10. The Quran contains miraculous scientific truths.
9. The Quran is a literary miracle.
8. Muhammad was sinless.
7. Islam is anti-slavery.
6. The Quran contains no contradictions.
5. Islam is a religion of peace.
4. Islam is pure monotheism.
3. Islam promotes women's rights.
2. Islam is spreading rapidly due to conversions.
1. The Quran has been perfectly preserved.
"A conversation with Dr. Carl Trueman on the modern self and the sexual revolution"
An excerpt from the interview to whet your appetite:
[Charles] Taylor is one of those enviably polymathic people. He’s been a politician. He’s a political philosopher. He’s a straight down the line philosopher. He’s a scholar of the German philosopher Hegel. He’s a historian. I found him particularly useful on two fronts. One, Taylor correctly identifies Romanticism as the key move in Western society where inner feelings become constitutive of who we are. He sees that as leading to the formation of a particular notion of the self which he calls the expressive individual. Essentially, what he means by that is that the self comes to be thought of as that which we feel inside, and the self manifests itself when it’s able to behave outwardly in accordance with those inner desires. That’s where we get the language of authenticity. Today in society, we often use the language of authenticity when we’re talking about people. A good example is Bruce, now Caitlyn, Jenner in his interview with Diane Sawyer when he was talking about transitioning. He made the point that ‘finally I’m going to be able to be who I always have been.’ Essentially saying, ‘finally, I can be authentic. Finally, I’m not going to be living a lie anymore.’ Now, you don’t have to be a transgender person to identify with the notion that ‘I want to be outwardly that which I feel to be inwardly.’Second is Taylor’s notion of what he calls the social imaginary. I found this extremely helpful. The social imaginary points to the fact that most of us don’t relate to the world around us in terms of first principles. Life is not a syllogism. I don’t get up from my chair and think, ‘Okay, where do I need to exit the room from? Oh, there’s a door over there. I’ll go through the door.’ I get up and instinctively leave through the door. The social imaginary gets to the idea that that’s how we think about an awful lot of things. It’s how we think about morality. We tend to pick up the intuitions of the world around us, internalize them, and make them our own. We don’t alway think in terms of first principles when we think about morality. A good example might be provided by the gay marriage issue. Most people have not come to find gay marriage acceptable by reading heavy tomes of sexual ethics or sociology. Most people have gay friends or have seen attractive images of gay couples and things like the sitcom “Will and Grace.” It’s not that they’ve been convinced by argument. It’s that their intuitions have been shaped by broader cultural patterns. I found that very helpful in approaching this notion of the modern self. It’s not that we get up one morning and decide ‘Let’s be expressive individuals.’ The very air we breathe shapes, tilts, and bends our intuitions towards that result.
Zach Howard at Desiring God has put together a basic but helpful reader's guide to Augustine's The Confessions. If you want to compare different English translations, then this post might prove useful. The Latin text of The Confesssions is available here.
The Harvest Handbook of Apologetics is currently on sale for $1.99 on Amazon Kindle. However, if you don't wish to support Amazon (who could remove access to your purchased ebooks if they wish), then the ebook is also available elsewhere. Such as on Christian Boook for $1.59. The book is a collection of essays on various apologetics issues from scholars like Bill Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Guillermo Gonzalez, Gary Habermas, J.W. Montgomery, Norman Geisler, Walter Kaiser, Edwin Yamauchi, etc.
By the way:
1. I don't know if it's legal or illegal in the US to remove DRM on DRM-protected ebooks if someone has purchased the ebook for their own personal use. Maybe a lawyer can comment if there are any lawyers around.
2. At the same time, even if it's illegal, there are unjust or unethical laws. Perhaps it's arguable the DMCA or certain sections of the DMCA are unjust or unethical.
3. That said, I'm not implying it's necessarily licit for Christians to break laws even if the laws are unjust or unethical laws.
Hebrews 11:1:
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (ESV)
"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (NIV)
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see." (NET)
"Now faith is the certainty of things hoped for, a proof of things not seen." (NASB)
"Now faith is the realization of what is hoped for, the proof of things not seen." (LEB)
"Now faith is the substance of what is hoped for, the evidence of what is not seen." (KJV)
"Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen." (CSB)
"Now faith is the ὑπόστασις/hypostasis of what is hoped for, the ἔλεγχος/elenchos of what is not seen." (Greek/Greek transliteration)
1. I'm no biblical scholar let alone a Hebrews scholar. I'm just a simple layperson sharing what (little) I've learned about Heb 11:1 in a brief personal and devotional "study" I did earlier this morning. So please feel free to correct me.
2. The words I've bolded in Heb 11:1 seem to have been translated in either a subjective or an objective fashion.
a. The subjective seems to emphasize the person who has faith's state of mind. Their psychological state. Their "assurance", "confidence", or "conviction" in what is hoped for and what is unseen.
b. By contrast, the objective seems to emphasize the objective reality of what is hoped for and what is unseen. In this respect, "faith" seizes upon a solid object that can't be seen at the present time but will be seen in the future.
By the way, in context, what is hoped for and what is unseen seem to be about time rather than space, though perhaps it's both. That is, what is hoped for and what is unseen seem to point to the future, to eschatological fulfillment, not to the spiritual realm, per se. Although of course we Christians believe there is an unseen spiritual realm (e.g. 2 Kgs 6:17).
3. Looking at the two Greek words:
a. ὑπόστασις/hypostasis. Cf. Heb 1:3 about Christ's "nature": "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature [hypostaseos]" (ESV). I presume there are good arguments for the subjective emphasis in translation, but I don't know what they would be. My reason for thinking the objective emphasis is the better translation is the example of "the people of old" "commended" for their faith in Heb 11. They seem to be illustrative examples of faith, of Heb 11:1. It seems to me they thought of faith in an objective reality (at least that's where the emphasis would seem best tilted), not faith in a subjective state of mind which would seem to come close to saying faith in faith. But perhaps a combination of the subjective and objective with a stronger degree of emphasis on the objective would be a reasonable translation? Say something like this: "Now faith is being sure of the reality of what is hoped for...".
b. ἔλεγχος/elenchos. As I understand it, elenchos has reference to demonstrating something is true or someone passes muster after detailed cross-examination. Interestingly, the Socratic method or Socratic debate is also known as "elenctic" debate. The idea seems to be scrutiny or cross-examination of someone or something to see if they or it is true or false, proven or disproven, accurate or inaccurate. So "elenchos" in Heb 11:1 seems to be saying that "what is not seen" has been proven to be true after examination or scrutiny. What may have once been debatable or disputable has emerged demonstrably proven.
c. Perhaps a reasonable translation of Heb 11:1 could be: "Now faith is being sure of the reality of what is hoped for, proof after examination of what is not seen."
4. It's interesting that Heb 11:1 defines faith as the direct opposite of what militant atheists typically think faith is. Militant atheists say faith is blind faith. A leap of faith. A leap into the dark or unknown. Faith without reason or evidence. Faith based primarily or solely on emotions or feelings.
However, Heb 11:1 contradicts these notions of faith. Heb 11:1 teaches that faith is trust in an objective reality. An objective reality that we can't see at present, but nevertheless it is an objective reality based on demonstrably proving its truth in light of intense examination. A subjective feeling or emotion like assurance or conviction comes after the fact and in light of having demonstrated the reality of faith's object.
This is another piece of evidence that Christianity has always been an apologetic faith: we defend our faith, we examine our faith, we prove our faith, etc.
I recently got into a debate with a notable Christian leader (whom I won't name) who argues Trump did "incite violence" with the Capitol Hill "rioters", which of course is one of the bases for why Trump has been impeached again. Here are my (edited) replies.
Matthew himself was traditionally identified as a tax collector, and Matthew's Gospel shows the greatest level of financial interest, including numerous references to money and treasure that Matthew alone records:
- The magi, with their rich gifts (2:11)
- The parable about hidden treasure (13:44)
- The parable about the discovered pearl (13:45-46)
- The scribe compared to someone bringing out old and new treasures (13:52)
- The account of Peter and the temple tax collectors (17:24-27)
- The parable of the servant who was forgiven a huge debt of ten thousand talents and who refused to forgive a fellow servant a debt of a hundred denarii (18:23-35)
- The parable of the workers in the vineyard, discontented with their pay of one denarius for a day because the same was given to late arrivals who had worked less time (20:1-16)
- The parable about talents (25:14-30)
- Judas's betrayal money (27:3) and what was purchased with it (27:7)
- The bribe given by the chief priests to the guards at Jesus's tomb (28:12)
(Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust The Gospels? [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2018], approximate Kindle location 1349)
If we want to know who's really in power, then perhaps one way to know is to think about who or what we cannot openly criticize in a reasonable manner...
...without being shouted down.
...without being publicly shamed.
...without being called false names.
...without losing our reputations.
...without made into social pariahs in our own communities.
...without being ostracized in our own nation.
...without having our speech curtailed or even silenced.
...without being fined.
...without losing our jobs.
...without being imprisoned.
...without being forcibly "re-educated".
...without unjust corporeal punishment.
...without being "disappeared" in the middle of the night.
...without being publicly executed.
...without being (shall we say) "canceled".
In China, it is the CCP.
In North Korea, it is the Kim family.
In Russia, it is Putin.
In Iran, it is the ayatollah.
In many Middle Eastern nations, it is Islam.
In the US, are we still able to openly criticize in a reasonable manner people, organizations, institutions, the government, and so forth without significant cost to us or our families?
[O]ne theme in particular dominated all others: the growing tyranny of the majority, the ever-increasing and most formidable barriers raised by the majority around the free expression of opinion, and, as a result, the frightening oneness of American thinking, the absence of eccentricity and divergence from the norm.A perfect liberty of the mind exists in America, said Tocqueville, just as long as the sovereign majority has yet to decide its course. But once the majority has made up its mind, then all contrary thought must cease, and all controversy must be abandoned, not at the risk of death or physical punishment, but rather at the more subtle and more intolerable pain of ostracism, of being shunned by one's fellows, of being rejected by society.
Throughout history kings and princely rulers had sought without success to control human thought, that most elusive and invisible power of all. Yet where absolute monarchs had failed, democracy succeeds, for the strength of the majority is unlimited and all pervasive, and the doctrines of equality and majority rule have substituted for the tyranny of the few over the many, the more absolute, imperious, and widely accepted tyranny of the many over the few. (Richard Heffner, Democracy in America)
David Wood doesn't care about big tech demonetizing and deplatforming him. He's going to continue speaking the truth, exposing Islam, exposing big tech, exposing the mainstream media, and so on. I think that speaks volumes about Wood's character.
At the same time, Wood has a large family (by modern western standards) to provide and care for including two special needs kids if I recall correctly. Last I heard he lives in NYC which isn't exactly an affordable place to raise a family nor a friendly place for conservatives of any stripe. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be more prudent for Wood to be less provocative, but I suppose then he wouldn't be who he is nor accomplish all the good he has accomplished.
Regardless, when leftists talk about fighting for freedom, I'd say David Wood (and the many others like him) is far closer to what fighting for freedom looks like today than, say, leftists taking selfies at Antifa protests (let alone burning down local businesses and violently attacking other protesters) so decades later they can tell their kids or grandkids that they particpated in "the revolution". I just hope history remembers that they took part in what should be shameful activities, but even if history doesn't, God sure does.
Here's an interview with Andrew Torba, the founder and CEO of Gab:
https://gab.com/a/posts/104513059000963373
People can listen to the same interview here (starts at approximately 12:30):
https://play.acast.com/s/theglennbeckprogram/d92f2196-c5ec-11ea-909a-2313c0b613e5
Gab is an alternative to Twitter and similar social media. Torba is a conservative Christian.
It's maddening how Gab and even Torba as a person have been treated by big tech and others. I fear Torba is right that we're only a step or two away from the Bible being considered hate speech by the left. Same goes for what conservative Christians say online. If that happens, then it's possible to see (for example) a conservative church website or an apologetics ministry "canceled" by big tech and having to face all the sorts of battles Torba and Gab have faced. I guess "social justice" doesn't apply "equally" to conservatives.
This interview took place on July 14, 2020. Of course, things have only gotten worse since then.
Moreover, it is not clearly to the skeptic's advantage to rely heavily on the Argument from Human Bias. For one thing, because human biases are not limited to the domain of the paranormal, the application of the argument extends beyond the boundaries of parapsychology. For example, we could use the argument to challenge every scientific lab study based on instrument readings and ordinary human observation. After all, scientists have at least as much at stake, and therefore at least as many reasons for perceptual biases, as do witnesses of psi phenomena. In fact, they may have more, given the intimate connection between their lab work and career interests. Furthermore (and even more important), the Argument from Human Bias cuts two ways, against reports by the credulous and the incredulous. If our biases may lead us to malobserve, misremember, or lie, then we should be as suspicious of testimony from nonbelievers as from believers. If (based on their favorable dispositions) we distrust reports by the apparently credulous or sympathetic that certain odd phenomena occurred, we should (by parity of reasoning) be equally wary of reports by the incredulous or unsympathetic that the alleged phenomena did not occur (or that cheating occurred instead). Although philosophers and scientists who fancy themselves to be tough-minded and impartial are often reluctant to concede this point, there have been exceptions. (The Limits Of Influence [Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 1997], 26-27)
…allegations of detection of fraud, or of malobservation, or of misinterpretation of what was observed, or of hypnotically induced hallucinations, have to be scrutinized as closely and as critically as must the testimony for the reality of the phenomena. For there is likely to be just as much wishful thinking, prejudice, emotion, snap judgment, naiveté, and intellectual dishonesty on the side of orthodoxy, of skepticism, and of conservatism, as on the side of hunger for and of belief in the marvelous. The emotional motivation for irresponsible disbelief is, in fact, probably even stronger - especially in scientifically educated persons whose pride of knowledge is at stake - than is in other persons the motivation for irresponsible belief. (27)
Ducasse's caveat about irresponsible disbelief is buttressed by a wealth of evidence. For one thing, according to Stevenson (1968, p. 112), experiments have revealed some interesting ways in which peer pressure and other contextual factors can apparently influence a person's perceptions or perception reports. But even apart from the experimental evidence, the history of parapsychology chronicles an astounding degree of blindness, intellectual cowardice, and mendacity on the part of skeptics and ardent nonbelievers, some of them prominent scientists. (27)
So the purge is on:
1. Just as many conservatives predicted: if the Democrats win the White House and the Senate, then the left will seek to silence opposition or dissent. That's what's happening right now.
Specifically, as many know by now, Twitter banned Trump and locked the POTUS account too. They won't reinstate the POTUS account until Biden takes office. This is despite the fact that Trump is still the sitting president. And not only has Trump been banned, but many of his supporters too, even though many of his supporters haven't said anything that would incite riots or racism.
In addition, big tech companies removed alternatives to Twitter like Parler and Gab. I can no longer download either app via Google Play or the Apple Store. These apps can still be downloaded via a site like APKPure. However, if Parler and Gab have their businesses ended, thanks to big tech's concerted effort to destroy their businesses, then there's no point downloading either app.
In a way, it feels more like this is communist China, not the United States, where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will "direct" all "loyal" Chinese including Chinese companies to do what the CCP deems best for "the people", then Chinese companies and other organizations immediately comply.
