SAMPLE CLIP OF JAMES WHITE DEBATING A MUSLIM APOLOGIST

James White just debated last Saturday in Southern California with two Muslim apologist

The above is a sample clip of one of the debates with one of the Muslim apologist

Read Full Post »

Lesson from Augustine for today: Apologetics dealing with contemporary slanderers of the faith

I have heard so much in the past of Christians discussing the significance of The City of God in terms of eschatology and the author’s development of his view of the Kingdom of God, but I think the first few books within The City of God are also important in its own right for another aspect which should not be ignored: The importance of Christian apologetics against those who slander the faith. While Augustine was dealing with objections coming from Polytheists, the first two hundred pages of reading should be an example for Christians today to defend the truth in our cultural context.

In the opening of The City of God, Augustine jumped right into a defense of Christianity against the charge from pagans that Rome was sacked due to the recent neglect of the many Roman gods, since Christianity have so successfully flourished that idols and pagan temples were not what they once were. The opening thrusts of his argument began his observations of how even before Christianity, these pagan gods and temples didn’t even protect their followers which Augustine documents from history that the Romans themselves know. Moreover, Augustine expressed how ridiculous it was that the very gods in their temple who can not be protected are cherished by pagan critics as the ones who would protect the land. Rather than the gods protecting men, it was the other way around with men protecting the gods’ temple and idols. This being the first primary source that I have read from the church fathers, I was surprised at the nature of the work being so apologetics driven. His attack on paganism was reminiscent of the rhetoric against idols that is found throughout the Bible. In addition, I also appreciated the glimpse of the context in which Christianity flourished in the fourth century, and the church’s struggle with pagan slanderers.

This goes on until chapter eight of the first book where Augustine gives a treatment of why Christians also suffered with the Roman ordeal as well. Augustine saw the chief reason was not so much for Christians indulging in the bad life as it was for Christians’ love of an earthly life. The various suffering of the Christians which the pagans have taken the opportunity to use as evidence against the Christian faith are addressed: What about Christians whose dead bodies are disrespected? What about Christians who are held hostage in captivity? What about the rape of Christian women, has the victim sinned? He deals at length with one particular challenge, that it is better to commit suicide than be violated by rape. I find in his rebuttal a great example for the Church today of having Christians who can model themselves like Augustine that would not be afraid to tackle the tough ethical objections by the enemies of Christ. In addition, the discussion of suicide to prevent the violation of rape was also something I never have thought of thoroughly and through the introduction of Augustine’s writing, I would agree with his answer that suicide is not the right option to prevent being rapped.

In some sense the next few books appear to be repetitive of what was written in Book one, where Augustine presents with further historical evidences for his arch-counter-argument against the pagans and neutralized their assertion that Christianity was the cause of all the misfortunes that have befallen on Rome. It was impressive to see how Augustine was familiar with Classical history and well versed in the literatures of the Romans and the Greeks to make his case that troubles and degeneration of Rome occurred even before Christ as the Roman’s own record testified. Furthermore, it was a pleasure to see Augustine response to the pagan’s accusation by making their own argument self-defeating from their own history.

To Augustine, the depravity of Rome with their false gods was the reason for the trials of Rome, not Christianity. The sacking of Rome should be viewed as God’s deliverance of the people from being enslaved to these immoral, demonic gods. I think in our times today, Western culture are resistant to the idea that catastrophe can be the result of the judgment of God. Something can be learned from Augustine here. Although not every disaster is the result of God’s judgment as we learn in Job, the church should warn our culture that they need to search their hearts to see if they are right with God before ruling out the possibility of God’s judgment, because the living God of the Bible does bring judgment upon sin.

In the course of expanding his argument, Book Two dealt with the immoral nature of their gods which was a disservice to their followers since the gods were unable to lay down moral precepts for its adherents. The immorality of the gods were shamefully re-enacted in the theatre. The Romans had no standard of morals from these gods, but instead the stories and plays about the gods were divine warrant for all sorts of immorality. My mind could not help but to think back of biblical example of how though idolatry is a sin itself, it often leads to further wickedness.

Augustine’s attention to Rome’s fanatical obsession with the degenerate theaters reminded me of what can probably be today’s parallel: movies, television and the internet. His description of the immoral content of the theatre without going through unnecessary explicit details still managed to leave me morally repulse. It made me wonder of whether Augustine’s era is any different than our contemporary era with how people relish the public viewing of gross immorality, behaviors which they themselves keep private in their own lives. Augustine found that the immoral theatre was softening the Romans with pleasure and plenty and led the pagans to take the easy way out by blaming Christians for the invasion of Rome instead of blaming it on their own immorality.

Read Full Post »

Underpriviledged Military?

I was watching the news today, showing an interview with McCain. During the interview, the reporter asked a question dealing with an underpriviledged military and how the priviledged (excluding McCain) do not serve. It’s always annoying when popular myths like a “victimized military” and call for a draft continue to perpetuate schools and the media. Although McCain did not contend this point about under-representation, this myth has already been debunked years ago. Recently, I came across some research that does called “Who Bears the Burden?” by Dr. Tim Kane from 2005.

In the article, Dr. Kane talks a little about the history of military recruiting before dwelving into the research comparing the demographics before 9/11 and after. The article says that before 9/11 the number of recruits from the middle class was slightly higher than the lower income brackets. After 9/11, “However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on ter­rorism began, as did the proportion of highly edu­cated enlistees.”

Not only did the research find that the level of income was higher before and after 9/11 but the research also found that the recruits before and after 9/11 have a higher education level than the general population as well. Dr. Kane points out that the military has 98% who’ve completed high school or higher, in contrast to the 75% who’ve done so in the general population. Below is a graphical comparison:

Interestingly, enough, although the level of the general population that have take some college is much higher than the military’s, the difference drops down when comparing those that have completed post-high school education.

Other comparisons include the recruit demographics by race, by rural versus city, Southern versus New England states, and by state.

Read Full Post »

Obama and Killing a Baby

Is the title fair?

Obama on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

After the baby is born alive (failed abortion), they let the baby die outside the mother’s womb.

This is a research done by Jill Stanek:

IL Senate 2001

• Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
• Voted “no” in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 28, 2001)
• Argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (March 30, 2001) (see pp. 84-90 of this PDF)
• Voted “present” for the bill (March 30, 2001)

IL Senate 2002

• Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
• Voted “no” vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 6, 2002)
• Argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (April 4, 2002) (see pp. 28-35 of this PDF)
• Voted “no” for the bill (April 4, 2002)

IL Senate 2003

• Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
• Obama, who chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, held the bill from receiving a committee vote and stopped the senator sponsor from adding the federal act’s clarification paragraph, which made the bills absolutely identical.

Jill Stanek’s interview on O’Reilly,

Read Full Post »

Obama & the Freedom of Choice Act

Obama said, “The first thing I’ll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

So, what is this Freedom of Choice Act?

The Freedom of Choice Act supercedes any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose.

This bill would effectively cancel every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, no matter how modest or reasonable. It would even, according to the National Organization of Women, abolish all state restrictions on government funding for abortions.

If Barack Obama becomes president and lives up to this promise, then everyone who pays income tax will be paying an abortionist to perform an abortion.

More of Freedom of Choice Act at NRLC

Read Full Post »

Obama a Muslim – A Freudian slip

He does not know when life began (yet he supports abortion!) and now I’m wondering if he knows what he told us his faith was.

Can you vote for a guy that is not only ambigious but does not even know what he told Americans his religion was???? When he said Muslim, a newsreporter even helped him out to remind him he’s a Christian.

Link.

Read Full Post »

What Happened Oprah?

A picture do speak a thousand words!

Oprah Winfrey’s statement: At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.

Ms Oprah, you could interview Ms Palin on your show and give her tips on what her hairstyle should be =)

More on ABCNews.

Drudgereport vs Oprah

Read Full Post »

SARA PALIN CRITICIZED FOR…HER HAIRSTYLE?

I’ve been experimenting the last few months from being away from much of politics on line. Politics attract some strange people. For example, it can get tiring seeing some liberals who have no life (key word is some) posting anonymous comments on forum pretending to be Conservative Marine Veterans slandering Conservatism and being left exposed for their lies when they call themselves soldiers (Marines are not soldiers and no Marine would call himself a soldier).

You can even see on Veritas Domain entry on Sarah Palin, which has had some interesting comments this week.

But I think this is rather going to far when someone who is a journalist gets paid to write about Sara Palin’s hairstyle:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1116858

And I can tell you that most guys who see what the news reporter haircut looks like will wonder how people who have even worst hair cuts can be experts to talk about other people’s hair.

But unlike the news reporter, I don’t get paid to tell you this. That one was for free.

Read Full Post »