An Excellent Article about the Mithras / Osiris Myths and the Connection to Christianity

At Equip.org (the Bible Answer Guy) here.

Culture Talks - with Apologetics.com

Good morning from Bay Farm Community Church!

I'm here to attend an apologetics conference with the Apologetics.com folks including my pal Lindsay Brooks!

Utilitarianism

I posted the following question as my Facebook status.


What if science determined that the cells of down's syndrome children were the best cells for fighting cancer, and that it required the death of the child to "harvest" those cells?

Here's the comments:

Lou Rugg Can't Read

Paltalk denizen, Louis Ruggerio writes:

Before Esau was born, God knew he would despise his birthright. And before Jacob was born, God also knew he would covet Esau's birthright and offer to trade it with Esau for some venison. God also knew that Esau would choose to accept Jacob's offer. This is why Romans 9:13 says, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Does anyone really think that God arbitrarily hated Esau and loved Jacob for no apparent reason? Well, Calvinists do!

Let's look at Romans 9 to see if Lou Rugg has a proverbial leg to stand on:

Inconsistency

Had a friendly scuffle with Tur8infan in his combox over infant baptism. The exchange can be read here. I'm writing these thoughts out in this post as I have never seen this line of thought argued in a debate.

I'm a credo-baptist, I believe that the proper subjects of baptism are those who repent and believe. That does not mean that I deny that God can, and does, regenerate infants or the infirm who cannot verbalize their faith/new birth. We, Reformed Baptists, do not exclude infants or the infirm from church or the hearing of the Gospel, but we do wait until a profession is made before we administer baptism or the Supper. We believe that both baptism and the Supper require one to be conscious of their significance.

(Note: I'm sure there are examples in Baptist churches where this is ignored, but I'm speaking firstly of self-proclaimed Reformed Baptist, or credo-baptistic churches who hold to the doctrines of grace.)

To summarize:

An Incomprehensible, Senseless and Tragic... evolutionary event?

It's being called "incomprehensible", "senseless", and "tragic" by the media and, indeed it is. A recently unemployed father of 5 killed his family and then himself in the LA area. Yet why is this senseless, tragic or incomprehensible at all, given the worldview of both the media and our nation?

What happened, in the vernacular of today's left-leaning, god-hating, atheistic culture is nothing more than self-induced euthanasia, mercy-killing and post-partum abortions. Why should we give a rats-whisker about this family that "chose" to end its existence?

Dr. James White on Church Discipline and Fox News

Calvinists Attack!

Reply to Philip - In Adam All die.

Firstly, as with any book, sentences can be pulled from any passage to suggest one thing or another. The true test of understanding requires careful study of the texts, the languages used, the culture in which it was written and most importantly, the context (of which the previous items are part of.) I believe if you were to study the passages (not I didn't post single verses but chunks that express the immediate context) you'll see that at least in what I posted, my viewpoint is supported.

Christian Defense

Most of you probably already know about Eddie Dalcour's website Christian Defense, but for those who don't there's some excellent, powerful ammo against Unitarian, Arian and other heresies.

History & Faith - J. Gresham Machen

"An historical conviction of the resurrection of Jesus is not the end of faith, but only the beginning..." - J. Gresham Machen

"Between faith and reason"

I was asked to consider the position of the article here... what follows is my response:

I realize you're not looking for a review of the article, however, I can't help but note a few items.

While the author highlights a problem within the general evangelical 'Christian' population that views faith and reason at odds and also correctly identifies secular humanism as a "religion... without (God)." there are some general historical errors of this piece, i.e. "Martin Luther and John Calvin approved the slaughter of Anabaptists..." and the reexamining of history though a specifically anti-religious lens, "A third of the population of Germany perished during a single 30-year doctrinal dispute between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists", suggesting that a single doctrinal dispute separated those groups and caused the chaos that was ultimately the result of the leadership of the countries involved and had little to do with issues faith.

That said, I think the author improperly views Christianity as a religion based on faith, as if faith was opposed to reason. It is evident they do so based on many Christian's view of their own faith as a subjectively embraced experience, rather than a reasoned understanding of the historical fact of Christ and His work. The author's example of President's Bush seemingly direct-from-God order to invade certain countries is evidence of this idea.

The question before us is not whether faith is legitimate or which faith is best. It is: Shall we allow the divine experience of one group to control the behavior of those with a different experience?

Let us work to see that the answer to that question remains an unequivocal, "No."

How far do we take this? We've reached the point in society where "murder" is defined as matter of faith, not reason, as is the case in abortion... I think Van Til was right, at least on this issue, its not "if god" but "which (G)od". A society whose morals (as if there can be "morals" in a system that accepts and promotes secular humanistic evolution as a fact) are subjective, based on the whims of the majority is only a short step away from anarchy.

It is important for us to strive to express our faith in reason-based, fact-based and history-based ways and to encourage other believers to think likewise. Christ is not some subjective personal thought, but rather a collectively embraced historical figure who really did what the Bible claims and thus our faith is based on real events that really accomplished what God declares in His Word declares they did.

Also, when Scientific "facts" seem to indicate something different than what the Church believes the Bible states, perhaps it is the interpretation of Scripture, rather than the Scriptures themselves that are at odds with the universe. For example, the Roman Catholic Church taught that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun and other solar bodies orbited around it. They seemingly took this belief from Scripture, claiming that certain verses taught it ( http://radongas.blogspot.com/2006/02/geocentrism-challenge.html) yet an objective reading of the 'proof-texts' shows that the Scripture teaches no such thing as a Scientific fact.

This revamping of tradition can only be taken so far, however, there are certain things clearly taught in Scripture that may not be apparent in the revealed universe. Theistic evolution, for example, is an attempt at revamping the first chapters of Genesis as to conform to a proposed scientific theory, diluting both concepts as to make them untenable. This leads to concepts such as "intelligent design", which is not Biblical creation. While I admit that the Bible shouldn't be used as a scientific text, it is usually our tradition, not Scripture which conflict with the "evidence" science discovers in the world around us. ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_sc/jurassic_beaver)

One final example of the type of problematic tradition that may be overturned by scientific discovery has to do with the potential for genetic pre-disposition toward homosexuality. For years evangelical Christians have argued and continue to argue that there is no, cannot be, will never be found a genetic marker or clue for a predespotisition for homosexuality, yet if (and when) such a genetic link is made it could only be denied by those Christians. I however view this staunch evangelical view as founded in tradition, not in Scripture which teaches that we're all "born in sin" and dead in Adam from conception... the fact that one may have a genetic disposition toward one sinful expression of that deadness or another should therefore not surprise us.

To reiterate then what I said previously, it is of the utmost importance that we who recognize the false-dichotomy between faith and reason seek to establish and express the true nature of faith as grounded in reason and the facts of Scripture and history and yet maintain faith as a supernatural gift of our Lord.

Geocentrism Challenge

Catholic Apologetics International is holding a "Geocentrism Challenge" wherein they're offering $1000 to anyone who can "prove" that the earth orbits the eun. They claim that their tradition and certain Bible passages require that the sun orbit the earth.

I have no interest in CAI's cash, but I am interested in the Bible verses they claim teach geocentrism. So here are their "proof" verses from the Bible (apocryphal ones excluded.) Keep in mind that poetic language is not intended to be taken literally. I can say the "sun sets", even though the earth is that which is rotating and still be correct from my vantage point.

Psa 19:5-7
Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

This is talking about how the sun is perceived, not about spatial relationships or orbits.

Psa 104:5
He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.

Nothing here about Earth's location or its orbit, this whole passage is talking about God's sovereign control over all the universe. The Earth will not "totter forever" because God's plan will not allow it to do so. "There will be a new heavens and a new earth."

Psa 104:19
He made the moon for the seasons; The sun knows the place of its setting.

Poetic language again talking not about spatial relationships of extraterrestrial bodies, but God's Sovereignty.

Psa 119:90
Your faithfulness continues throughout all generations; You established the earth, and it stands.

Uh... Earth still "stands", even though it really does orbit the sun.

Ecc 1:5
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again.

Still more poetic language that really isn't talking about what goes on in the heavens, but how it appears on Earth.

2 Kings 20:9-11
Isaiah said, "This shall be the sign to you from the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that He has spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten steps or go back ten steps?"
So Hezekiah answered, "It is easy for the shadow to decline ten steps; no, but let the shadow turn backward ten steps."
Isaiah the prophet cried to the LORD, and He brought the shadow on the stairway back ten steps by which it had gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.

Supernatural event which needs to explanation. This does not require the sun to orbit the Earth.

2 Chron 32:24
In those days Hezekiah became mortally ill; and he prayed to the LORD, and the LORD spoke to him and gave him a sign.

Ok.... what does this have to do with anything?

Isa 38:7-8
"This shall be the sign to you from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing that He has spoken:
"Behold, I will cause the shadow on the stairway, which has gone down with the sun on the stairway of Ahaz, to go back ten steps " So the sun's shadow went back ten steps on the stairway on which it had gone down."

Same event as reported in 2 Kings, same deal no need for sun to orbit the Earth for God to cause this occurrence.

Joshua 10:12-14
...So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped... And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day...

As with the Isaiah passages, a supernatural event that doesn't require the sun to orbit the earth. It seems that perhaps CAI is looking for natural causes for supernatural events. Like with some of the "Discovery" type TV-shows, folks look for natural causes for Biblical events, for example some speculate that the crossing of the Red Sea was made possible by a tsunami. The Bible states, however, that God held back the waters of the Red Sea, it doesn't tell us about a tsunami or anything of the sort, there doesn't need to be a naturalistic explanation for supernatural events.

Judges 5:31
"Thus let all Your enemies perish, O LORD; But let those who love Him be like the rising of the sun in its might."
And the land was undisturbed for forty years.

Yes, the sun "rises" and "sets". This is how sun's movement appears because of the rotation of the earth to us. The fact that the earth orbits the sun does not negate this passage in any way.

Job 9:7
Who commands the sun not to shine,
And sets a seal upon the stars;

How does this indicate the idea that the sun orbits the earth? God's commanding of heavenly bodies not to shine does not tell us anything about the relationship of the sun or earth.

Habakkuk 3:11
Sun and moon stood in their places;
They went away at the light of Your arrows,
At the radiance of Your gleaming spear.

More poetic language. Interesting that here, though, that the author of Scripture speaks of the sun and moon standing still as a interruption of the natural course of things. One who understands the movements of the planets and stars knows that everything in the universe is in motion.

Finally...

James 1:12 - Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.

Where is the sun or earth mentioned in this passage? How is this passage supposedly teaching geo-centrism?

None of these verses say what CAI wants them to say, thus it is not the Bible which directs their misguided belief but their tradition.