The Heathen - The Problem of Evil - Proof for the Soul

I was directed to the organization Stand To Reason by a Marine friend of mine who is currently attending Reformed Theological Seminary in Washington DC several months ago when I was asking him about good Christian apologetics resources he knew of that I didn't. I'm really glad I found STR as I've thoroughly enjoyed many of the resources they have to offer since then.

As always, for Christmas my family and I trekked the 600 miles from where we live in Colorado to where my wife and I's parents live in Kansas. Ever since I've been aware of Stand To Reason and listened to a few of the audio resources they have, I've enjoyed them so much I've made it a point to make sure and have something on hand that I haven't yet listened to if I can for long road trips. This Christmas, I ordered several things before our trip and had a chance to listen to three of them on the drive. As is common with STR, the resources, IMO, were very good, something very capable of occupying my mind during the drive. Here's what I listened to and liked.


The Heathen and the Unknown God

This was one CD (yes, I bought CD's - I don't have an ipod or any other player yet - my wife has a nano - I have a CD player in the van -- STR does sell an MP3 version though). Not only does Koukl do the best job I've ever heard of answering the question that should make any Christian's heart ache about the heathen who never has a chance to hear the gospel, he builds on top of that answer to give one of the most clear and concise explanations of the gospel as well. Specifically, he does a fantastic job of communicating humanity's problem and solution in a crystal clear way that just... works. I think most believers would benefit greatly from this resource as well as nonbelievers. I personally found myself with a renewed appreciation for the work Christ accomplished on the cross.


Answering the Problem of Evil

This is a three CD set. The first is a lecture by Greg Koukl. The last two are lectures by William Lane Craig. The age old argument addressed here is this.

• The God described by Christianity is said to be all-powerful and all-good.
• Evil exists in the world.
• An all-powerful God would be able to eliminate evil and an all-good God would want to.
• Since evil exists, God is either not all-powerful (He wants to eliminate evil but can't, He is impotent) or not all-good (He can eliminate evil, but he doesn't want to).
• Therefore, the God described by Christianity cannot possibly exist.

As always, Koukl is adept at answering the question. Not only does he answer the question, he turns the argument on its head and argues for the existence of God using the very existence of evil as the foundation to his argument. This line of argumentation is not uncommon, but Koukl distinguishes himself, as he commonly does, with his ability to communicate the message in such a clear, concise, laid-back, respectful way.

As for the last two CD's, these are good as well. William Lane Craig is a person that more hardcore logic and philosophy geeks would enjoy as opposed to the layman. His lectures here are true to his form. He's careful to distinguish between the emotional version of the argument from evil and the cold, hard logical one. Specifically he's careful to point out when one should offer the cold, hard logical version and when one shouldn't.


The Invisible Man: Is there Proof for the Soul?

This was a two CD set, both being lectures by Koukl. This one was probably the most intriguing to me before I listened to it simply because of what it purported to do in the title. I read the title and thought to myself... "How in the world is he going to prove the soul exists? What kind of evidence is he possibly going to be able to round up to show this?"

I should be getting used to it by now, but he did a great job of providing 5 specific pieces of evidence to show that the immaterial soul exists. I particularly liked this one, mostly because these were mostly new ideas/evidences to me, and got me thinking about things I hadn't thought much about before.

Of the 5 lines of evidence Koukl offers, one takes advantage of Leibniz's Law of the indiscernability of identicals and another uses the scientific study of a certain phenomenon that would seem to indicate that the immaterial soul exists independently of the material brain.



I would highly recommend any of the above three resources to both believers and unbelievers. I'm convinced that most believers would learn something new from each one of them and definitely gain some skills in the area of effectively communicating with unbelievers. For unbelievers, Koukl goes out of his way to say that he's not out to 'convert' anyone. His goal, instead, is to simply 'put an intellectual stone in your shoe' if you hold a position differently than the one he does on any of these topics. Admittedly, it's tough for me to say - I can't exactly relate - but I think if I was an unbeliever I wouldn't mind listening to this guy talk as he doesn't try to browbeat anyone into making a confession nor does he assault them with a barrage of scripture passages or any other kind of aggressive techniques. He simply offers up well reasoned, kindly communicated and compelling arguments in support of core pieces of his religious faith.

The retarded offspring of five monkeys and a fish-squirrel

I used to watch South Park in college a lot. I got a big kick out of it. And then I stopped watching it. I think I thought it was too childish or sophomoric or something. I ran across this today while reading comments over at Vox Popoli. I've not laughed quite so hard or had so many tears streaming down my face from laughter in quite a long time.

You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel, congratulations!

Here are some of the other classic quotes...

"...a couple of fish had a retard baby..."

"...a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands..."

"...retard frog-squirrel..."

"...monkey-fish-frog..."

The Natural Born Rock Bomber

Rock Bomber = The name my 3 year old young nephew used when identifying Barack Obama. I liked the ring it had to it, like a bad old AC/DC song, so I think I'll be calling him the Rock Bomber from now on.

Onto the topic. In the context of some comments on another blog I read, I asked this question about a particular potential scenario in this election.

* Obama gets elected.
* Some kind of incontrovertible evidence that he was born elsewhere - a country other than the U.S. - comes out.
* What happens now? Does he get removed? By who? Who replaces him? I assume there's not a re-vote is there?


I was directed by a commenter on the thread to an essay written by a Constitutional Attorney and professor who holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School) , OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN. I highly recommend giving it a read. Here are some of the most interesting parts, taken from the list of consequences if this scenario actually occurred:

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even if something approaching civil war did not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

If nothing else I'd recommend reading the entire list of potential consequences, 1-8. Interesting stuff. That would be high comedy - albeit potentially disastrous - indeed.

The Illusion of Choice Plan

In light of the current presidential campaign and the outspoken desires of both candidates, I thought of a way to get both men running on the same page when it comes to healthcare. First, some context to build my Illusion of Choice Plan upon.

Obama:

"I think health care should be a right for every American."

McCain:

"As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."

So, here's the plan. Instead of being responsible and either securing health insurance or paying your medical bills, people should just take out mortgages and pay their medical bills with the mortgage money. Then, folks can just not pay their medical mortgage and the government can buy them up. All is well, everyone - both Obama and McCain - is happy. The government can rosily and magically pay off everyone's obligations. And by pay off, I of course mean take from someone and give to someone else, since the government is not a producer of anything and is impotent in and of itself when it comes to being able to forgive debt and/or pay off anything.


So, The Illusion of Choice Plan is an option, or you can do what's best for individuals and individual liberty - you know, that whole concept that made this country so unique and good in the first place - and vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. Other acceptable votes would be for Alan Keyes of the Independent Party, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party or you could write in Ron Paul.

The bailout passed - and it sucks

This post isn't going to contain any particularly insightful information that you couldn't get somewhere else. I just wanted to be another voice out there on the internets expressing my frustration and dismay that this kind of crazy, criminal, evil theft is possible.

Here's the list of those who were explicitly acting in an wrong manner or were too cowardly to do the right thing. Those from both parties who did the right thing are also listed. Props to the folks from Kansas (my home state).

yea-or-nay

To Serve and Protect - and Protect

A two part post based on a few things of interest to me that I saw on the local news recently.

Part 1: To Serve and Protect

This story about the Denver cops completely losing control and beating the tar out of some guy in front of Coors Field on opening day was more than a bit bothersome, particularly because of their attitude and what they had to say when onlookers instinctively tried to come to the aid of the man getting beaten. I like to think I'm pretty even keel when it comes to my thoughts and views about policemen. I appreciate the difficulty of the work they are required to do and respect the ones who are good at it but crap like this is just appalling and unacceptable. Seriously, imagine what kind of time any normal civilian would be looking at if he assaulted someone like these cops did. I'm going to make an effort to follow this story a bit. I'll be very disgusted if some kind of serious penalty is not dealt out to the cops involved. Anyone have any thoughts about what a fair punishment is for the cops involved in this incident?


Part 2: and Protect

On the same newscast that the 'cops beating the hell out of a guy' story ran, they were talking about how the Secret Service will be posting snipers on multiple (unnamed) buildings downtown and around the Pepsi Center and Invesco Field as a measure in the effort to protect Obama when he's in Denver. I found a story in the Post about this where it says they requested an additional $9.5 million in order to cover unexpected costs of protecting both presidential candidates. My question here is, why does the Secret Service protect people who are are not yet presidents (or ex-presidents)? What I'm really getting at is, why are tax payers responsible for the protection of someone they have not elected (yet)? Is there some constitutional amendment or law or court ruling that exists that gives the powers that be some warrant for simply throwing money (to the tune of $9.5 million) at situations like this? Or are the people holding the purse strings just arbitrarily assuming the power and authority to spend money in this manner?

Go Ahead and Kill Him

"If you don't come with me, bad things are going to happen."

Bengtsson drove her in her mother's car to the motel, where he took her into a room, locked the door behind them and barricaded it with chairs, police said. Then he gave her two options: She could kill him or have sex with him, police said. She refused and he raped her, documents said.

So, obviously - the best option here is to teach your child that no matter what, she needs to NOT go with the dude and instead scream, alerting mom and dad so they can do their thing. It is not her fault if he hurts someone in the family because of what she did, nor is it her responsibility to protect everyone - it is her parents.

That being said, I'd like to be sure I instill the will and ability in my daughter to go ahead and kill the guy, guilt free, if he puts that offer on the table.

People are evil.