TC Apologetics - Latest Comments

Re: So, would you ever leave your faith?

derek Vargas — Sun, 11 Jan 2026 22:33:09 -0000

yeah bullshit jeff

Re: So, would you ever leave your faith?

Scott Smith — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 07:42:00 -0000

No. What I'm saying is that the collection of naturalistic explanations do not cohere. To hold all of them is to violate Ockham's Razor.

Re: So, would you ever leave your faith?

mihaimm — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 05:27:08 -0000

In other words, the naturalistic explanation requires you to observe and understand the complex relationships that form between the tiny parts that all influence each other and provide complex feedback, while the God answer... requires no explanation whatsoever.

Re: God of War: Playing the Amalekite Card

Craig McQueen — Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:41:34 -0000

Technical question—Deuteronomy 12:31 seems to talk about 7 nations in Canaan, listed in Deuteronomy 7:1, and Amalekites aren't listed there. So how do Amalekites fit in relation to those Canaanite nations?

Re: Old Testament Law: An Introduction

Melinda Perry — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 04:34:29 -0000

Very good post. Thank you and God bless you so much for teaching on this, even though it brings you some pretty "serious" replies. I've just felt a new leading in this direction, so know Holy Spirit is teaching me something. I am a mother so if I look at it under those terms...I consider why I give "laws" to my children. To protect them, to make them better people, to make them well loved, excetera. So I imagine God the Father who loves me infinitely more than I love my child give me laws to protect me to make me a better person and well-loved Etc then I also consider that some of the laws deal with food so I consider that God wants us healthier so gives us these these laws because even if we don't understand it there's something behind it! He knows and there's a reason we don't know yet. So my thoughts are shouldn't wait least be following the law as a guideline but as a Christian understand that Jesus is the sacrifice and he's paid my price if I sin and when I sin. However I am not learned in the wall and not a professional in anything so if that thinking is somehow wrong, please feel free to tell me your thoughts.

Re: Did Jesus even exist?

Dan Renner — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:47:43 -0000

Einstein, Wells, and the assertion of a backfired interview with Bart Ehrman. Among them, Ehrman is the ONLY one with any qualifications to lend a knowledgeable opinion on the matter. And yet, having read Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist", it quickly became apparent that he's sticking to his guns, and being careful not to rock the boat of scholars (most of whom are Christians and lend a faith-based assumption concerning the existence of Jesus). Ehrman is long on arguments - many of which run contrary to his earlier books - and very short on evidence. But evidence is the only definitive measure, and even Dr. Ehrman is quick to state that when it comes to writings mentioning Jesus within the biblical time of Jesus, there simply aren't any.

Re: Old Testament Law and Punishment

AuburnFyre — Sun, 02 Apr 2017 20:18:04 -0000

Thank you for this! It's very helpful researching for an essay I'm writing.

Re: Old Testament Law and Punishment

Dennis — Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:38:44 -0000

HI MR WEBER !!!! I LOVE YOUR EYES

Re: Old Testament Law: An Introduction

Owen Kniss — Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:31:07 -0000

again i`m the first

Re: Paul’s Household Codes: Repressive or Redemptive?

Owen Kniss — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:35:29 -0000

I`m the first

Re: Jesus never claimed to be God

SaintlyMic — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:28:24 -0000

JESUS IS GOD ALMIGHTY!
Here is a Prophecy Chart Jesus moved me to make which shows through 267 verses that Jesus is God!
http://JESUSisGOD.com/PROPH...
. . . . . . .

Re: Arguments For God’s Existence: Cosmological

Гусейн Гурбанов Азербайджан — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:47:47 -0000

Logically complete cosmological concept. /due to lack of knowledge of the English language was not able to correct the translation Implemented by Google/

In order to present the unlimited space originally:

1. homogeneous - enough to postulate the presence in it of two elements with Simple and Complex /closed systematically/

2. heterogeneous - enough to postulate the presence in it of one more element - the Most High and Almighty God - with open systematically.

It is easy to assume that even at the lowest possible deployment of the intangible component of the essence of God - the Spirit of God - for the level of the original downwardly directed the permanent deployment of the material component of the essence of God, there is a curtailment of Simple and Complex /i.e.. It is their decay due to blocking of origin upwardly directed constantly deploy intangible components of the entity / as much as possible heterogeneous to God's essence minimum possible number of cell uniformity (1H), and God on the basis of the material components of the 1H deploys the minimum possible heterogeneous to its essence as possible numerically elemental homogeneity (2H). Coagulation process will begin in 2H known God start time since the completion of its deployment. curtailment of the Spirit of God to the level of initial deployment again unfolds 1H - God potential for transformation 1H into 2H and 1H into 2H limitless!

Re: Christmas Myths

B Madalin — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:58:16 -0000

It is interesting that you seem intent on saying that certain things were not in the Bible, such as the donkey, or the "animals in the nativity scene", almost as if to say they it is unreasonable to think they might have been simply because they were not mentioned. Yet, how else might Mary have made the trip to Bethlehem? We know she didn't ride in a taxi or on a bike. Though it isn't written, it is very reasonable to believe a donkey was part of that picture. Jesus was lying in a feeding trough, it is very reasonable to believe animals were present. But you are right, they are not mentioned. Why is that important though? When Jesus washed his disciples feet, did he have to remove their sandals? He took off his outer clothes, but did he remove their sandals? I don't think it says, so we can't really know. But I don't think it matters, does it? Does it change anything, or is it using too much artistic license if someone includes that detail? It is kind of silly to me. And the "no crying he makes" (or rather that he did cry) arguement seems so silly to me also. You know, until I was thirty years old, I had never even considered that song to mean that baby Jesus NEVER cried. In fact, you may be surprised to find those words are not even in the song! In all my life, I heard and enjoyed that song, and considered it to be about a moment. A peaceful moment and that it all. I'm sure, since our Lord was fully man, that he must not have cried every single moment as an infant. My children had plenty of peaceful moments awake, as newborns. Now regarding some of your other points, were they in Bethlehem for a time before Jesus came? It seems possible, but to use the text that "while they were there" doesn't seem to prove it. While I was at the grocery store I bought some food. That doesn't mean I was there for days (even if it felt like I was!). So assuming they were there for days doesn't seem any better or more accurate than assuming they had recently arrived into the city. They are both assumptions that attempt to draw a complete picture, since the Bible doesn't say EITHER way. I guess that is what strikes me about much of what you wrote. On one hand you insist that certain things are not in the Bible (rightly) and that we are filling in the blanks, but then you write things like "What about the gifts? Were there three gifts? Copan suggests there were probably other gifts, but these were mentioned because they are specifically prophesied in the Old Testament as the gifts that Gentiles would bring the new king." or, "Did a star lead the Magi? No. and Yes." So on one hand you use your critical thinking to point out that a donkey was NOT mentioned, yet when the Bible specified three gifts, or a star in the sky, you find it ok to assume differently. It just doesn't seem consistent.
Two last things I want to say are that I appreciate that you left Christmas to December 25, as I have heard others try to explain this away. My understanding of the date is that it has to do with Zechariah being in the temple when the angel appeared to him to tell him Elizabeth would bear him a child. He would have been in the temple about late September/early October, the normal time of the year when the priest would go in to burn incense to God, then six months later, Mary (now pregnant) went to visit Elizabeth, then nine months later is December. I admit I may not have those details exactly right, but it is something along that line. The other thing I wanted to say is that whether Jesus was born in a stable, separate from a home, or in the part of a home where the animals were kept, first of all the Bible doesn't really say that he was surrounded by family, receiving a warm welcome either. But anyway, the point that I take from it is the same whether a stable or a home--there was no room for them. No room. He came into the world in a humble, lowly, way. If you knew the Messiah was to be born, wouldn't you make some room!? But he wasn't born in the way a king or other "important" person would have been. He wasn't recoginzed. It seems to me, that is the point that was meant to be made, that he was indeed born for the least of us, not out of reach, praise God!

Re: God of War: God of Hope

Curious — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 18:32:42 -0000

Ok, I'm certainly no expert and this is a topic I've been thinking about lot lately. Your posts are helpful but I feel there are a few more things I would have liked you to comment on or clarified. In the texts on war that you quoted it was mentioned that no one should be spared that even children and infants should be killed. And then you go on to say that in fact there would have been no children in the cities that were actually attacked. So then why order the killing of everyone, including children? You say that people immigrating should be welcomed (but doesn't that come with the condition that they also follow the law?) and you say that not everybody was killed and that God was fine with that. But then I think I remember, and I'm sorry I can't give you book, chapter and verses on this, that I've read somewhere in the Bible that later punishment for Israel, and Israel's immoral behavior is said to be a consequence at least in part of Israel NOT obeying the command to kill everyone and not take wives from these cultures etc. Or am I remembering this wrong? Another thing.... I completely agree that sometimes people can get so bad that they have to be stopped. If someone torments and kills people it's better to stop that person even if that means killing him rather than having him continuing to hurt others. This of course means we have to decide when something is "bad enough" to be punished. To motivate "stopping" a person we must decide that what they have done is somehow evil and that what we do to stop that person is in fact then a response and that in this sense, even if we kill them we are doing a good thing. But then, how do we handle this when we interact with or somehow come across a group of people who think they are doing the exact same thing, only they see it as them being good and only using violence to stop "us" and in response to something "we" as a group of people have done that they see as immoral? In a way, it then comes down to which belief system is right, and of course since it is a matter of faith or belief systems there is no objective way to answer that question. So how do we deal with this?

Re: Old Testament Law: The Unclean and Clean

Scott — Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:53:57 -0000

This is the best explanation I've found on the subject. Thanks. Leviticus was really turning me off, but this makes some sense at least.

Re: God of War: Playing the Amalekite Card

idonotknowhatusernametochoose — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 23:24:35 -0000

Please provide me with a link to that post of yours, now that it's 3 years later. Thanks :)

Re: God of War: The War Texts

idonotknowhatusernametochoose — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 23:07:35 -0000

Islam did not come into existence until hundreds of years after the book of Revelation was written.
Regarding the other comments by you and the others: no comment, for now, except to say that I agree with the article after this one by the same writer. He did his homework, like the Bereans.

Re: God of War: Playing the Amalekite Card

John — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:25:22 -0000

In order for there to be morality, objective, it must be binding... You described subjective morality, which is non binding, and supposes no oughts exist

Re: God of War: Playing the Amalekite Card

John — Sat, 02 May 2015 00:06:38 -0000

There is a difference between having free will to commit immoral deeds, and acts that have to do solely with exercising bodily movements... Your examples are amoral movements that violate free will... No moral implications, thus completely irrelevant to what we're talking about, and not a good analogy at all...

*that generates conscious mental states*... Well, where's your evidence that the brain generates mental states? What are these mental states if not physical? Also, yes, mental (physical) determinism is a necessary implication of atheism, as you are just a physical brain under atheism, no supernatural causes... subatomic particles acting and determined on past events.

Yes, the only evidence given on this thread were descriptions from the Jews of the time... Where is your contrary evidence? Just your guess and assumption that they were lying or exaggerating? Not convincing.

The Amalekites were not open to moral teaching, as the bible describes, they were given many chances, this was why they were killed... Thus, your argument is proven faulty. It's not about if God can teach them, it's about if they choose to learn given the sufficient reason to learn, which they didn't abide to.

Your examples were bad analogies. At the time, Israel needed to survive, and was in danger of being annihilated by neighboring tribes... thus the extreme measure was necessary. This is called just war.

So basically, you're content in stating that morality doesn't exist... Killing a baby isn't inherently wrong, it's just something you shouldn't do because you care about it... Why do you care about it? Under your view, there is no inherent worth (dignity is beyond physical matter), so what's the point? Pretty counter-intuitive! Fashionable norms!

God is inherently good, and thus his moral commands are good, as he is the standard of good... This is because God is pure actuality of perfection, and moral good is a perfection... You can't have objective morality without God... philosophy 101...

Whether you obey a law or not has nothing to do with it's existence, so your objection there made no sense...

I never said being determined, you can't make value judgements... Provide a reasoning behind this claim. You simply don't understand... Your counter-intuitive atheistic view means there is no real value to what you are judging...

False... physical determinism does not mean uncaused acts are the only alternative, which is impossible in creation... There are supernatural causes...

When did I say free will was the product of random chance? That's a false dichotomy...

Re: God of War: Playing the Amalekite Card

Keith Brian Johnson — Fri, 01 May 2015 21:26:29 -0000

First, when I say that we have to obey the laws of physics, I mean that we cannot flap our arms and fly *despite freely willing it*, that we cannot go underwater and breathe (without machinery) *despite freely willing it*, and so on. We can only do what our bodies are physically able to do. We are not able to freely will whatever the heck we want to and be able to do it. We live under the limitations of physical law. It is therefore untrue that placing physical limitations on us is something God just wouldn't do because it would violate our free will; and if he prevented ancient tribes from harming each other, that wouldn't violate their free will any more than giving us bodies that prevent us from running a ten-second mile violates our free will.

Second, nontheists have desires and motivations every bit as much as theists have, and if we are determinists (which you seem to be confusing with nontheism) whose mental states were physically caused, we still have desires and motivations. Having desires and motivations, and acting upon them, is not somehow impossible in a deterministic (not nontheistic) universe. Yes, in that case, you're "just a brain in a body"--but you're a brain *that generates conscious mental states* in a body, and you're a brain *that generates desires and motivations* in a body, and you're a brain *that makes you act in accordance with your desires and motivations* in a body. Even if determinism (not nontheism) implies that we are automatons, it does not imply that we are merely mindless automatons. And, as I will point out again, that's determinism, not nontheism, that says that.

Third, we have no reason to think of the Amalekites as wicked, bloodthirsty, child-sacrificing people *except for their own enemies' statement that they were*. Aren't you aware that peoples often demonize their enemies, making them look as bad as possible before attacking them, in order to *justify* attacking them? We don't know that they were like that.

Fourth, let's suppose that they were. Let's say they committed all manner of moral crime. Let's say they behaved truly wickedly. And let's say you're concerned about the wickedness's spreading, like an infection. Do you really think that it is more moral to *kill* them (or, in this case, to have God get the Israelites' hands bloody doing the killing for him instead of simply killing them himself, the morality of his commandment to them to go do the killing being itself dubious) than to prevent them from harming anyone by whisking them off to another world or by erecting a force field (and, if you like, a black wall, so that their immorality can't be seen and imitated by anybody else) between the two tribes, thereby preventing the "infection" from spreading? If you're concerned with punishing wickedness--and I must say, a lot of religious believers seem to be inordinately worried that somebody might get off with a lighter penalty than he deserves instead of being concerned with doing what is really constructive and helping people to behave better--do you really think it is more moral for him to *kill* them than to provide them moral instruction? Surely he could give them a lesser punishment than *death* and still give them moral instruction. Did Jesus go around killing evildoers? Do you really think that that's the moral approach: Person A behaves immorally. Kill him! Really? Do parents kill their wayward children, or do they give them appropriate punishments to let them know they did wrong and then *also* give them moral instruction? (Of course, the Old Testament says that yes, killing them is exactly what you should do--but we all know better than that, don't we?)

Fifth, when you say that reason provides no objective or intrinsic morality, I agree with you. But God doesn't, either. There is no objective or intrinsic morality. What there are are judgments of right and wrong made by beings who care about how they and other beings treat each other. If nobody cared how he was treated, nobody would make moral judgments. But we do care. So, we make moral judgments. Is that so hard to understand? There needn't be anything objective about them in order for us to go ahead and make them, and to make them for the sufficiently good reason *that we care*.

Sixth, in case you do think God provides objective morality: why would you think that? Yes, God might provide a moral code--but what's objective about it? You still have to *choose* whether to obey it or not. It's just as though *I* gave you a moral code and said, "This is the right moral code." Really? What would make me right? What makes God right? God's decreeing it doesn't by itself make it objectively right. If there *is* an objective moral code--and I don't think there is--then God might *know what it is*, and he might *tell you what it is*, but it's not objective *because he says it is*. (This is an old point made long ago. I am not inventing this.) But if there is an objective moral code--what could possibly make it objective?

Seventh, I agree that human beings speak of dignity and worth--human beings make value judgments. We do so whether we are free or are instead entirely determined. You seem to think that being determined means you can't make value judgments. This is a mistake. We all just do make value judgments. And if you think that we freely do so--well, what does that mean, exactly? For any choice I make, either it is caused by something or else it *just happens*. If it is caused by something else--that's determinism. If it *just happens*, that's random chance. How do you see random chance as helping you have personal autonomy?

Re: God of War: Playing the Amalekite Card

Steven Hazel — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:48:54 -0000

Your assessment does not answer for why God ordered the slaughter of children, infants, and women (who were considered property) along with the "guilty" males.

You try to work up a case for why the Amalekites needed to go down, but the Bible makes it clear that this was a grudge killing. 1 Sam 15: 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Re: God of War: Playing the Amalekite Card

John — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:44:07 -0000

What do you mean by obey the laws of physics? Free will in the context of mental free will is what is discussed in atheism versus theism circles, not physical free will, that's a strawman...

For atheists, there can be no free will, you're just a protoplasmic bag of stardust, a piece of machinery, just a brain in a body...

Free will includes the desire to fight back, to accept punishment, etc.

As stated, the Amalekites were slaughtered because they were immoral, and were separated from God... They were not like a modern society with our current cultural norms... They were a bloodthirsty culture, known for child sacrifice, bestiality, and consistent warring against the Jews at the time...

Basically, you're ignoring the crimes the Amalekites committed.

Reason doesn't decide what is right and wrong, as reason is simply a subjective thought process... Thus, you have no basis for morality, as you need an objective moral lawgiver for that... basic ethics here.

There is no intrinsic moral worth under atheism, as morality cannot be found in matter, it is metaphysical... Dignity cannot be localized in subatomic particles, and is a value, not a description of matter...

Re: So, would you ever leave your faith?

jazzfeyersalo — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:50:29 -0000

Ha, yea. Just edited the post. Thanks!

Re: So, would you ever leave your faith?

Chip Salonna — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:15:46 -0000

Do you mean "equated" rather than "equivocated"?

Re: So, would you ever leave your faith?

jazzfeyersalo — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:27:14 -0000

Hey Scott, caught this on my Disqus feed and it peeked my interest.

I see you have hashed out a lot in your conversation with Chip so it is going to be hard for me to completely avoid overlap, but I do feel my question provides an alternate route than that already taken.

What I see you arguing for in this post is that God as a metaphysical explanation offers a coherence than that of the motley of theories posited by the sciences regarding the big questions of existence.

Now, a question that arises for me pertains to your equating scientific explanation and metaphysical explanation. In my understanding, the trademark of scientific explanation is to identify factors or conditions such that manipulations or changes in those factors or conditions will produce changes in the outcome being explained. And the more robust a theory the more it stand to such counterfactuals. While, metaphysical explanation, to my mind, remains on a descriptive plain. While it may provide a basis for prediction, classification, or more or less unified representation or systemization, it does not provide information potentially relevant to manipulation or change.

The problem with your engine analogy is that you posit a causal explanation *within* the causal mechanism of the system. While a manual for the engine could causally describe the steering pump's role in the operation of the various parts, it will take a mechanic to test the engine via various counterfactual hypothesis (either on the engine itself or via his/her memory of prior interventions on this particular engine) in order to isolate the steering pump as the cause of your engine trouble. Its not clear to me however, how God can be a testable hypothesis in the way described above. God, as first cause, cannot be part of the caused. God, then, cannot be compared to the malfunction of the steering pump. One would have to move one step back and say that God caused (via Sovereignty, Divine Intervention, Judgement, all untestable explanations) the pump to malfunction, but this would still require an explanation of the malfunction itself.

All of this to say that "God" cannot be equated with scientific explanation as a causal explanation of events in the cosmos. Simply by virtue of the former's inability to identify factors or conditions such that, if manipulated or changed, the outcome being explained would be altered.