This was the formal Muslim-Christian Debate held at UC Davis on November 30, 2006. Ali Ataie and Michael Licona debate whether Jesus Christ was resurrected or rescued.
NOTE: This youtube player is setup with a playlist for all 14 parts of the debate. The playlist will pop up whenever a video finishes or whenever you move you mouse across the bottom of the video area. You can select what ever part of the debate you want to watch with this playlist feature. Enjoy!
then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.”
So, when you want to choose sides for this election in November, which of these choices above will you favor on your ballot? Will you pick both? Or only one? Here are some comments from an OPC pastor on the logic of some in my generation who are choosing to walk down a certain liberal path…
Jesse Pirschel, pastor of Providence OPC in Temecula, CA, vented some frustration about the “logic†of recent political discourse:
I just wonder if the recent trend in the “young†church going DNC on issues (and I am not a republican, but far from a democrat) is really that well thought out. For instance, are we really saying it’s not the governments job to prevent murder but on the other hand it is their job to protect the environment, give to the poor, supply health care, save for my retirement and educate my kids?
Now help me with the logic. We can’t legislate morality on one issue, but must shove it down the throat on every other issue? Why is it the government’s moral duty to give me insurance and send my kids to school but not protect them if I want to kill them prior to them leaving the womb?
Or how is it we can give up that issue because the church should stop murder, but still expect programs to be extended by the government to feed the poor? Please tell me how things got so backwards in our thinking to come to this?
[HT: James Grant]
Well, I can hardly believe that Obama did what he did tonight in his DNC acceptance speech… But with everything I’ve seen so far, I cannot say that I’m too surprised. For starters, I would like to point out two very important references that Obama made during and at the end of his acceptance speech. I quote from Collin Hansen over at the Christianity Today Live Blog regarding “Obama’s Code Language“:
Obama’s Code Language
Democratic nominee borrows from New Testament
By: Collin HansenI doubt any commentators will accuse Sen. Barack Obama of using religious code language in his acceptance speech. Yet two famous New Testament passages made an appearance. As is typical of civil religion today, God was replaced by the “American promise.”
“Instead, it is that American spirit – that American promise – that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend,” Obama said, borrowing from 2 Corinthians 4:18.
Obama then concluded his remarks this way: “Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.”
This statement comes from Hebrews 10:23. But the context of this passage explains something far more beautiful than the American promise. “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:19-22).
This is truly to most ironic part about the whole Speech. Though every thinking Christian should realize that Obama is promoting the idolatry of “the American Dream”, I would like to point out that, based on one of my previous posts, the subsequent verses of Hebrews chapter 10 that follow verse 23 apply directly to Barack Obama and his apostasy from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
The verse in Hebrews that he quoted was talking about holding fast to our confession of Christ as Lord and Messiah, not the American Dream! I wonder what people would think if he continued to quote the passage? I wonder if the speech write even bothered to read the context of the verse or if he just Googled it in from an online Bible and a vague memory he had about the wording of that particular sentence?
So, for those of you thinking about it now… here is the passage in full from verse 23 to verse 31:
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.†And again, “The Lord will judge his people.†31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
So, you decide now who you will vote for in the November election. These are just some crucial thoughts we need to be having as Christians who are citizens in this great land of freedom and liberty and justice for all. Does Obama’s speech convince you of something? Talk back to me about it in the comments.
In Christ and In Defense of the Faith,
Glenn Jones
“You shall not kill the child by obtaining an abortion. Nor, again, shall you destroy him after he is born.†(Barnabas, 70-80 AD, 1.148)
“You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one who has been born.†(The Didache, 80-140 AD, 1.377)
“We say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder. And we also say that we will have to give an account to God for the abortion.†(Athenagoras, 175 AD, 2.147)
“In our case, murder is once for all forbidden. Therefore, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier way to kill a human. It does not matter whether you take away a life that has been born or destroy one that is not yet born.†(Tertullian, 197 AD, 3.26)
“Indeed, the Law of Moses punishes with appropriate penalties the person who causes abortion. For there already exists the beginning stages of a human being. And even at this stage, [the fetus] is already acknowledged with having the condition of life and death, since he is already susceptible to both.†(Tertullian, 210 AD, 3.218)
“Are you to dissolve the conception by aid of drugs? I believe it is no more lawful to hurt a child in process of birth, than to hurt one who is already born.†(Tertullian, 212 AD, 4.57)
“There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels. So they commit murder before they bring forth.†(Mark Minucius Felix, 200AD, 4.192)
“The womb of his wife was hit by a blow of his heel. And, in the miscarriage that soon followed, the offspring was brought forth, the fruit of a father’s murder.†(Cyprian, 250AD, 5.326)
“The soul is not introduced into the body after birth, as some philosophers think. Rather, it is introduced immediately after conception, when the divine necessity has formed the offspring in the womb.†(Lactantius, 304-313AD, 7.297)
“You shall not slay your child by causing abortion, nor kill the baby that is born.†(Apostolic Constitutions, 390 AD, 7.466)
[HT: James Grant]
[HT: David Wood]
Well, I don’t care what he says about himself being a “Christian”. Barack Obama is not a faithful Christian and therefore an apostate. This man is twisting ever which way to gain Evangelical and Catholic voters, but if people merely read his interviews about his faith and know what denomination he originates from, faithful Christians will know that he’s a universalist and does not believe in hell and questions the reality of an afterlife. To put it simply, Barack Obama is a practical atheist.
Check out this Baptist Press article for some further details. If you don’t want an atheist as your president, you know what to do this coming election. 🙂
Notice the dichotomy that Miller brings to the forefront by claiming the Bible is a spiritual document and therefore cannot address scientific ideas. This may seem true at first glance, but it is only a bad ploy that many evolutionists use to snuff out the Bible’s claims about the creation account. It is true that the Bible is not a sciencetific document and that the Bible is not trying to give scientific details about the creation. BUT, please note the BUT…
The Bible is an historical document. This is very important for people to understand. If we do not ackowledge that the Bible records accurate historical material about the creation account, then where does that leave us with the rest of the 66 books of the Bible? You don’t have to be a scienctist to record the fact that God made the world in 6 days… I mean, come on people!
On the point of creation/evolution, the Bible has much to say about this in terms of the historical record. Both modern evolution and Biblical creationism are addressing the issue of history and where man came from. Therefore, on that point, the two must either agree or one of the two be proven wrong and thus a lie.
If evolution is true, then man is not made in God’s image. If evolution is true, then we humans are not special creatures made to rule the creation by reflecting God’s glory into it.
Here’s the video:
[HT: Christendom]
Tonight, I just finished watching the PBS Nova special on the Dover School Board controversy over Intelligent Design and Evolution. It is called “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” if you want to search for it online.
The most amazing thing about the whole show was the glaring BIAS that Nova had for the whole controversy and the very good, but extremely BAD, acting that they portrayed in the trial reenactments at the courthouse where the controversy took place most noticeably. In other words, Nova made the Intelligent Design proponents look like goof balls and the Evolutionary proponents look like saints and eloquent speakers who had everything figured out to a tee.
This is just plain silly. And Nova knows that the controversy is so much bigger than this. So much so that they had to make the Intelligent Design viewpoint look like inconsistent, Muslim terrorists in order to make their case (and make themselves feel better). 🙂
In the end, they still did nothing but preach to the choir and try to make the uninformed members of the choir feel more fear and worry about the whole situation than they already felt before the broadcast.
If Nova really wants the respect of non-Evolutionary sympathisers and proponents… then they are just going to have to do a better job in the future. Nova needs to stop their fear mongering and start talking about important things… like the reason why Evolution has been around as popular science for ONLY 150 years and not longer. The point being… yes, Evolution has helped us understand some things better. But it’s search for the “origin” of species, ad infinitum, will never come to a concrete answer because the history records show that God created all creatures according to their OWN KIND. This implies that the links between animals is not a tree of common descent, but a web of common structures built by their Creator God who sought to reveal His glory in and through the whole creation.
In my opinion, the more important topic of study is Baraminology, the study of animal kinds. This field of science that studied animals WITHOUT respect to “common descent” theories of Evolution. This is the type of tried and true science that has been done for millennia, seeking to understand God’s creation that reveals more about Him and His goodness, greatness, and power. The honest truth is that all the great scientists of old who made great advancements and achievements and who helped us better understand the world we live in today… they all believed in a Creator God and sought to think His thoughts after Him and discover the glory of His creation.
Nova’s problem is not its failure to see the fallacies within Evolutionary theory. Instead, Nova’s problem is its failure to glorify God in all things. If Nova desired to think God’s thoughts after Him and to understand His creation in order to better understand and enjoy God… well… things would be a whole lot different now wouldn’t they? 🙂
Enough of the commentary. Enjoy your week and seek first God’s Kingdom and His righteousness and all these other things will become clear in their own time.
In Christ and In Defense of the Faith,
[HT: Uncommon Descent]
