Tag Archives: william lane craig

To the atheists who judge God

If you can’t unilaterally set all the terms and conditions with your human authority figures — parents, teachers, employers and law enforcement — what makes you think that you will be able to sit in judgment of God? Yes, I know you say He doesn’t exist. But even in your hypothetical scenarios you assume that you’ll get to judge the creator of the universe, thus making yourself the “real” God.

And consider how you can’t even force this blogger to post your comments unless you abide by his terms. Yet you think you’ll tell the creator of the universe how things will be? Indeed.

Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

It is illuminating that atheists are in such deep rebellion and denial that they often can’t or won’t even acknowledge a hypothetical situation where God will judge them. (Of course, based on Romans 1 we know they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, but for discussion purposes let’s momentarily take their claims at face value.)

The Wendy Wright schools Richard Dawkins post keeps getting picked up on Reddit and search engines so it generates a lot of atheist traffic.* One of the commenters on the post provided a typical response to our loving warnings about Hell and how to avoid it:

And then the threats. Nice. I embrace the idea of Hell, if the alternative is an eternity of slack-jawed subservience to a petulant and insecure deity. As has been said, if all of the engineers go to hell, we’ll have it HVAC-ed in no time.

As I told him, threats are entirely legitimate and loving if the consequences are real. And make no mistake, Hell is real. If he really believed his worldview he’d never sit in judgment of anything. After all, whatever we say and do is just a product of his beloved Darwinian evolution, so what is there to judge? Why be angry at what Darwinian evolution caused? But that’s a separate topic. The issue here is that he can’t even pretend that there is an ultimate authority figure holding him accountable for his thoughts and actions.

And like many atheists, he thinks that silly jokes about air conditioning in Hell will bring him comfort. Even in his hypothetical scenario he thinks he’ll have friendly companionship and his desires fulfilled, as if he would have any influence over the conditions of Hell.

Despite their rebellion, I want them to know that if they will repent and believe in Jesus then God will forgive them just like He forgave me. They should do some serious apologetics and Bible study. I know they are afraid to, because it will mean risking that they’ll find out that they are wrong about matters of life and eternity. But I assure them that the truth is far better than the lie they are living.

It is foolish to think that you get to define whether God exists and what He must be like if He did exist. You have no such control over your flawed human authority figures, so why would you be lord over the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Repent and believe while you still have time. Eternity is a mighty long time to suffer for your foolish pride.

God’s terms are unbelievably generous — but He sets them, not you. He was not obligated to offer any paths to forgiveness and adoption, but out of his grace and love He offered one: Jesus.

*Sometimes over 1,000 hits per day. I’m glad for that, and updated the post with links to the “minimal facts” approach to apologetics and the story of a highly intelligent woman and her conversion from atheism to Christianity. The good news is that those links get lots of hits, too.

Why all the fuss about that predestination thing?

The negative characterizations that Arminians and Molinists make about the “Calvinist God” are virtually indistinguishable from the nature of their version of God.  They just don’t realize it.  The Arminian version of God either couldn’t or wouldn’t intervene to persuade people to believe.  If they think God couldn’t intervene (send missionaries, etc. ) then that’s a bold statement.  If they say He wouldn’t intervene, how is that different than the alleged liabilities of Reformed theology?

The purpose of this post isn’t to debate Arminian vs. Reformed vs. Middle Knowledge (or whatever hybrid / other version of orthodox Christianity you adhere to).  It is merely to point out that some of the rancor against Reformed theology* in the debate seems misplaced.

The Bible uses the word predestined many times (e.g., Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will), so the only question is what the word really means, in context.  But regardless of your definition, unless you subscribe to the false theology of Open Theism then it seems that you would agree that these two events happened in this order:

  1. God knew who would repent and trust in Jesus and thus spend eternity in Heaven, and who would not and therefore spend eternity in Hell.
  2. God created everyone.

My point is simply that the other views aren’t as far from Reformed theology as their adherents like to think they are (“That old meanie Calvinist God who knew which people would go to Hell but created them anyway is nothing like our loving Arminian/Middle Knowledge God who knew which people would go to Hell and created them anyway!!!”).

For example, on the Molinism/Middle Knowledge view, God considered the infinite number of possibilities of “free will” choices and created the version of the universe that maximized the number of people who would be saved.  But that means one of the following must be true, neither of which is far from Reformed theology.

1. God created someone who wouldn’t convert in any one of an infinite number of universes — even if they read nothing but the Wintery Knight blog, watched nothing but William Lane Craig debates and experienced nothing but Bible-based, loving Christians.  That seems indistinguishable from Reformed theology on that point. They would have been created such that it would be impossible for them to believe under any circumstances.

2. God created people who would have believed in some other universes, but not this one.  God just didn’t give them the right circumstances.  That should strike the same chord of alleged unfairness that people hold against Reformed theology.  They would have believed if only God would have done things differently!

And under the Arminian view, using all their preferred definitions of key terms, God knew which people would not use their “free will” to choose him but created them anyway.  Which means one of the following:

1. No matter what God did, they wouldn’t choose him.  God created them knowing that no matter how events were ordered, they would not use their “free will” to believe, sort of like the previous possibility #1.  This seems barely distinguishable from the Reformed view.

2. They would have chosen God had He made their circumstances different.  God could have ordered events differently so that they would have been more compelled to choose.  But He chose not to . . .

Again, I’m not after the merits of the views in this post.  I know which one is correct ;-).  I’m just pointing out that they aren’t as far apart as people make them out to be on the emotional issues.  Even if you are correct on this in-house debate and Reformed theology is in error, the emotional reactions to Reformed theology on this point are not warranted.  In Reformed, Arminian and Molinist theologies God knew what people would do, including that many would spend eternity in Hell, then He created them anyway.

P.S. I had to shut down comments on the last post with a similar topic because otherwise-well behaved people were getting petty.  Don’t make me do that again! 

* Sometimes referred to as Calvinism.  I realize that some don’t care for the term “Reformed,” but I need to choose some descriptor.

Roundup

As if there weren’t enough reasons to dislike Michigan: University of Michigan Kicks Christian Club off Campus. So . . . I’m sure the Muslim groups will let a bunch of Jewish people join, elect themselves to leadership and then adopt all sorts of pro-Israel messaging. And the gay groups will let Christians come in, take over and issue proclamations noting their opposition to “same-sex marriage” and their support for God’s view of sexuality.

One of the nice things about the near-exclusive targeting of Christians by the PC-police and others is their tacit admission that we have the one true faith. They don’t get offended by false religions, because deep down they know they aren’t the enemy. But they oppose Jesus all day, every day.

Some good news: Planned Parenthood Closes Tulsa, Oklahoma Clinic After De-Funding

ABC Ignores Tim Scott’s [Republican] Senate Appointment in Dec., By Jan. Hails Mo Cowan’s [Democrat] as ‘History’ — a reminder that media bias and the racism industry work in many ways.

To recap, the first African American wasn’t news worthy enough to mention, but the second African American is history making.

Feminist politicians and media go nuts over Sen. Bob Menendez’ use of underage prostitutes. Oh, wait, they are doing nothing. He’s a Democrat.

Mother’s world falls apart after Planned Parenthood hides humanity of her child – These cases are so sad, and they happen constantly at the nation’s largest abortion provider – and with your tax dollars! Oddly, it turns out that people who kill babies for a living aren’t bothered by telling lies.

“I never saw my ultrasound,” she says. “I was told nothing was visible, and I was told that it wouldn’t matter—you couldn’t see a heartbeat, you couldn’t see anything. . . . I wouldn’t know what I was looking at.”

Armed guard stops school shooting in Atlanta – This was posted on February 1. Did the MSM ever cover it in depth? Did they talk about it for weeks and rejoice over the many saved lives? Of course not, because it doesn’t fit in with their gun-grabbing agenda. The pro-abortion Left does not care about kids.

Why GOP Doesn’t Contest Massive Democrat Voter Fraud – this is sad. Some poor-thinking Republicans set us up for this 30 years ago. This needs to change, because the Democrats are getting more and more bold with their voter fraud.

Sandy Hook Not The Worst School Massacre – and there is no reason to think the killer wouldn’t have murdered people even if he couldn’t access guns.

William Lane Craig debates James Crossley on the resurrection of JesusThe resurrection is central to the Christian faith. Without it, we admit we’re wrong (1 Cor. 15). With it, Jesus is the only way to salvation and forgiveness of your countless sins against God. Everyone should be familiar with the arguments for the resurrection.

Baker Investigated For Refusing To Make Cake For Same Sex Couple – There have been many cases like this. They don’t happen accidentally. The baker wasn’t refusing to service lesbians, he was refused to make a cake celebrating a lesbian “wedding.” Why are we letting 2% of the people run our country?

The Potter’s Freedom

I rarely post things like this because they can become needlessly divisive.  As someone who has been on both sides of the fence, I saw way more Reformed-bashing and just plain misunderstandings of the Reformed position than I saw in the reverse. I consider it an in-house debate among Christians — albeit an important one — and don’t see any reason for either side to be nasty.  Comments will be closely moderated.

I highly recommend The Potter’s Freedom by James White, which thoroughly addresses Chosen But Free by Norm Geisler (or read both — Geisler has an appendix addressing White and White added an appendix addressing Geisler’s response (or those of his students’ class project of responding)).

If I wasn’t Reformed before reading it I would have been afterwards. I always respected Geisler, other than the Ergun Caner debacle, and still appreciate most of what he has done, but White rips him to shreds in the most polite sort of way.

(For the record, I have been in Arminian churches my entire life and am saturated in the Christian culture of Arminianism. My recent switch doesn’t mean I’m right, but the fact is that I made the switch against significant odds and a desire to see Arminianism proved right. But the Bible verses just don’t support it.)

After noting that I’d love to hear a debate between James White and William Lane Craig, someone responded with this:

Craig doesn’t debate other Christians on secondary issues. He views it as a harmful witness. Plus, White isn’t really qualified to debate Craig. He’s got a suspect degree from a suspect university and always says suspect stuff. You just don’t debate every goof on the internet who wants to debate you.

My response:

Comments like that make me even more Reformed 🙂 . As an Arminian I’d listen to lots of Reformed / Arminian debates and always wonder why they lined up well versed Reformed professionals against Arminian light-weights who mainly trafficked in ad homs and bad exegesis. It just didn’t seem fair. Then I started to think that maybe it was the arguments that were at fault and that that was the best the Arminians could do.

Have you read The Potter’s Freedom? If not, please do, and see if you can do any better than Geisler’s students did in refuting it. (I was embarrassed for Geisler, and I’d been a fan of his for over 15 years). It should be easy, since you insist that he’s just an Internet goof that always says suspect stuff.

P.S. Dawkins will thank you for the excuses Craig gives — he can modify those to use against Craig.

Additional thoughts

“Reformed” and “Arminian” may be overly broad terms.  There are also Molinists, who think that through God’s middle knowledge he selected a world where the most possible people would choose him, and there are many who don’t hold to all 5 points of “Calvinism.”

Having said that, it seems that the logical law of excluded middle would hold that election is either conditional or not conditional, grace is irresistible or not, etc.

Perhaps it is the finance guy / CPA in me, but I don’t get bothered by limited atonement.  There are many arguments to use (really, read the book!), and of course we center on the Bible, but the concept of propitiation (satisfying God’s wrath) alone makes me willing to strongly consider it.  If Jesus’ death on the cross satisfied God’s wrath for everyone’s sins, then there is no wrath left.  Illustrations about them not picking up their gift wouldn’t apply.  The wrath would have already been pored out.

This DVD gives a good overview of the tenets and history of Reformed theology.

Finally, I’ll note that I don’t consider those with opposing views to be non-Christians.

Roundup

John Calvin’s admirers agree that he wasn’t the most charming fellow at times (Calvin appears to have conceded that as well). But was he a heretic-burning maniac as he is often portrayed?  Not quite.

—–

How do prostitutes stay in business in an era of hook-up sex? — Good points by the Wintery Knight.

—–

Ayn Rand says “I told you so.”  I found Atlas Shrugged tedious at times but amazingly accurate.  It is funny to watch her haters try to dismiss anyone who agrees with her premise, but they ignore that she was pro-abortion.  So do they think they are wrong on that topic?  It is important to note that the government-creep goes on with Republicans, too.

—–

The NY Times has been covering for Communism for a long time.

—–

Professional atheist Richard Dawkins was in his usual form lately, explaining why adultery is OK but investigating suspected adultery is really bad (Darwinism gives him an oddly precise moral compass!).  Then he opined on the Bible as if he had actually read it and understood it.  He tried to say that the New Testament writers didn’t seem to care if Jesus was real.  He should start with 1 Corinthians 15 then read the rest of the passages mentioned in the post.  No wonder he runs away from William Lane Craig!

—–

Kevin DuJan from Hillbuzz has keen insights into the gay community and how aggressively hateful they are against Christians.

—–

Yet another “hate hoax.”  You don’t see the media reporting on these once the hoaxes are discovered.  It is the same silence and cover-ups as with the pro-gay FRC shooter.

—–

Via UCC Condemns Boy Scouts — shocking!  By which I mean, not shocking at all.

This is one of those “I can’t believe we’re having this conversation” topics.  Even if you are part of the apostate UCC or some random fake Christian who spouts pro-gay theology, you should see the wisdom of not having males who are attracted to males camping with boys.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong?  Lawyers would have field days suing the Boy Scouts when abuses would occur (“They knowingly let gay men spend time alone on camping trips with boys — what were they thinking?!  Please make that multi-million dollar, Boy Scout-bankrupting check out to ______”).  It is about as logical as letting men camp with girls.

The one good thing about this topic is that those like the UCC are basically screaming out that they could care less about God’s word and common sense.  They just want to advance the gay agenda and try to destroy the Scouts.

Then there is this shining example of love, tolerance and common sense: The Atlantic Wants to Kill Boy Scouts Like Rabid Dogs.  But that definitely isn’t hate speech.

—–

Pregnancies from rapes are difficult to address, but one solution that shouldn’t be considered is killing the innocent child.  I’d entertain capital punishment for the rapist if Liberals want to advance that, but I don’t follow their knee-jerk reaction to kill the innocent.  Post-abortion trauma is similar to post-rape trauma, so it isn’t like an abortion makes the rape go away.

And remember, your taxes help Planned Parenthood hide statutory rape.  Abortions often hide the crimes of rape and incest.

Roundup

UK midwives protest ruling forcing them to perform abortions — this is getting more and more common.  Religious freedom: You’re doin’ it wrong.  The Obama administration is forcing religious organizations to pay for birth control, some of which are abortifacients.  This is unconscionable.  At least the Supreme Court got one thing right as far as the hiring practices of religious groups.

A summary of Dr. Laura’s Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands — this is just the intro — be sure to read the entire post.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger has written another book that deserves a place on the best seller list with six of her other books, such as Ten Stupid Things Women Do to Mess Up Their Lives and Ten Stupid Things Men Do to Mess Up Their Lives. The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, from this unmarried man’s perspective, is an excellent manual for women on how to get want they want from men and marriage and, generally, how to be happy. Dr. Laura makes a number of important, practical points, based on her experience in private practice, from advising her radio callers, and from literally hundreds of letters and emails she received from men and women while she was writing the book.

Barack Obama fought the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which protected infants who survived abortions from being murdered, but the media calls Rick Santorum the extremist?!

Peer-reviewed paper in medical journal challenges Darwinian evolution — Wait, that can’t be right!  Everyone knows that there is no such thing as that.

A new article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center, appearing in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution. Titled “Dissecting Darwinism,” the paper begins by recounting some of the arguments raised during the Texas State Board of Education debate that challenged chemical and biological evolution. Those challenges include:

1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.

Why do people hate Tim Tebow? Why do people want Tim Tebow to fail? — It is interesting watching the haters get so riled up about Tim Tebow.  Why wouldn’t feminists want a guy like Tebow, who would be faithful to them, have their long-term best interests at heart, not want to take away their purity, not risk them having to get a disease, an abortion or to be a single parent?  One pro-abortion group tried to raise funds by asking people to donate money for each touchdown pass Tebow makes, so they could somehow profit from his success.  He is similar to Sarah Palin in that his life and story mock the pro-abortion theme that we need to kill the unborn if they aren’t perfect or wanted.

Your tax dollars at work: The administration of the most pro-abortion President ever thought that taxpayer-funded abortions in the U.S. weren’t enough.  They needed to increase abortions in Kenya as well and hired surrogates to spread their message.  It stills sickens me to hear alleged pro-lifers rationalize their vote for Obama.

Stan does his usual excellent work in examining this comment by William Lane Craig:

The counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him are outside His control. [God] has to play with the hand He has been dealt. — William Lane Craig

Craig is really good but isn’t perfect.  That was a truly odd comment of him to make, but when you peel back the layers it is actually consistent with his worldview.  Whether it is Arminianism or Molinism, they leave the final say to humans on many issues.

MLK, Jr believed homosexuals could –and should– change — Oh noes — what will the fake Christians do with that fact? Oh, they’ll just say he would have changed his mind, just like Jesse went from pro-life to pro-abortion.

I almost feel sorry for Richard Dawkins

Almost.  He is being rightly criticized by atheists and believers for dodging a debate with William Lane Craig.  His latest excuse is the Craig is pro-genocide, and he just can’t bring himself to debate someone of such low character (ignoring the fact that Dawkins’ worldview can’t explain why genocide would be wrong — you know, survival of the fittest and all that).

See Uncommon Descent | Dawkins for Prime Minister!

Richard Dawkins tells us that we should allow our thinking to be based solely on rational facts.

I’m all for rational thinking, but Dawkins should be reminded that his worldview says we are selected for survival, not truth.  He has no reason to trust his rationality.

If, on the other hand, you let a little emotion in, then this link might lead you to feel a bit of pity for the famed misotheist: http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/10/richard-dawkins-for-prime-minister/

It’s a model demolition job, on the ex-prof’s latest excuses.

Dawkins apparently still has a loyal fan-base who believe that their master is  a serious philosopher. Seeing a live conversation with an actual philosopher would be a bit of a shattering experience for many of those fans. So Dawkins has to keep coming up with the excuses to maintain their loyalty.

It’s a bit pathetic really – all the public efforts to explain why he won’t publicly debate Lane Craig are in themselves a public debate. They are the handing of publicity to the one that Dawkins claims he refuses to hand publicity to. The pretence is hypocritical. If Lane Craig isn’t worth spending time on, then why is Dawkins spending so much time on him? If he’s unworthy to notice, why spend time writing for the Guardian’s readership about him?

I almost feel sorry for his fans, too.  That must be a huge letdown for them.

Atheists run from William Lane Craig, but why won’t Craig debate James White?

As much fun as it would be to see William Lane Craig expose the horribly flawed atheistic philosophy of Richard Dawkins, I’d prefer to see Craig debate James White.  It would be a much more balanced debate between two very well prepared, extremely articulate and intelligent Christians.

I’d also like to see Norman Geisler debate White.  I’m part way through The Potter’s Freedom by White, where he defends Reformed theology and critiques Geisler’s Chosen But Free.  I’ve always found White to be exceptionally well researched, and so far his rebuttal of Geisler (whom I have a lot of respect for) is very convincing.

See Atheists on the Run from William Lane Craig.

There are many atheists who refuse to debate William Lane Craig. He is definitely skilled at self-control, remaining on-target, etc. But, I wonder if those who are so excited about Craig’s prowess realize that he has been challenged to debate a number of issues by men with just as much experience as he has in debate, but he has declined?

I have often commented on how useful a debate between myself and Dr. Craig would be on many issues. I have often played portions of Craig’s studies, talks, and debates, and have challenged his statements. I have challenged his evidentialism, and a debate on whether we are called to proclaim the “greater probability of the existence of a god” or to proclaim the certainty of the existence of the God that men know exists would be very useful to our generation. I have challenged his Molinism, even lecturing on the topic at a Reformed Baptist Church right next to the Talbot/Biola campus in Southern California. I do not believe Molinism is at all consistent with biblical truth, and would love to challenge him to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the same God he describes as having “actuated” this world on the basis of middle knowledge, etc. And, of course, in light of his response to Christopher Hitchens, wherein the only “false” Christian faith he could come up with was not Romanism or any of the fundamentally sub- and anti-Christian movements of our day, but Calvinism, would not the students at Biola/Talbot find a full-orbed series of debates, right there on campus, on the doctrines of grace, to be an exceptionally useful addition to their education?

Dr. Craig is well aware of our desire to engage these subjects. Though we have never met, we know many of the same people, and I have been told, “through channels,” that “Dr. Craig does not debate Christians.” This is the same response you will get from Norman Geisler as well, when the topic comes up as to why he has declined a dozen such challenges over the past decade. I have never been given an explanation of why this is. We are both debaters. We have both debated many of the same people. We have just done so in very different ways, and it would be greatly edifying for the Christian community as a whole to understand the why’s and wherefore’s of those differences. We have both shown that we can debate fairly, fully, and respectfully. So I see absolutely no reason why Dr. Craig will not accept our challenge to engage these topics. We certainly stand ready, and given that the atheists are running for the hills with their hair on fire, it seems Dr. Craig would have plenty of extra time to join us in exploring, via debate, these important apologetic issues.

William Lane Craig scaring off debate opponents

Via Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready To Debate, But Finds Few Challengers:

American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.

This month president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.”

By “debating style” I think she meant “annihilates bad atheistic philosophy.”  Seriously, did she not realize who he was and how he debated before accepting the original terms?  Could she be more specific about her objections?  Does he yell, swear, make personal attacks, etc.?

Lane Craig, who is a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., and author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles, is no stranger to the art of debate and has taken on some of the great orators, such as famous atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.

Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: “These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there’s no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies.”

They prefer classroom, media and government monopolies where others can’t have the microphone and/or are afraid to lose grades, funding or careers.

But David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, believes the reason behind the cancellation is much simpler.

“The fact is some people get tired of debating Christians because of the same arguments over and over again. And sometimes it’s a lot like arguing with a wall,” he said.

Hmmmm . . . isn’t that an argument that Craig could have made if he chickened out of a debate?  Would atheists have accepted that excuse?  And that wasn’t Toynbee’s published excuse, so why is he making up one for her?

Others have refused to challenge Lane Craig, too, including Richard Dawkins, one of the Four Horseman of the new Atheist movement, which include Hitchens, Harris and Daniel Dennett.

Dawkins, who has labeled the Roman Catholic Church “evil” and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock,” refused four separate invitations, extended through religious and humanist organizations, to take part in debates with Lane Craig during his fall tour.

The controversy wafted into the British press after fellow atheist and philosophy lecturer, Daniel Came, accused Dawkins of simply being afraid, saying, “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.”

Dawkins responded by saying, “I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion.”

Ouch — even atheists are calling Dawkins a coward!  And again, isn’t Dawkins’ excuse a one-size-fits-all that either side could use?  What is his evidence that Craig’s debates are about selfish promotion and Dawkins’ books and interviews are all about helping mankind?  Dawkins is a professional atheist and a debate with Craig would be exactly what you’d expect someone like him to participate in.

Dawkins’ problem is that he can’t go three sentences without contradicting his worldview, and people like Craig are really good at pointing that out.  Example: Dawkins acts like the (falsely claimed) self-promotion angle would be a bad thing.  But in a Darwinian world, what would be more logical than a drive for self-promotion?  Shouldn’t Dawkins use that as evidence for his position?

Roundup

I love polar bears.  My all-time favorite zoo exhibits are those of the polar bears at the Tulsa and Central Park zoos.

But if you’ve ever seen this photo, please know that it was Photo Shopped and used to manipulate you.  Polar bear figures are up, but thanks for your concern.

Ironically, the photo was originally used in a piece preaching about how assaults on climate science are really bad.  Seems to me that their worst assaults have been their self-inflicted frauds.  Hat tip: Red State

P.S. The false-gospel preachers over at Sojourners used a similar picture and won an award for their errors.

Terrific link of responses to (alleged) Bible discrepancies — got this from Lone Wolf Archer — thanks!  I added it to the Apologetics links to the right as well.

Of all the challenges to a Christian’s faith, surely one of the most troubling in this day and age is skepticism’s charge that the Bible is filled with various discrepancies and contradictions. If true, such a charge (which is occurring with increasing frequency) certainly would serve to negate the inerrancy and inspiration of God’s Word. It is a simple matter for an unbeliever to hurl a barrage of alleged discrepancies and/or contradictions at a believer, but it is not always a simple task for the believer to respond quickly and effectively. This is the case because many of the so-called discrepancies and contradictions cannot be answered adequately via a “quick wave of the hand,” but instead require in-depth, painstaking research in order to craft a reply that can dismantle each one on a case-by-case basis.

Many people will mention concerns about all the “discrepancies” in the Bible but if you just ask politely, “What are your top 3?,” they’ll glaze over.  They’ve just heard it so many times they take it as truth.

Or they might have a specific objection from the Big Book of Atheist Sound Bites or something that is an authentic concern for them.  The test there is to give a thorough explanation.  If they concede valid points and seem to reconsider their overall stance, then keep engaging them.  If they can’t refute your points and just jump to the next objection, then it is pearl holding / dust shaking time.

William Lane Craig reponds to the arguments of the New Atheists

Some beautiful thoughts on Christian marriage by Stan.

Your organs aren’t really yours — So, are you comfortable letting the government decide when you are done with your organs?

Summary of recent thoughts on Arizona’s illegal immigration law:

  • From the “I can’t believe I have to explain this” category, the law doesn’t discriminate against Hispanics, it discriminates against criminals.  And that is the good kind of discrimination.
  • Most of the critics don’t understand the law at all and make all sorts of false claims about it.
  • It was a brilliant move on Arizona’s part: Both current and future illegal aliens will go to other states whether the law is enforced or not.
  • Hey states boycotting Arizona: Are you volunteering to take all the illegals yourselves?  Arizona would love that.  Let them know where to send them.
  • Challenge for those protesting the law: Go to Mexico (or anywhere else, for that matter) without documentation and demand free food, clothing, education and health care.  I’ll wait here.
  • Hey Los (Phoenix) Suns: Are you offering free admission, t-shirts and concessions to everyone?  Why not, are you Nazis or something?
  • Do Jim Wallis and other false gospel-teaching Sojourners writers care if people plagiarize their work?  After all, it doesn’t really “belong” to the authors, does it?  Shouldn’t they have to share with anyone and everyone who wants it?
  • Amazingly, even with the media distortions about what the bill really says, 49% of Democrats say they’d favor a similar law in their states.  Those racists!

More neo-Darwinian tautologies (“Neo-Darwinian evolution is true, or Neo-Darwinian evolution is true”).  Just more bedtime stories they give until they can think of a better one.

I wish I had a nickel for every statement of evolutionary certainty that later had to be dropped. Carl Zimmer’s recent piece on how eukaryotes are supposed to have evolved quotes Eugene Koonin as stating that “it is certain” that a long time ago, in a warm pond far far away, two cells (an archaea and a bacteria) symbiotically merged to form the first eukaryote. The rest, as they say, was history, as from that humble eukaryote sprung everything from the trilobite to the tyrannosaurus.

This is too easy. Now, less than a year later, evolutionists have switched it round yet again. New ground-breaking research, published in the elite journal Nature, now says the fusion story is out and common descent is in.

For you baseball fans, here is Will Ferrell’s minor league pitching debut.

Roundup

Simple and important reminder by Mike that we shouldn’t just pray for people, we should pray with them.

After talking with Shirley for about 5 minutes or so, and as I saw the tears in her eyes, I asked Shirley if I could pray with her. Not simply FOR her, but WITH her. She nodded her head and held her hands to her face, shielding me from her now-falling tears. I prayed a short prayer right there in the restaurant with her, and when I finished she wrapped her arms around me, put her head on my shoulders, and cried. And cried, and cried, and cried. I didn’t know what to say, so I said nothing. I just comforted Shirley for those few raw moments. Neither of us seemed to care much about whatever else was going on around us.

Read it all.

It occurred to me that Obama is “That 70’s President,” deftly combining the bad ideas and ineffectiveness of Carter with the ethics and paranoia of Nixon.  Just sayin’.

William Lane Craig debates radical skeptics on the resurrection of Jesus — great apologetics post, as usual, by the Wintery Knight.

Australia considers bill to criminalize free speech by Christians — as I often say, coming soon to a country near you.

Check out some of the sample articles of Salvo, a phenomenal magazine.  Great content and presentation on key issues of day.  I think it targets college aged / 20’s types but could be of interest to anyone.

The abortionist and his #1 foe — Late-term abortionist Larry Carhhart and pro-lifer Troy Newman are analyzed. CNN owes me a new irony meter, because these quotes broke it:

He glances at the poster of [murdered late-term abortionist George] Tiller. “I don’t want his death to be in vain.”

“I have abortion on the front of this building, because I think abortion isn’t a four-letter word. It’s a part of life.”

Tomorrow, just before and after performing abortions, Carhart will pray at the bedside of his patients.

And did I miss it, or did CNN fail to mention the pesky fact about the pro-lifer who was recently murdered?

This quote makes more sense:

What part of wanting to save a baby’s life is so bad that it makes people hate me?
–Troy Newman

The answer is that abortion makes a lot of money for some people and gives a false illusion of sexual freedom and equality for others.

(Hat tip: Theobromophile)

Are abortion proponents smarter than a 2nd-grader? (um, no)