an outright disaster might be a different story." more... B-

E! Online, Luke Y. Thompson
"...Frequently laugh-out-loud cheesy, and the digital effects are highly dubious." more... C+

I also said Roy Jones Jr and Anderson Silva were destined to fight.



Now for my next prediction. G.I. Joe will be out on dvd no later than October, and Anderson Silva will destroy Roy if they fight in the UFC, but Roy will not destroy, but retain a convincing win over Anderson Silva if they just box.