Saturday, August 1, 2009

God works through people too.

This man chose to pray instead of taking his daughter to the doctor.

WAUSAU, Wis. (Aug. 1) - A Wisconsin man accused of killing his 11-year-old daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care was found guilty Saturday of second-degree reckless homicide.
Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or speak. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.


I think these people forget that God works through people and also forget that God can heal in a multitude of ways, chiefly by working through people. A healing is a healing, if you pray for her to be healed and a doctor fixes her, is the prayer not answered? was she not healed?

Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified Thursday that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.
"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."


Taking the girl to the doctor is not putting the doctor before God, since nowhere in the bible does it state or show that God will heal a certain way. By that logic the people that lived in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago that took their sick to the Disciples were putting the 'doctor before God.'

Matthew 10:8

8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.


The disciples were given the ability to heal and people took their sick to them, so there is nothing wrong with taking the sick to the doctor, and doing so is not putting the doctor before God. This brings to mind a very relevant scripture.

Hosea 4:6
6 my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.


We are indeed destroyed by lack of knowledge, this being a prime example. I pray God forgive the parents for their ignorance.

Friday, July 31, 2009

'Re-vamp' to logical POE refuted



In response to the supposed 're-vamp' of the logical POE found here.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Atheist special pleading.

I always hear the following argument.

A.)The atheist states that he does not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence for God, which is fine, as God is absent from scientific literature.

B.)However, there is no scientific evidence for a slew of other things the atheist believes as well, there is certainly no scientific evidence that the atheist himself exists, or his mother exists, or that his parents love him/spouse love him, or his friends like him, yet the atheist believes that.

The atheist might state that A is more reasonable, but that is beside the point as it no longer becomes about scientific evidence now, but 'what is reasonable' and 'what is reasonable' is entirely subjective. To the atheist it might be 'more reasonable' to believe B rather than A, but to a theist it is equally reasonable to believe in A and B.

It is quite fine to say that you have not experienced evidence for God, it is also fine to say that there is no scientific evidence for God, but that doesn't even matter, as you most likely have not seen evidence for quantum mechanics nor have you seen evidence for evolution. The atheist engages in special pleading and hilarious irony when they declare personal experience is not good enough when it comes to God because they believe in something else that somebody elses personal experience. It simply boils down to what the completely subjective notion of who are what is 'more reasonable' to follow.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

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 3.

In the summary of chapters 14-15 in his book, Loftus said the following about Genesis and science:

Astronomy has established that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old and arose out of a cosmic singularity. No account of the development of our universe can be harmonized with the creation accounts in Genesis, as the latter are pure folklore. Archaeology has found no evidence of 400 years of Israelite slavery in Egypt, Israelites who wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, or an Israelite conquest of Canaan. Geological evidence in the sedimentary rock layers of a roughly 4.5 billion year old planet confirms the slow evolutionary development of life, just as astronomical evidence confirms the slow evolutionary development of galaxies, stars, and planets. Geology also falsifies that at any point in human history there was a universal flood which covered the Earth.


In the actual book, Loftus went into greater detail discussing various theories that Christians use in attempts to harmonize Genesis with science, and in typical Loftus fashion, his attacks are leveled against the uneducated, ignorant, logically, factually and historically inept Christian. Loftus spends 24 pages attack the Gap theory, concordist interpretation, local creation, YEC and various other theories created in the 1970's, but I am not here to defend either of those theories, I am simply here to prove to Loftus that Genesis can in fact be harmonized with science.

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


The word here for create is the word BARA which means to create something new.

1) to create, shape, form

a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

1) of heaven and earth

2) of individual man

3) of new conditions and circumstances

4) of transformations

b) (Niphal) to be created

1) of heaven and earth

2) of birth

3) of something new

4) of miracles

c) (Piel)

1) to cut down

2) to cut out

2) to be fat

a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat


Interpretation: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth brand new

Now we go down to the 'fourth day' and we see a different word, it is the word MADE.

Genesis 1:14-17

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.

16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.


Look at the word made, it is the word ASAH, and asah means to fashion from pre existing material or an action completed in the past.


1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make

a) (Qal)

1) to do, work, make, produce

a) to do

b) to work

c) to deal (with)

d) to act, act with effect, effect

2) to make

a) to make

b) to produce

c) to prepare

d) to make (an offering)

e) to attend to, put in order

f) to observe, celebrate

g) to acquire (property)

h) to appoint, ordain, institute

i) to bring about

j) to use

k) to spend, pass

b) (Niphal)

1) to be done

2) to be made

3) to be produced

4) to be offered

5) to be observed

6) to be used

c) (Pual) to be made

2) (Piel) to press, squeeze



Interpretation: 16 God had made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also had made the stars.

17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.




"God HAD made 2 great lights, he also HAD made the stars in verse 1 already, the heavens were already created, it said it in verse 1, so God took what he HAD made already and put them there, as you can see it is not the word BARA that is in Genesis 1:16 which means to create as new, it is the word ASAH.

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexic...54&version=kjv

2. (Niphal) to be created
1. of heaven and earth
2. of birth
3. of something new
4. of miracles



http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexic...13&version=kjv


17. (Niphal)
1. to be done
2. to be made
3. to be produced
4. to be offered
5. to be observed
6. to be used
18. (Pual) to be made

These are legitimate uses for the words, it states that the stars, sun, the whole heavens(which indicates the universe) is older than the earth. Regarding six literal days? Psa 90:4 states:

For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.


The word day in Genesis is also the word Yowm. A valid interpretation means a general time period.

1) day, time, year

a) day (as opposed to night)

b) day (24 hour period)

1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

2) as a division of time

a) a working day, a day's journey

c) days, lifetime (pl.)

d) time, period (general)

e) year

f) temporal references

1) today

2) yesterday

3) tomorrow


An old earth and old universe can be interpreted in Genesis 1 just as 'literally' as a young earth can. The above explanation is compatible with the age of the earth, the creation of the universe, stars, sun, earth etc, and since an exact age of things is not presented in the Bible, it can be changed when the available evidence comes into play, and while this post discusses only the astrology aspects of the Genesis, I cannot, in the same confidence I do astrology, present an interpretation for the origins of life since I am presently ignorant, uninterested, and apathetic in evolutionary biology(BORING!). However, I will note that some people ascribe to 'theistic evolution,' so my guess(a guess from an ignorant, uninterested apathetic person that finds the whole concept a huge bore) is it is compatible with Genesis.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Verbal Knockout.

Even the untrainted can score knockouts, it is just a matter of opportunity.

At the height of his fame, Muhammad Ali was settling into his plane seat when an air hostess came and gently reminded him to put on his seatbelt.

"Superman don't need no seatbelt", Ali snorted.

"Superman don't need no airplane", the hostess retorted, a winner by knockout.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

This man needs a separate casket for his heart and chin.

The boxing world will definitely miss one of its most exciting, heart felt, passionate, gutsy fighters, Arturo Gatti.


SAO PAULO (AP)—Brazilian authorities detained the wife of former boxing champion Arturo Gatti and formally accused her Sunday of killing him at a posh seaside tourist resort in Brazil.

Police said 23-year-old Amanda Rodrigues was taken into custody after contradictions in her interrogation and presented a formal accusation against her. Prosecutors will later decide whether she will be charged.

Rodrigues, who denies any involvement in her husband’s death, was the first to find the slain boxer’s body early Saturday inside the vacation apartment they were renting at the Porto de Galinhas resort in northeastern Brazil, police said.

The former junior welterweight champion was apparently strangled with the strap of a purse, which was found at the scene with blood stains, said Milena Saraiva, a spokeswoman for the Pernambuco state civil police. She told The Associated Press that the Canadian also sustained a head injury.

Police said Rodrigues, a Brazilian, could not explain how she spent nearly 10 hours inside the residence without noticing that Gatti was already dead.


It is also extremely ironic that the fighter who gave us classic tough guy fights like Gatti Ward 1 and 2 in which he gave and received punch after punch, blow after punishing blow and still came back for me, met his end by being strangled with a purse.

Athiest integrity.

So Froggie said the following:

TD,
You can take your stupid rules and stick them up your holy spirit's ass while jacking off on a picture of your effiminate Jesus.
You are a fucking retard.


Which is in direct violation of rule #8. Froggie then responded with the following:

TD,
This is your house and I respect that.
I don't want to ruin the open dicussions so I give you my word that I will not comment here.

If I decide to make any comments on your posts, I will do so at SMRT.

At least turn off the moderation and give it a try. I will not comment.

I am also posting this comment at SMRT.



Now, in this thread He has gone against his word by saying.

Hi TD!



Which not only shows that Froggies concept of respect and his word is about as low as his intelligence is. Doubtless some people will maintain it is trivial, as he just said hi, and while the comment itself might be trivial, him going back on his word is not. So, until I find a more effective way to prevent ignorant people like froggie from posting when they clearly violated the rules, comment moderation will be turned on. It is really amusing how the tactics of an frustrated, ignorant, intellectually inferior atheists mirror that of a frustrated, ignorant, inferior fighter. When they can't beat you legitimately, they resort to dishonest, shady, back handed tactics.