"Faith" Inspired Violence?

The claim comes as officials in different branches of law enforcement and the military squabble over who knew what when about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's leanings toward faith-inspired violence, ...

The above quote was taken from here.

It seems journalists need to either coin a new term or be more specific when they use the term "faith". For example, Hasan conducted this violence while living apart from true faith (i.e., it was NOT faith inspired violence, but "faith-less" violence) and thus to refer to it as "faith-inspired" violence is misleading in that it can suggest the horrible acts were carried out in the name of faith (as opposed to what society considers those "without faith"). Sure, some will suggest Hasan still this this based on his "faith", though it be in Allah rather than Yahweh. While the latter is true, it should also be noted that everyone exercises faith on some level (even atheists), so the term is not helpful unless the object of the person's faith is qualified. This point is all the more important in a day where "anti-religion" or "anti-faith" sentiments are expressed and distinguished in the media.

click here to see full post and any posted comments...

Recommended Books for Christain Apologetics

Brian at Apologetics 315 (blog) has published a list of recommended apologetics. You may see the list here.

Thanks to Brian for doing this.

click here to see full post and any posted comments...

A Christian Skeptic Reviews - The Fourth Kind

Link here - excellent review

click here to see full post and any posted comments...

Scientists ... in all seriousness

But the difficulties faced by those working on the project have prompted some members of the scientific community to speculate, in all seriousness, that the machine is sabotaging itself — from the future.

Let all our friends who declare to us that scientists always deal with "the rational" take a look at Large Hadron Collider Halted By Bird Crumbs where the above quote is found. It's the phrase "in all seriousness" that I draw attention to, for while this quite possibly or even likely was the addition of the writer, I suspect by the wording there is more behind this than meets the eye.

It should be noted that if it's only evidence scientists look to, then the "bit of baguette" was responsible. But what a leap to suggest the machine is sabatoging itself! While I do not doubt the things which have occured have done so within the providence of God, it's another thing for scientists to suggest a machine is sabatoging itself - from the future. ... And those who proclaim scientism is the answer to all suggest believers are irrational (when it comes to faith)?

click here to see full post and any posted comments...

Invitation to Atheists (and Consistency, please)

In Stand up, stand up, against Jesus, Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk state the following:

Surely the claims of religion — of all religions — merit scrutiny from every angle, whether historical, philosophical, scientific, or any other.

It's WONDERFUL to see atheists admitting this, now if you will just do it! We invite you to do so.

However, the authors then go on to state:

As atheists, we should state clearly that no religion has any rational warrant, ...

Are we now to assume that they have done what they previously suggested? I doubt it. Like others, they seem quick to declare one thing, but then render an unsubstantiated assertion. Wouldn't it be great if they actually did what they declared, for think of the many former atheists who did just that ... and set out to try to prove biblical Christianity false but were converted in the process!

Sure, anyone can find fallacies among the ignorant, or uninformed, or those blinded by their sin & persuasions, etc., but it's something altogether different when one examines the rationality of biblical Christianity.

click here to see full post and any posted comments...

Unbelievers Are Without Excuse

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 1:18-20)

When liberalism, pluralism, and emerging theology speak of the greatness of God as being too much for the human mind to understand, do not think for a second that they are giving any honor to God. They do just the opposite, for they render God as weak and powerless, unable to make Himself understood in any adequate way to His own creation. For example:

"Bahá'u'lláh taught that God is too great and too subtle a Being for the finite human mind ever to understand Him adequately or to construct an accurate image of Him." (From The Bahá'í Concept of God)

This is a self-refuting statement, for how did the mind of Bahá'u'lláh manage to understand this, and how accurate can his image of God be? If this statement were true, then

1.) We could never know it to be true, and
2.) We would have no reason to listen to anything Bahá'u'lláh says about God.

This is what happens when the Holy Scriptures are rejected as God's revelation of Himself. Once someone makes any kind of statement about God, they are acknowledging that He can be known, is known, and that the unbeliever is without excuse.

click here to see full post and any posted comments...

CBN Video Warning Anti-Christian Attitude & Practices Coming to America

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=9425

Video warns of anti-Christian attitudes & practices coming to America.
Note the inclusion of a reference to the passing of the "hate crimes" legislation.

click here to see full post and any posted comments...

CS Response to Austin Dacey post (The secularist case against '"Atheism 3.0")

Read the article here.
Let me begin by saying I'm not surprised to see an article come out on this subject and to come out so soon, for people realize that when there's a fire in one's own kitchen, you better try to put it out quick. Atheism 3.0 is a division within the atheist camp (over whether religion is the enemy New Atheism touts it be, or not) and the last thing atheists want to division within their ranks, the need to have to defend their positions even against their own, and for the platform where they have kept their high horse to be taken from them and controlled by others.

This being said, let me simply address the issue Dacy raises in his post under the header "A secular conversation-starter". He states "I don't go after God. Why go after God when you can come before him? I argue that the free individual conscience comes first, before God, before society. Conscience cannot be found in duty to God, for it is conscience that must judge where one's duty lies. The commitment to the free conscience, and to the open society that makes space for it--this is secularism." In response, I point out that by asserting that conscience comes before God, Dacey falsely presumes that man is not subject to God to begin with. While one might argue either way, let examine Dacey's claim. If man's conscience is "free" as Dacey puts it, then 1) Man could be free to "do anything", 2) Society would be wrong to condemn man if indeed his conscience comes "before society", 3) Man should not be subject to consequences (though he is), 4) There's no need for secularism to be committed to standing for the "free conscience" if indeed the conscience is free. Besides this, is the conscience equipped with it's own irrefutable and unquestionable foundation and basis for morality and ethics? If not, then one must follow the line of questioning of where such a standard comes from, and where that comes from, etc. It seems, Dacey makes the same mistake of others in the past who falsely suggest that man is in a position to be the ultimate arbiter of truth and morality and who want men to live and do as he sees fit in his own eyes.

It's a good thing secularists are not the ones running the bookstore, or you might find the philosophy and science sections trying to be their own bookstore(s)which stand on their own, but soon being found to be bankrupt!

click here to see full post and any posted comments...

First U.S. Army Buddhist Chaplain's Foundational Beliefs Shown to Be Impractical

Although his faith is grounded in pacifism, the 43-year-old Dyer says war has become a necessary part of peace. "My teacher has concluded that without the military, without civil protection, the world would enter into a very dark place very quickly,"

The above quote from U.S. Army Sending First Buddhist Chaplain to Iraq reveals the impractical nature of foundational beliefs associated with pascivism in a world full of sin and depravity.

Another example of where the Bible speaks truth (and is proven over time) where others have been given to false beliefs and practices which do not mesh with the real world.

While his Christian colleagues may respect his freedom to serve, that does not mean respect is in order for all the beliefs he brings. Military personnel should not confuse issues of freedoms and professionalism with issues of truth and falsehood.

click here to see full post and any posted comments...