Archive for September 29th, 2006

A girl asked the question, “If God is love why is there hell?”

The question argues against God’s existence, love’s existence, or both. Dealing with the argument against God’s existence, this question’s logic will always be foolish because the assumptions are foolish. Therefore the examples, will be foolish to imagine because they’re foolish to begin with- just like the girl’s question.

Here are the following problems with the question I will address below: The question both assumes God exists, but assumes God doesn’t exist. It assumes the law of non-contradiction but breaks it at the same time. It assumes logic must make sense but doesn’t make sense itself. And lastly it assumes that an objective morality exists while ignoring its divine origin.

First off, the question assumes God’s existence to deny it. How?

Because the question already answers itself, by asking if God could exist, the question suggests God does not exist. This makes several contradictions depending on what assumptions it takes: The question may assume God’s existence and hell’s existence, God’s existence only, hell’s existence only, or God nor hell’s existence.

If assuming God and hell exist, the question seeks to illustrate that they contradict, and reason that God and hell can not mutually exist. But if neither can exist together, then why ask a question that assumes they both exist? A similar question might attempt to prove oranges and apples cannot sit on a table together, when they’re sitting right in front of you. Or explained another way, the question attempts to prove circles and rectangles don’t exist by reasoning that if circles and rectangles did exist, they would contradict even when they do exist. Unless of course the questioner believes that reality contradicts.

If assuming God exists but hell doesn’t or vice versa, then the question still attempts to show a contradiction that makes no sense. It would be like assuming oranges don’t exist, then proving that apples cannot exist because oranges. In other words, starting with the premise that oranges don’t exist, and another premise that apples do exist, and then concluding that orange can’t exist because apples exist.

If the question assumes that that neither God nor hell exists, then the question becomes even more nonsensical or absurd. The question attempts to prove that God doesn’t exist because a non-existent God and non-existent hell cannot exist together. That’s like saying square circles and round rectangles don’t exist because square circles and round rectangles cannot exist at the same time.

The assumptions also lead to the second problem: The question appeals to the law of non-contradiction while breaking it. The question argues implicity that God and hell cannot exist at the same time and same sense and contradict. But the question cannot both assume God doesn’t exist and prove so by assuming God exists. That’s like showing square circles don’t exist by imagining a square circle- it contradicts.

The third problem is the question assumes logic should make sense. By this I mean that the question assumes that statements, like the one made above shouldn’t be contradictory. That’s why the question assumes that the question makes sense and God doesn’t.

The fourth and last problem is the question assumes morality. If I’m not logical do you need to listen to me? If I am logical what if you don’t listen? Does listening to logic make a difference? It should. It’s the difference between wisdom and foolishness.

If logic did not make a difference then why ask the question in the first place? Who cares if God is unloving! To imply that hell is unloving, you first have to know what is loving. If the girl asking doesn’t believe God exists, then why does her non-existing God have to be loving? Christians believe God is love and God exists, but in this case, an athiest is arguing that God should be loving to prove God doesn’t exist. If her argument doesn’t make sense, it shouldn’t because the argument is foolish.

Let’s think of this scenario: A God that loves you, decides to force you to be in his presence forever. Even if you hate him. Even if you deny his existence. Even if you break his laws. Even if you curse him. This scenario makes God’s heaven seem like hell, and hell (eternal seperation from a God they hate) like heaven. I can list a few people who’d rather go to hell then be forced to be in God’s presence. Thus, this question does not make sense in an atheist worldview, much less a Christian one. It’s a nonsense question, borrowing the idea of love, the idea of God, the idea of Hell, and combining them while appealing to a subjective sense of morality and attempting to be objective.

I would answer the question “How can God be love if He sends people to Hell?” with another question, “What’s wrong with that?” Even asking the question assumes there is a morality that applies to everyone. So go ahead. Ask. And borrow from the Christian worldview, taking Christian sense and making atheist nonsense.

An atheist stirring love, logic, morality, God, and hell all together gets instant nonsense.


Read Full Post »

I was inspired after reading a post about NBC’s decision to censor parts of the video series, Veggie Tales. The post suspected that Phil probably did it for the money.

Upon further searching I found an article by Christianity Today, revealing that Big Idea Productions, the original animation studio, was sued for breach of contract by Lyrick Studios leading to an award of 11 million in damages.

This lawsuit was due to the Big Idea Productions decision to change distribution from Lyrick Studios to Warner Brothers after the original owner Dick Leah sold his company to HIT Entertainment, Dich Leah dying from a tragic fall shortly thereafter.

Thus, Veggie Tales is not owned by Phil, but Classic Media, whom won it after an auction that liquidated Big Idea Productions. Although another article by Free Republic, does reveal that Phil Vischer did have some input in the changes and the network agreement. I am skeptical after after reading his personal account at philvischer.com, as well as the article in Christianity Today that Phil was motivated by money.

For a related article on NBC’s censorship see Al Mohler’s article on Veggie Tales.

Read Full Post »

Stuart Delony writes about the Fox’s creation of a new division: FoxFaith.

I was surprised upon visiting their website that they were selling the DVD End of the Spear, produced by Bearing Fruit Communications. Perhaps they bought the rights to the DVD?

Upon further exploration I found “Hollywood turns to divine inspiration” from USAToday.com.

Follow the money!

One excerpt from the article quotes Steve Feldstein of 20th Century Fox’s new division, Fox Faith,”Executives discovered that a thumbs-up from a pastor could go further than from a film critic and that word of mouth spreads pretty quickly in a church, he says.”

The article goes on to elaborate it’s case on the benefits of marketing to the Christian market saying, “Indeed, studios are finding that ministers who preach to flocks of 5,000 or more a week can be as powerful a marketing tool as a slick advertising campaign.”

The ramifications of this? I think Christians will have to equip themselves with doctrine so that they can be discerning about the incoming tides of Christian-themed movies. I don’t look forward to untying the knots of confusion caused by Da Vinci Code-copies.

On a lighter note, maybe we can develop a new niche rating Christian movies. Popcorn anyone?

Read Full Post »

BBC News (my favorite source of news), has an article basically saying Portugal asked Hugo Chavez to take down campaign posters with Portugal’s Prime Minister Jose Socrates.
What I thought was hilarious was the end of the article:

Other campaign posters include Mr Chavez with Cuban President Fidel Castro and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Some pictures for the visual:

Isn’t that so cute? Best buddies!

Read Full Post »

Ann wrote an article commenting about misrepresentation of evangelicals in Jesus Camp, the movie released September 15th, 2006.

Here’s the synopsis:
A growing number of Evangelical Christians believe there is a revival underway in America that requires Christian youth to assume leadership roles in advocating the causes of their religious movement.

The only thing that raised my eyebrow was the young boy convulsing on the floor. Didn’t see any snakes in the trailer though.

Watch the trailer and decide for yourself.

Read Full Post »

Concerning my entry on High Schooler’s and Rigorous Bible Studies, I recieved a feedback response that I thought was worth sharing:

Parents should be asking their children what they learned in Children’s church. Both mother and father should be signing up at least once a month to help out with chilren’s activities… Now having a child in my life I appreciate children’s church a lot.. so I can be fed the word, but the most important thing that my husband and I need to teach our son is how to walk with Christ. He can be a bagger at the commissary for the rest of his life, but if he has Jesus, that is all he will ever need, because G-d will provide him with the tools he needs to walk the path that G-d wishes. My husband and I have our faith and relationship with G-d, it is our jobs as his parents to share that wonderful relationship with him. It is our job more than it is any youth leader or pastor. What do you think?

So I ask any of you out there on WordPress, what do you think?

I thought it was interesting how someone who’s a bagger of groceries can still be faithful in teaching effectively and sufficiently his child…

Read Full Post »

raincoaster has a post that linked to a flash animation of middle east history.

Read Full Post »