On Creationism

This is a response to an article of the same name by Matt Slick at CARM. https://carm.org/is-christianity-or-the-bible-misogynistic Wiki describes misogyny as: Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It is a form of sexism that can keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the social roles of patriarchy. Misogyny has been widely practised for thousands of years. It is reflected in art, literature, human societal structure, historical events, mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide. But Slick has an agendas, so he uses his own definition. Misogyny is a hatred of and distrust of women. In Slick's world having contempt for all women is not misogymy. Being prejudiced against girls and women is not misogyny. Keeping women at a lower social status is not misogyny. Why is that? Well, I would suggest that as a Christian he has been raised to believe that women really are less than men, and that it is therefore perf...

This is a response to an article by Matt Slick on CARM that seeks to answer the question: " Why would God increase the pain of childbirth because of Eve’s disobedience to Him? " https://carm.org/god-multiplies-the-pain-of-women-in-child-bearing The answer lies in two things. First, we must understand that Eve was the means God commanded to fill the earth with people.  ... Second, Adam was her “head.” What? So Slick is saying God made childbirth painful - and outright dangerous - for women because Eve was commanded to fill the world with people and because Adam was in charge of her! In what way does that explain God's choice here? Both of those are readily achievable without childbirth being painful and dangerous. Indeed the first would be more readily accomplished if it was not! I suppose we need to get into the details here. God commanded to fill the earth with people First, we must understand that Eve was the means God commanded to fill the earth with people. Her union ...

The Shroud of Turin is a length of linen cloth that bears a faint image of the front and back of a naked man. Supposedly this is the shroud that was used to wrap Jesus in. From Wiki: The documented history of the shroud dates back to 1354, when it began to be exhibited in the new collegiate church of Lirey, a village in north-central France.Whether the memo was actually sent to the Pope or not, it seems that at least its salient information, that the Shroud was being displayed as genuine when it wasn’t, was known by the beginning of 1390, when Pope Clement issued his very restrictive bull. Ulysse Chevalier dated it at the end of 1389, although Jack Markwardt suggests early August, on the grounds that although it mentions an appeal to the King to get the relic suppressed, it does not mention that the Bailly of Troyes, acting on behalf of the King, had failed to get hold of it on 15 August.  The shroud was denounced as a forgery by the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, in 1389. ... The m...

 This is a follow up to my last post , regarding the article: Loke, Andrew. ‘ The resurrection of the Son of God: a reduction of the naturalistic alternatives .’ Journal of Theological Studies, 60 (2009): 570-584. Last time I looked at how he tries to divide up the possible explanations for the resurrection. Now it is the empty tomb we focus on. My view is the empty tomb was made up later - after Paul was writing, given 1 Cor 15. Mark made up the women witnessing tomb, and had them tell no one specifically because they really did tell no one - they told no one because there was no empty tomb. I am going to skip some of his alternatives; I do not find them likely either. (7) Either (7.1), (7.2), or (7.3) is true:  (7.1) There was no crucifixion of Jesus in mid-first- century Palestine, in which case either 7.1.1. or 7.1.2. is true. ...  (7.2) Jesus was crucified in mid-first-century Palestine and he was not buried (Unburied Hypothesis; a possible scenario for this hypothesis i...

A common strategy among apologists is to divide "all possible" explanations for the resurrection into a set number of groups, and then disprove all the ones they do not like to - surprise, surprise - leave the resurrection as the only possible explanation. Greg Boyd does it in a series of pod casts (the fourth is here , with links to earlier ones). Boyd says either it was a lie or a legend or it must be as the gospels say. Exactly what the Legend Hypothesis is he keeps vague. Oh, and he assumes the disciples considered Jesus to be divine from the resurrection, and his argument is based partly on how it would take a resurrection to persuade Jews of that time to believe such a thing. Apparently it does not occur to him that they believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, a man appointed by God, and adopted as God's son. However in this post I want to focus on an academic publication - if only because it is easier to quote. The article is; ‘ The resurrection of the Son of God: a...

The earliest Christians believe Jesus was a man appointed by God as the messiah, and hence adopted as God's son. This is a collection of Bible quotes that support that. The Other Davidic Kings All the kings from david's line were adopted as God's son: 2 Samuel 7:14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’”​ Psalm 2:7 I will tell of the decree:​ The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;​ today I have begotten you.​ ​ Psalm 89:20 I have found David my servant;​ with my sacred oil I have anointed him.​ ...​ 26 He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father,​ my God, the Rock my Savior.’​ 27 And I will appoint him to be my firstborn,​ the most exa...