Ten Questions for a Secularist Wednesday, Feb 29 2012 

1. What is your answer to the Pre-Socratic era of Greek Philosophy, and Zeno’s Paradox? Zeno of Elea (490-430 B.C.) brought the Pre Socratic era to a close with his devastating arguments against sensation, space and motion. First, was his famous Paradox. To be brief, Zeno’s argument, in essence, is that in order for Achilles to move from point A to point B he must come at least half the space. If so then he has to come at least a tenth; a hundredth; a millionth, etc.  He must pass through an infinite number of points in a finite segment. Motion is therefore impossible and space is indefinable. (The essence of his argument is not a relation of motion to time but the impossibility of exhausting an infinite series. Neither is his argument that Achilles has to exhaust the series to the last point for there is no last point. Also, one cannot divide an infinite series. To do so one must assume that the object in motion stops in mid-motion to create a mid-point. The mid-point then is only potential and not actual. I admit that it is possible to exhaust an infinite series of potential points, but not actual points. Also, you cannot appeal to imaginary, indemonstrable units of measurement like Plank Units to answer this paradox.) In a further complaint against the concept of space, Zeno argued that if atoms and motion required space there must also be super-space for space to exist in and another super-space for that, ad infinitum. Zeno also refuted the idea of sensation in the Atomistic system which denied qualities to atoms. In an exposition of Zeno’s criticism of Democritus’ Atomism (Later to dominate the Scientific Revolution) Dr. Clark says,

“When an ocean wave ‘thunders’ against the rocks, no atom produces an audible sensation; but the wave is nothing but atoms; therefore, it produces no sound.” (Ancient Philosophy, 272)

This failure to construct a material/corporeal reality was the formal cause of the atheistic Sophist movement that immediately followed. Protagoras’ Man Measure Theory was the new fad and the idea of truth was buried as impossibility. If Zeno cannot be refuted, the entire Anti-Christian scientific secular enterprise is impossible to demonstrate and should be removed from the category of demonstration and kept in the category of operation.

The Christian answer to the Pre-Socratics is found in Saint Augustine’s Book Concerning the Teacher, where he admits the impossibility of empirical knowledge and asserts that knowledge comes from the Second Person of the Trinity (The Teacher): an immediate and uncreated revealed light.

2. How did science recover from the second refutation of atomism (Zeno produced the first) in the 1930s, namely the splitting of the atom? This question is by no means intended to question the existence of atoms. Atomism is a philosophy of reality developed early in Greek philosophy primarily by Democritus to buttress the possibility of corporeal unchanging objects of knowledge. If you want to say something that means the same thing 5 minutes after you say it you need something changeless through qualitative change. My question hits at science’s objects of knowledge. What are they now, post-split? The question has to do with the nature of reality and the objects of knowledge.

3. How can the planet earth qualify for the laws of physics since it is not in uniform motion?

4. How do you explain the universe? Dr. Clark in an exposition of Parmenides presents an ancient dilemma for all philosophies saying,

“Being cannot have originated or come into being. It cannot have come from non-being, for non-being never has existed for anything to come from it. Nor can Being have come from Being, for Being is Being without any coming. Therefore origination is impossible and Being is eternal, immutable, and changeless.” (Ancient Philosophy, 269)

The Christian answer is found in the Trinitarian debate with the Arians where Athanasius distinguishes between God’s nature and God’s will. How do you answer this?

5. How do you define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas?

6. What language should we use to talk about the material world? Mary Louise Gill refuted all attempts made to provide a theory of individuation in Aristotle (Making Logic [The Law of Contradiction] impossible; thus making language impossible.) in her article: “Individuals and Individuation in Aristotle” (Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).

i. If we take matter to be the principle of individuation how do we individuate one unit of matter from another? Some will say, “the spatio-temporal location”. Yet this is circular. How do we individuate spatio-temporal locations? By the matter contained in that space. So the matter is individuated by the space and the space by the matter.

ii. Some have tried to use matter and quantity as the principle of individuation. Gill replies, “this criterion will not work for identical twins, two drafts of water from the same fountain, or Max Black’s pair of spheres, which have qualitatively identical matter.” (pg. 62)

iii. Another attempt has made material continuity the principle of individuation. Gill speaks to this issue on page 66,

“If two statues of Socrates are made out of the same bronze at different times, the statues are distinct because the time during which the matter constitutes the two is interrupted. In the interval the bronze survives the destruction of the first statue and the generation of the second…If this is Aristotle’s answer to the puzzle about material migration, then continuity of matter is not sufficient even to account for weak individuation. Continuity of time is also required.”

iv. Some have tried to use form as the principle of individuation. Gill replies,

“But it is not very good evidence…Some defenders of the thesis will respond that the forms of Callias and Socrates differ because they are realized in different parcels of matter. But then form is not after all the principle of individuation, since the matter, rather than the form, differentiates the particulars.” (pg. 68-69)

7. How the philosophy of science known as Operationalism (My position as a Protestant Christian) would eliminate the possibility of utility in the different fields of science?

8. If all knowledge comes through sensation, and if behavior and genetic progression is caused by universal laws, why is it that humans (Whose sensory capacity is often inferior to other creatures) are the only species that has the rational capacity to have written language, grammar books, dictionaries and mathematics, etc.? This was the fundamental problem Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913 A.D.) faced. He was a British Naturalist who proposed the first theory of natural selection that Darwin, a colleague through correspondence, praised and used to promote his own theory of natural selection. In the year 1858, Wallace was thoroughly convinced of natural selection. In 1861 he wrote a letter to his brother-in-law, stating his utter disbelief in God and the soul stating they were not beliefs from “intelligent conviction”. However, Wallace began studying Spiritualism in 1865 and soon after rejected the theory of Natural Selection. Outside of the racist implications of the theory which Wallace was very troubled by, Wallace argued that natural selection could not explain a number of phenomenon in the world and Darwin was quite distressed by it.

9. Do you have a complete theory? Traditionally, human Philosophy is divided into 4 main heads: 1. Metaphysics (Theory of Reality-Includes the Philosophy of Science) 2. Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge- Includes the Philosophy of Language) 3. Ethics 4. Politics (Includes a Philosophy of History). As a Protestant Christian, with the writings of Early Greek Christian Fathers, Protestants like Gordon H. Clark, the Protestant Westminster Assembly (1640s) and the accompanying Political Revolutions that Presbyterianism produced (The exposing of the tyranny of Roman Catholicism [Which has again been openly vindicated by their cruel and unforgivable protection of child predators in America in the last 10-15 years], the refutation of the Divine Right of Kings, and the affirmation of representative rule: that rulers must have the consent of the people to rule lawfully through lawful elections-per Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex) I have a complete Philosophy to guide, protect, progress and unify a human civilization. Our country is fragmented into thousands of confused pieces. We live in a nation that has no clue what to believe and its politicians deceive the people as they argue over arbitrary tastes and opinions with no absolute objective standard of law (Protestant Absolutism) to appeal to. This has left the door wide open for the Roman Catholic Church (Tyrannical Absolutism) to once again gain influence in our country. This leads to my next question.

10. How you are going to unify the American people in an effort to remove the Roman Catholic Church from our country? The Roman Catholic Church with its Jesuit Assassins has been kicked out of dozens of countries in the past few centuries for political intrigue and attempts to overthrow these nations’ governments. They are doing the same thing again, as their Roman Catholic, once Professor at the Jesuit Georgetown University, Viet Diem wrote his tyrannical Patriot Act which was passed by that Papal coadjutor George W. Bush. This legislation basically overturns Basic Human Rights that have been acknowledged in both The United Kingdom and the US for over 300 years. Right before our war of Independence we had the Great Awakenings, which were Protestant Christian religious revivals. This was important to identify what King George was up to with his Papal coadjutating Intolerable Acts, which clearly revealed to colonialists (Now revived by Protestant principles) that he had been bought by Rome; especially his Quebec Act. Protestant revivals provided the unifying energy to overcome Roman Catholic tyranny over 200 years ago in our country. Do you seriously believe that Secularism is going to do this for our country? If you cannot provide a principle of unification for our country, you should again see how inhuman it is. How are you not taking us back to the dark ages? Also, if you take Bart Ehrman’s criticisms of the New Testament how is this not a complete denial of human literature and historiography in toto?

The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Chapter 2 Reply; Pagan Synchronistic Arguments Tuesday, Feb 28 2012 

 

The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought? by Ronald Nash

The Origin of Paul’s Religion By John Gresham Machen

Ron Paul is Wrong! Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich on Pre-Emptive War; My Original Accusation Against Ron Paul Vindicated Tuesday, Feb 28 2012 

A few weeks ago I wrote an article titled A Protestant Theory of War, based on the work of Alexander Mcleod. I was originally rebuking Ron Paul for his isolationism but some readers of mine confused me with some inconsistencies in Ron Paul’s positions and I removed the rebuke. That was a mistake because I ended up being right. In this video from 16:30 to around 18minutes of a recent presidential debate Ron Paul vindicates my original rebuke of his views:

At 16:40 Ron Paul clearly calls preventive war, aggressive war.  That is not the Protestant Theory. It is not biblical. The Bible clearly affirms preventive war. The Protestant view agrees with Newt Gingrich, at 17:40 that there are moments when you pre-empt.  However, his justification was not technically correct. Newt says that if a ruler gets weapons and intends to use weapons we have a right to invade him. WRONG! The Protestant theory as described by Mcleod, in my recent article A Protestant Theory of War, finds both Ron Paul’s view and Gingrich’s view to be erroneous extremes. Mcleod shows David conducting pre-emptive-preventative war in 1 Chron 19 and 2 Sam 10. David’s war was not waged to stop a man from having the power to kill people with strong weapons. The issue was, David had strong evidence that King Nahash WAS PREPARING TO ATTACK HIM! It was preventative self-defense not policing the world thus Gingrich is wrong as well.

John Loftus and his Side-kick Articulett Continue to Dodge Issues and Have to Resort to Insults and Finnally Kicking Me off his Blog Monday, Feb 27 2012 

In a recent post I asked John Loftus 8 simple questions:

1. Your answer to the Pre-Socratic era and Zeno’s paradox?

2. How science recovered from the second refutation of atomism in the 1930s, namely the splitting of the atom?

3. How the earth can qualify for the laws of physics since it is not in uniform motion?

4. How you get around the inconsistency of general relativity’s relationship to mechanics and electro magnetism?

5. How the philosophy of science known as operationalism would eliminate the possibility of utility in the different fields of science?

6. How you are going to unify the American people in an effort to remove the Roman Catholic Church from our country (assuming you are american)? If you can’t how are you not taking us back to pre-common era times? Also, if you take Bart Ehrman’s criticisms of the new testament how is this not a complete denial of human literature and historiography in toto?

7. How you explain the universe: Dr. Clark in an exposition of Parmenides presents an ancient dilemma for all philosophies saying,

“Being cannot have originated or come into being. It cannot have come from non-being, for non-being never has existed for anything to come from it. Nor can Being have come from Being, for Being is Being without any coming. Therefore origination is impossible and Being is eternal, immutable, and changeless.” (Ancient Philosophy, 269)

How do you answer this?

8. How do you define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas?

…Answer the questions John or stop posing like you are a truth seeker.

Loftus replied:

Drake, I can and I have

[citing his book Why I Became an Atheist]

It is you who are not interested in the truth.

[citing an article that had nothing to do with my questions]

I replied

So you are saying that your book Why I Became an Atheist answers my 8 questions? You have a section on Zeno, Parmenides, how the earth qualifies for the Laws of Physics, etc. or is this just another diversion from the questions?

“it is you who are not interested in the truth. See this:”

Not a single word about Zeno, not a single word about Parmenides or the Pre-Socratics or the Earth’s relationship to the Laws of Physics. You are avoiding the questions John.

Articulett (John Loftus’ right hand lady replied with her own list of questions dodging my questions completely to which I reply below BECAUSE AT THIS POINT MR. LOFTUS KICKED ME OFF HIS BLOG)

“1. Why do you have invisible penises growing out of your head?”

>>>Define invisible.

“2. What new and verifiable knowledge has theism ever lead to?”

>>>Define verifiable. The propositions of scripture are demonstratedlogically from the postulate: the canon of scripture. Euclidean demonstration.

“3. If there was no such thing as souls would you want to know?”

>>>To cognate without a soul would be meaningless thus your questions is as well.

“4. Why do you believe in certain invisible beings but not others?”

>>>Define invisible. I am not denying that there is vision but I just don’t know what it is amongst many attempts to find out.

“5. Why should anyone else?”

>>>Augustine answered why there are invisible realities (maybe not persons) in his debates with the skeptics. Augustinesays in Concerning the Teacher

3.10.22

“There are two statements made by the Academicians which we decided to argue against to the best of our ability. (a) nothing can be perceived; (b) one should not assent to anything.”

3.11.25

vs. 35 “Accordingly, prove that either this inference or those disjunctions given above can be false because of sleep, madness, or the unreliability of the senses! If I remember them when I wake up, I’ll admit that I’ve been beaten. I think it’s now sufficiently clear what falsehoods seem to be so through sleep and madness, namely, those that pertain to the bodily senses. For that three times three is nine and the square of rational numbers must be true, even if the human race be snoring away!”

3.13.29

vs. 10-15 “If there are four elements in the world, there are not five. If there is only one Sun, there are not two. The same soul can’t both die and be immortal. A man can’t be simultaneously happy and miserable. It isn’t the case here that the Sun is shining and that it is night….These and many other things, which would take too long to mention, I’ve learned to be true through dialectic. They are true in themselves regardless of what condition our senses are in.”

Here we have an admission that sensation does not give knowledge. However, the rational light of the apriori structures does. Again we have here the admission of logic (Tuth: Not verifiable by thesenses; whatever those are) as innate in men and an indisputable proof of the reality of truth.

“6. Why would a loving being create a place of infinite torment?”

>>>He’s not all loving. God also hates evil (Psalm 5) and has ultimately caused evil people to exist to glorify his justice in destroying them everlastingly.

“7. If god can just poof things into existence, why all the sex? Is he into cockroach sex? Clownfish hermaphroditism? Does he watch?”

>>>God likes intimacy. The Song of Solomon was written specifically to typify the intimate relationship between Christ and the Church.

“8. Is there any theistic explanation that can explain the world better than science explains it… for example why would an intelligent designer make a mutated vitamin C gene in apes and humans but not the other mammals?

>>>You have no explanation of the physical world and neither do I. Ecclesiastes 8:17 and I saw every work of God, I concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, “I know,” he cannot discover.

That is my point. You guys originally usurped Christianity during the Enlightenment with the theory of atomism, then your own people refuted the theory and now you are 80 years removed from a full refutation of your beliefs (Actually Zeno refuted it about 2400 years ago but this more fresh version leaves you even more without excuse) and it has yet to get into your head.

Second you are confusing the categories of operation and demonstration.

“9. How do you unbrainwash people who imagine they are saved for believing stupid things and damned for doubting them?”

>>>You beg the question.

“10. What do you do with people who imagine their loaded silly questions (that they don’t really want answered and are too stupid to understand the answer to) imply something about their 3-in-1 invisible zombie god being real?

>>>I love to read atheists resorting to insults when they have no answers.

“11. Why do theists think the creator of the universe wrote such a lame book?”

>>>The prophecies:

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/textual-criticism/how-do-we-know-which-holy-book-is-the-right-one-10-arguments-for-the-divinity-of-the-christian-revelation-by-drake

“12. What are the theistic answers to your questions?”

>>>Depends on what type you are talking about. #6 is answered by a return to Protestantism. #7 I answer here: https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/making-sense-of-creation-from-what-fount-doth-creation-spring/

Augustinian Realism/Clarkian Scripturalism is based off none of these problems but proclaims a revealed knowledge and so we don’t need to answer many of these. Our doctrines are based off none of the problems involved.

“13. If people had real evidence for their supernatural beliefs wouldn’t they present that evidence so that scientists could test, refine, and hone that evidence for their own benefit instead of theists just playing endless word games that obfuscate the situation just enough for them to keep believing their sky fairy is really really real?”

>>>WE already have with the revealed prophecies. The best your people have done is say that the book of Daniel was written after the fact which many Church Fathers and Archer ripped to shreds already:

https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/the-dating-of-the-book-of-daniel-the-conservative-theory-defended-the-liberal-maccabean-theory-refuted-in-gleason-archer-ed-drake/

“14. Why should anyone not threatened by the fear of hell believe in your god (or any god)? What sort of god punishes people for not “believing in him” anyway? That sounds like a man-made god to me.

>>>The prophecies. A God who hates and punishes evil

“15. Why does god answer prayers identically to a milk jug?”

>>What?

The strange thing was, his forum was actually impressed by these replies. Unfortunately, John kicked me off the blog at this point. I don’t think people realize how much confidence they give me when they cannot answer my questions or arguments and resort to insults and/or kicking me off their blogs. This has happened numerous times with the Scholastic Deformed and now the atheists are doing it as well. Don’t they understand that this makes me even more Philosophically Bloodthirsty?

One gentleman was actually brave enough to answer the 8 questions:

“I asked 8 questions which you people cannot answer”

Well, some of your questions cannot be answered because they are semantic nonsense, the ones that are actually intelligible are leading questions that illustrate your abysmal understanding of physics.”

>>>I got them straight from the mouth of a popular secular Physicist Richard Wolfson.

“1. Your answer to the pre-socratic era and Zeno’s paradox?”

This questions makes as much sense as “How do you answer to the swinging sixties ?”

>>>Oh, I love it. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

“2. How science recovered from the second refutation of atomism in the 1930s, namely the splitting of the atom?”

=> What has been shown is that atoms are not fundamental particles, this does not disproof the notion that fundamental particles do exist. Maybe the current fundamental particles in the standard model of particle physics are actually composed out of smaller particles – but even if this is the case, why should we care ? The standard model of particle physics does describe reality to an amazing degree of accuracy (should the Higgs-Boson actually be found, this would be a spectacular validation of this model) and this (describing reality) is all that science cares about.”

>>> You didn’t understand the question. Atomism is a philosophy of reality developed early in Greek philosophy primarily by Democritus to buttress the possibility of unchanging objects of knowledge. If you want to say something that means the same thing 5 minutes after you say it you need something changeless through qualitative change. My question hits at science’s objects of knowledge. What are they now, post-split? My question had nothing to do with whether or not atoms exist now. The question has to do with the nature of reality and the objects of knowledge.

“3. How the earth can qualify for the laws of physics since it is not in uniform motion? ”

=> Again, grammatically correct but semantic nonsense. Were you homeshooled in physics ? Do you even know what uniform motion is?”

>>>Dude, I got the argument from Wolfson, a well known Secular Physics Professor.  I am sure these issues are terrifying for you but OTF man OTF.

“4. How you get around the inconsistency of general relativity’s relationship to mechanics and electro magnetism? ”

=> I would guess that you are talking about quantum gravity here, but your question is far too vague to be certain (what “mechanics”  and “inconsistencies” are you even talking about?)”

>>>Listen to the video man.

“5. How the philosophy of science known as operationalism would eliminate the possibility of utility in the different fields of science? ”

=> Grammatically correct, semantic nonsense.”

>>>Do you even know what operationalism is? Do you even understand the difference between an operation and a demonstration?

“6. How you are going to unify the American people in an effort to remove the Roman Catholic Church from our country (assuming you are american)?”

=> Who wants to do that ? Why would anyone want to do that ? And what the f*** does this have to do with anything ?”

>>>Read this: https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-dynasty-of-intrigue-history-of-the-jesuits-and-rome/

“7. How you explain the universe: Dr. Clark in an exposition of Parmenides presents an ancient dilemma for all philosophies saying,”Being cannot have originated or come into being. It cannot have come from non-being, for non-being never has existed for anything to come from it. Nor can Being have come from Being, for Being is Being without any coming. Therefore origination is impossible and Being is eternal, immutable, and changeless.” (Ancient Philosophy, 269)How do you answer this?”

=> I´d answer that you can empirically show how “being” comes from “non-being”, check the wikipedia articles for “virtual particle” and the “Casimir effect”.

>>>You didn’t answer the question with either of these. The first begs the question entirely, the second is irrelevant.

“8. How do you define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas?”

=> Nobody knows, and since scientists do not yet perfectly understand how the brain works, this proves that science is completely worthless, right?”

>>>Wrong. You again confuse the categories of operation and demonstration.

Making Sense of Creation; From What Fount Doth Creation Spring? Not up to much here: Just answering the most difficult questions in the history of the world. Friday, Feb 24 2012 

Dr.  Clark in an exposition of Parmenides presents an ancient dilemma for all philosophies saying,

“Being cannot have originated or come into being. It cannot have come from non-being, for non-being never has existed for anything to come from it. Nor can Being have come from Being, for Being is Being without any coming. Therefore origination is impossible and Being is eternal, immutable, and changeless.” (Ancient Philosophy, 269)

Aristotle tried to answer this with his incomplete construction of the potential and the actual.  The Christian answer to this dilemma is in the distinction between nature and will That is, there are two types of being in God, one with reference to nature, one with reference to divine will.

Florovsky says in Creation and Redemption Vol. 3 of Collected Works (Notable and Academic Books: Belmont, MA, 1976).

“The idea of the world, God’s design and will concerning the world, is obviously eternal, but in some sense not co-eternal, and not conjointly everlasting with Him, because ‘distinct and separated,’ as it were, from His ‘essence’ by His volition. One should say rather that the Divine idea of the world is eternal by another kind of eternity than the Divine essence…The idea of the world has its basis not in the essence but in the will of God. God does not so much have as ‘think up’ the idea of creation…in perfect freedom; and it is only by virtue of this…that He as it were ‘becomes’ Creator, even though from Everlasting…any such ‘refraining’ from creation would in no way alter or impoverish the Divine nature”. pg. 56

There is no chronological sequence between nature and will, but from the direction of nature to will the Creation “becomes”. What answer does the atheist have to this dilemma? What answer do the Western Churches have, who believe in Absolute Divine Simplicity which denies ontological distinctions in God?   They have no answer.  As an appeal to the reader, it is only in consideration of the Athanasian Trinitarian God that this question is answered.

The End of Christianity, ed Loftus; Reply to Chapter 1 Wednesday, Feb 22 2012 

1. Tertullian, To His Wife 1.6, Examples of Heathens Urged as Commendatory of Widowhood and Celibacy

“But if they who have (wives) are (thus) bound to consign to oblivion what they have, how much more are they who have not, prohibited from seeking a second time what they no longer have; so that she whose husband has departed from the world should thenceforward impose rest on her sex by abstinence from marriage— abstinence which numbers of Gentile women devote to the memory of beloved husbands! When anything seems difficult, let us survey others who cope with still greater difficulties. How many are there who from the moment of their baptism set the seal (of virginity) upon their flesh? How many, again, who by equal mutual consent cancel the debt of matrimony— voluntary eunuchs for the sake of their desire after the celestial kingdom! But if, while the marriage-tie is still intact, abstinence is endured, how much more when it has been undone! For I believe it to be harder for what is intact to be quite forsaken, than for what has been lost not to be yearned after. A hard and arduous thing enough, surely, is the continence for God’s sake of a holy woman after her husband’s decease, when Gentiles, in honour of their own Satan, endure sacerdotal offices which involve both virginity and widowhood! At Rome, for instance, they who have to do with the type of that inextinguishable fire, keeping watch over the omens of their own (future) penalty, in company with the (old) dragon himself, are appointed on the ground of virginity. To the Achæan Juno, at the town Ægium, a virgin is allotted; and the (priestesses) who rave at Delphi know not marriage. Moreover, we know that widows minister to the African Ceres; enticed away, indeed, from matrimony by a most stem oblivion: for not only do they withdraw from their still living husbands, but they even introduce other wives to them in their own room— the husbands, of course, smiling on it— all contact (with males), even as far as the kiss of their sons, being forbidden them; and yet, with enduring practice, they persevere in such a discipline of widowhood, which excludes the solace even of holy affection. These precepts has the devil given to his servants, and he is heard! He challenges, forsooth, God’s servants, by the continence of his own, as if on equal terms! Continent are even the priests of hell! For he has found a way to ruin men even in good pursuits; and with him it makes no difference to slay some by voluptuousness, some by continence.”

For a full summary of Isaac Taylor’s work Anicent Christianity see my article here.

2. Martin Luther on Anchorism and Economics: See here.

Can We Trust The Text of the New Testament? Wednesday, Feb 22 2012 

I just finished watching this debate and I thought I would share some of the core arguments made from Wallace and Ehrman.

If you hold  a Majority Text, TR, or KJV only position, Ehrman is going to mop the floor with you. As Conservative, Critical Eclectic Scholars have been admitting to for many years now, Ehrman’s key verses that show intentional additions to the text of the New Testament in the Western Tradition (1 John 5:7-8, Luke 22:19-20, John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, Luk 23:34) are not original.   On top of the many mistakes in the transmission of the text of the New Testament (Which Wallace admits to in large)  Ehrman throws down the gauntlet with these two questions:

1. How do we know the manuscripts we have today were not copied from erroneous previous copies?

2. How many variants were created before our manuscripts  and what were their significance?

Wallace responds by admitting: We don’t know. We have no hard evidence to answer these questions. However, four points surface at this point: 1. If all manuscripts were destroyed the writings of the fathers which contain about a million  quotations from the scripture could re-construct  the New Testament. 2. Ehrman  admits in the appendix to Misquoting Jesus, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants  in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” 3. If we take Ehrman’s criticisms of the New Testament and extend them equally to all ancient literature we run into a problem. At 1:21:37 Ehrman admits that his arguments against the New Testament leave the classical authors in even worse shape. Regarding the Classical works such as Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Xenophon and Cicero  he says, “we may not know.” Ehrman is taking us back to the dark ages and leaves mankind with no literature. If Ehrman is right why do atheists even attend college? The entire enterprise of human education is a racket.  4. In order to criticize the authorship of New Testament books (1&2 Timothy & Titus),  supposedly written by Paul, Ehrman in his recent book Forged must assume the text is the original in order to argue that the books were not written by Paul but someone else.

The critical eclectic position of preservation is that God has, in the multiplicity of manuscripts, preserved the same doctrines that he originally intended for mankind to know. Yet this preservation is not always available to all peoples in all ages (2 Chron 34).  Ehrman  admits in the appendix to Misquoting Jesus, “The facts that I explain about the New Testament  in Misquoting Jesus are not at all ‘news’  to Biblical scholars. They are what scholars have known and said for many years. ”

From my perusal of Ehrman’s works I find no reason to study him anymore since his arguments are straw men against my position. I spent the first 4 years of my conversion studying textual criticism and all his re-hashed arguments. After walking through Ehrman’s arguments I was in familiar territory. If I could suggest a few books to my readers that would more than qualify you to speak with professionals on the entire enterprise of textual criticism: From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man ed. James B. Williams and God’s Word in Our Hands ed. James B. Williams. You can also listen to a complete lecture series on these issues by Dr. Mark Minnick here: http://www.mountcalvarybaptist.org/pages/WebSeries.aspx?WebSeriesID=1

On the issues of Higher Criticism I suggest you read The Fundamentals, ed. R.A. Torrey. My friend Daryl and I spent many months in my living room reading through the first two volumes of this which deal with these Higher critical issues of Authorship. It is not very interesting so having a buddy read them with you would be advised. Finally, to deal with interpretive difficulties or contradictions in the Bible see Gleason Archer’s Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties,  among many other works you can reference here.

The End of Christianity ed. Loftus; A Scripturalist Reply; Introduction-Second Reply Tuesday, Feb 21 2012 

Did Just Theories of Government and Civilization Arise From the Pagans or the Calvinist Protestants? Tuesday, Feb 21 2012 

[Pic: Emporer Augustus: Pontifex Maximus]

It is a popular piece of propaganda in secular education that just theories of government and civilization came from Greece and Rome not Christianity.

Did the Pagans force their people to believe a certain state religion without their consent? Yes.

John Robbins says,

“Because of the variety of gods in Rome, some historians have mistakenly concluded that Rome enjoyed religious liberty. But the command of the Twelve Tables (c. 450 B.C.), as well as the persecution of religious dissenters, makes it clear that religious liberty was not a feature of Roman society: “Let no one have gods on his own, neither new ones nor strange ones, but only those instituted by the State.”

(Christ and Civilization [Trinity Review], pg. 3)

Emperor worship in Rome began with Augustus 63 B.C.- A.D. 14 until the Christian era. Greece had state gods, Athena being the primary god of Athens and Olympia had Zeus. Socrates’ affront to the state gods got him killed. John Thomas Forbes says in his biography of Socrates,

“There was something in the constitution of the Athenian State and the atmosphere of Athenian life favourable to freedom within limits; but there was also that which was inimical to a too free interpretation of that freedom. [The normal habit of government by discussion did promote, within a certain range, the habit in the people of examining arguments and forming judgments for themselves. Nevertheless such freedom did not reach the ideal state of things pictured by Grote. His account rests on the idealised sketch in the Funeral Oration of Pericles, which gives the Athens of the statesman’s dream.) Such liberty as existed was not extended to matters deemed to affect religion, and bigotry was able to flourish in great strength. There were, moreover, in the beginning of the fourth century B.C. special causes at work intensifying the danger run by free speculation. It was in 399 B.C. (April) that these general and special tendencies of opposition to the teaching of Socrates culminated in his trial and death. An indictment was brought against him by Meletus, a tragic poet; Lycon, an unknown rhetorician; and Anytus, a democratic leader. It ran thus: “Socrates is guilty of crime—first, in not believing in the gods that the city believes in; secondly, in introducing other new gods; thirdly, in corrupting the youth. The penalty due is death.” Socrates (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905), pg. 241-242

War was a way of life in these nations. Civilization was not the goal. John Robbins says,

“The pagan world was not peaceful. Athens, usually considered one of the most peaceful of the Greek city-states, was at war more than two years out of every three between the Persian Wars and 338 B.C., when Philip of Macedon was defeated. The following three centuries were even worse. Athens never enjoyed ten consecutive years of peace.

Livy reports that the Roman Republic was at peace only twice in its entire history, once at the end of the First Punic War in the mid-third century B.C. and once in 30 B.C. after Augustus’ defeat of Antony and Cleopatra. War was a way of life in the ancient world…Finley traces the prevalence of warfare in the ancient world to pagan religion:

“Neither the enormously powerful Roman Mars nor the weaker Greek Ares received the slightest competition from the minor divinities of peace. It was always assumed that divine support was available for a war…. [T]he gods through their oracles and signs [never] recommended peace for its own sake…” (Finley [M. l. Finley, Ancient History. New York, 1987], 68). (Christ and Civilization, pg. 4)

Slavery was based on a primitive eugenic theory of mankind. Robbins says,

“Slavery was not only the ubiquitous practice of the pagan world, it was the theory as well. The best and brightest of the Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, defended slavery, for slaves were naturally inferior beings. The status of slaves, women, and children reflected the judgment of Aristotle that “the deliberative faculty is not present at all in the slave, in the female it is inoperative, in the child undeveloped.” The Christian notion that all men are created in the image of God, and that the image of God is rationality, was foreign to pagan thought and societies.” (pg. 5)

Clearly, our secular educational establishment is either ignorant of the Protestant Reformation or they are deliberately censoring this period of history because there is not just one Christian History. There are 3: The Eastern Orthodox, the Romanist and the Protestant. The modern secular world likes to draw our attention to the second one or the Insanely Confused American Anabaptist Movement and represent all of Christianity as either incompetent, which Anabaptistism was and still is, or a political despot which the Roman Church was and still is. Here are just a few points how the Calvinist Reformation brought great freedom and Civilization to the world.

1. Freedom from the power play of the Roman Hierarchy: an atheistic group of men who refuse to trust God in the affairs of men, and instead resort to political intrigue to achieve their ends. Church officers were now confined to Elders and Deacons.

2. Freedom from the war hungry intrigue of the Papacy using the nation’s armies for his own personal ambitions. Primarily crusades against the Muslims.

3. The state in its function was to remain secular and not controlled by a money hungry clerical class of moral degenerates.

4. Freedom from the welfare state of Monasticism. Man has to work for his lifestyle. From this idea, Luther’s affirmation that the work of a common man and the work of a priest are equally valuable, and Calvin’s distinction between taking interest with business loans and not charity loans, great economic advances were made in the development of Capitalism.

5. Freedom from obligation to a foreign ruler-The Roman Papacy.

6. Universal literacy so that all men could read the Bible for themselves.

7. This itself gave rise to general education for common men not just the elite. This is why the traditional educational powers are universities established by Protestants: Harvard, Yale and Princeton.

8. The primacy of the conscience. Salvation is something intellectual. Not to be found in superstitious ceremonies, icons and relics. These same relics that took much of the money needed for the maintenance of the poor.

9. Freedom from the Divine Right of Kings (Scottish Covenanters and Rutherford’s Lex Rex) and the demand that the King has the consent of the people to be a lawful King, from which sprang the great civil rights of modern civilization (presently under attack).

10. Freedom from the divine right of Kings ipso facto denied that a successful aggressive war (Conquest) earned a de jure right to rule.

In short, the Protestant Reformation saved Christian Civilization from the pagan superstition and atheistic lives of the Roman Catholic ruling class. It is only in forgetting the Protestant Reformation that our county finds itself in the moral depravity, repealed liberties and War crazed insanity of the 21st century.

 

The End of Christianity ed. Loftus; A Scripturalist Reply; Introduction and First Reply Monday, Feb 20 2012 

Video 1

Video 2

Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite’s Neoplatonic Influence on Church Authority

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yF8gYOG1p0

Dionysius the Areopagite; The Church’s Big Mistake; First Century Disciple of Paul?; Neoplatonism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd8V3bIY_N4

Drake’s Triadology

https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/drakes-triadology-stuff/

The Pre-Socratic Failure to Construct a Corporeal Reality

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/epistemology-and-metaphysics/the-pre-socratic-failure-to-construct-a-corporeal-reality-by-drake-shelton

Dynasty of Jesuit Intrigue

https://sites.google.com/a/thekingsparlor.com/the-kings-parlor/concerning-roman-catholicism

The pdf file is attached the bottom titled “JesuitIntriguepdf.pdf”

Philosophy of Science

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/science/philosophy-of-science

History of Physics Lecture by Richard Wolfson; Science Really is as Empty as I Thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5DI-K3dcRM

 

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: