Josiah Concept Ministries

[B]rothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Phil 4:

For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Cor 10:4-6)

When I look at real crime scenarios, especially ones that involve sexual offenses, the common denominator is fantasy. The perpetrators of these horrific crimes all fantasize about the crime extensively before they commit it. Depending on how mature the fantasy appears, the police will know the approximate age of the offender and what (if any) prior offenses to look for.

The most dangerous criminal, aside from ex-law enforcement officers, is the sexual sadist. The sexual sadist has the most developed fantasy, and has fantasized about the crime until the fantasy matures. He has thought through almost every angle, usually well enough to lead no evidence at the first crime. Often police think that this isn’t the first offense because of how well-developed the fantasy is. This leads officials on a wild goose chase trying to locate previous crimes that don’t exist. Sexual sadists get their crimes right the first time, usually have no priors, and will always kill again.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran an article about daydreaming. Daydreaming can be good. Sometimes a temporary escape from reality is the best way to handle stress. However, in this article was a single line that made my blood run cold in light of the above information. The advice was to never censor your daydreams, because anything you dream about is okay because it is only a dream.

The two Bible verses above serve to show the contrast between worldly wisdom and biblical wisdom. Worldly wisdom tells us to let our thoughts run free and to think about whatever we want to. Don’t censor yourself, the world tells us, these are your thoughts, your fantasies, and your dreams. Whatever you daydream about is fine.

This advice is going to create more sexual sadists.

Instead, let’s take our cue from the Bible. Let’s take our daydreams captive for Christ. The enemy will use our thoughts and our daydreams against us. Instead of letting him, focus our thoughts on everything that is just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent, and praiseworthy. In other words,

. . . forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained. (Phil 3:13-16)

When a reasonable human being encounters a phrase like “I want to believe X,” he won’t assume that the person making the statement holds position X. He will think that this person “wants to believe X,” but for whatever reasons does not. I am on record as saying that I want to believe in Young Earth Creationism. In fact, first I state emphatically that I do believe in YEC, but then I begin to notice that the reasons for which I reject the Christ-myth are present to a much greater degree in YEC. In fact, one Christian site lists YEC as a cult with dangerous and destructive beliefs.

Here are my exact words regarding this issue:

We all know that I’m a Young Earth Creationist, that I don’t believe in evolution, and that I work at Burger King. So what? I’m still looking at this argument with the eyes of a person who could be dead wrong, since more scientific evidence supports an Old Earth and universe. I want to believe in a Young Earth since that fits more closely to what the Bible says, . . . Maybe, instead of my previous post on changing over to Young Earth creationist, I should have stated that I want to believe it, but the jury is still out. (quoted by DA, emphasis mine)

I admit that I’m a YEC, but then I go on to say that I want to be a YEC because it fits more closely to the Bible. Then I change my opinion wholesale by the end of the paragraph: “I should have stated that I want to believe it, but the jury is still out.” I’m not a convinced YEC anymore, thank you Mike the Geocreationist.

The original title of the post that DA is quoting is “A Few Unfocused Thoughts.” Maybe next time, DA will grab some of my more “focused” thoughts when he wants to explain my position.

Alas, even when he grabs my focused thoughts, he still (as Severus Snape in The Prisoner of Azkaban) put his keen and penetrating mind to the task, but came (as usual) to the wrong conclusion. Dave quotes a bunch of sound bytes from my various writings in an attempt to prove that I’m anti-Catholic. Again, I’m not anti-Catholic in the sense that I despise or somehow denigrate fine Catholic brothers and sisters who serve Christ as faithfully (or hopefully more faithfully) than I do. The sound bytes serve to highlight exactly the point I have made time and again: I’m against the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The fact that DA fails to see the distinction between a Catholic person and Catholic doctrine is exactly why TurretinFan put the debate on hold. DA cannot talk about the differences between faiths without doctrine coming up, yet he seems to want to do this.

The central issue is, and always has been, the gospel.

But I think that DA’s final quote from me sums up my no answer the best.

[W]ith a daughter due in two months, a full-time job, a blogging ministry, and three different forums I try to frequent, I know well the constrains [sic] of time. I have responded to you [Steve Ray], I have responded to Jimmy Akin, I have responded to J.P. Holding. . . . at least one of you “famous” apologists have taken the time to read my little old blog, and did leave a comment. And that guy, a nemesis of yours to be sure, has just as little time on his hands as you do! The point is that if it is important to you, you will make the time. . . . If you make a claim, you should expect to be called to back it up at some point. . . . if you are unwilling to listen to what an honest person is trying to say to you, wouldn’t that make you the troll? [quoted by DA, emphasis mine]

I do follow this advice.  I do make time for what is really important to me!

Gene Bridges turned down the debate because Dave didn’t send him a notice by e-mail. He had to Google search to find the challenge on his own blog.

Saint & Sinner turned down the debate because he’s already doing an extended critique of Dave’s book, The Catholic Verses.

TurretinFan deferred the debate  because Dave changed his mind one too many times on the terms, and couldn’t even decide if he (Dave) was going to debate as a Roman Catholic or not.

Even though I am announcing that I’m turning the debate down today, it seems that DA had made the announcement for me Thursday-ish. Either Dave now possesses exhaustive divine foreknowledge, or he jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. I’m guessing the latter.

Even though I created a thread expressly for the DA debate challenge, Dave continued to post notes about it in my blog entry on the celebration of atheist women. He continued to accuse me of saying that Catholics aren’t Christians, which is something that I have never asserted.

I, like Gene, am a little miffed that DA didn’t contact me by e-mail, when my address is the easiest of the whole group to locate: top left corner of my blog. So, along with everyone else, I am rejecting Dave’s Debate Challenge. Even though Dave already did that a few days back for me.

Today was a day for housekeeping, or “blogkeeping.”  I tweaked a few things on my layout, most notable is dropping the image in support of Fred Dalton Thompson for President in 2008.  It’s not that I’m not going to vote for the former Law & Order star, it’s just that I don’t want this blog to become a political blog.  I want to keep this an apologetics blog.

Mike will be interested to know that I finished the critique of the founding principles of Geocreationism.  You’re a real sport, buddy!  I’m not converted, sorry, but you do have some really good ideas.  You’re welcome to keep trying to convert me, however.

Internally, I alphabetized the list of articles under my Articles tab, and placed a star next to all of the ones that aren’t done yet.  Readers won’t notice that, but it will help me.  That is when I noticed that I have three articles that I started but never finished.  So I will finish those over the next three to four weeks, in addition to my regular posts.  I’m going to start with finishing my answer to the Jesus Tomb documentary (better extremely late than never), followed by a critique of open theism, and finally a more satisfactory answer to this video than this guy (part 2).

I’m going to try to get back into a 4-6 post per week habit, as that is the only way to increase my blog’s rank, attract more readers, and retain the readers that I have.  If I were asked the secret to blogging success, I would have to say that regular posting is it.  Regular posting gets me more hits per day than any links that float out there.  Although I’m still going to try to collect those by interacting with some other blogs, and maybe by conversing on TheologyWeb.

That is a preview of what is to come on Josiah Concept Ministries.  Stay tuned!

I know that I have promised this and promised this. I’m sorry it has taken so long. New parents and anyone who has suffered depression in their lives will totally understand. I’m sure that many of you have doubted that it would ever arrive. But here it is, in PDF format. I hope that it was worth the wait. Enjoy!

I’ve taken her on before, and after almost a month-long delay, I’m here to take her on once again. Elizabeth Schmitz, of Schmitz Blitz, has this article in response to me. Elizabeth has posted an article that has a four-part argument in favor of Naomi and Ruth being lesbian lovers. The first part is the use of language; specifically, the word cleave, which is used to describe both Ruth and Naomi as well as marriage in general. The second part is the existence of many non-traditional relationships in the course of the Bible. The third part is the importance of lineage to the Hebrew people. And the final part refers to Ruth 4:16-17, where Naomi is like a second mother to Obed.

Elizabeth admits that the lack of detail within the text is a problem. This creates a bigger problem than Elizabeth may be aware of. This allows us to use a rabbinical argument from silence, which basically states that if the Bible doesn’t explicitly state it, it didn’t happen.

The argument of He. 7 is similar to the rabbinic argument from silence, which assumed that nothing exists unless Scripture mentions it. Since Genesis says nothing of Melchizedek’s parents, genealogy, birth, or death, he serves as a type representing the eternal Son of God (v. 3). . . . In rabbinical logic and reasoning, statements could be made which were “arguments from silence.” If the Bible didn’t specifically say something about a person, place, or incident, various conclusions could be drawn for the sake of the claim or discussion being presented. (source)

So, for the sake of this discussion, I can conclude that nothing happened between Ruth and Naomi. Even a casual search of the Bible will reveal that it is explicit where sex and sin occur. It rarely just says that two people bore a child; it explicitly states that the two people in question had sex. And it states that in unmistakable terms.  The same is true with sin.  The Bible deals very frankly with those subjects.

What about the rest of Elizabeth’s arguments?  First, in regard to language, she points out that “cleave” is used in both Genesis 2:24 to describe marriage, and in Ruth 1:14 to describe Ruth and Naomi’s relationship.  Granted, but there is no specific talk of sex or sexuality.  As I explained above, the Bible is very frank when discussing sex between two people.  It wouldn’t have stopped here.

Next, Elizabeth brings up several non-traditional relationships that occur in the Bible.  While she mentions Jacob having multiple wives, she neglects that this is not uncommon during patriarchal times.

Then she mentions Judah and Tamar.  I will only point out that the sex between these two is explicit in the text.

Abraham and Hagar is another relationship that Elizabeth mentions.  I should note that God honors His promise to raise a nation from Abraham’s offspring by promising Ishmael that he will sire 12 princes, but that the covenant promises will only be given to Isaac, as Isaac is the descendant that God promised Abraham.

Likewise, with David and Bathsheba, God took their first child as punishment for the adultery and murder.  None of these non-traditional relationships help make a case for Ruth and Naomi being lesbian lovers.  Ruth and Naomi would have clearly been in the wrong, as with Abraham and Hagar and David and Bathsheba.  God punished those couples.  There is no reason to assume that He wouldn’t have punished Ruth and Naomi.

The third part to Elizabeth’s argument is that lineage is very important in the Old Testament, and that people go to great lengths to preserve their lineage.  True, but irrelevant.  No lineage is possible from a homosexual couple, and the lineage is the man’s, not the woman’s.  This argument merely strengthens the position that Ruth and Naomi had only a platonic relationship.

The final piece of Elizabeth’s argument is that Naomi acts as the “second mother” in the way one would expect a modern lesbian couple to behave.  This argument is blatant eisigesis.  Nursemaids are not uncommon in the Bible.  What Elizabeth is doing is taking a modern relationship and reading it back into a culture where it never existed.  No one in that day would see Naomi as a “second mom” the way a lesbian life partner acts today because that practice was unheard of in those days.

The Bible, despite its frank dealing with sex, never mentions a sexual relationship between Ruth and Naomi.  Of the non-traditional relationships it mentions, the ones that are sinful in God’s eyes are punished by Him swiftly.  Lineage is irrelevant to a homosexual couple.  Nursemaids are not lesbian life partners.  Elizabeth’s arguments fall apart easily under scrutiny.

Dave Armstrong has issued a debate challenge to me, as well as to Saint & Sinner, Gene Bridges of Triablogue, and TurretinFan.  The topic is the unimaginably broad question, “Is Catholicism Christian?”

I don’t want to be considered a chicken for not accepting the debate.  However, as I’ve never said Catholicism isn’t Christian, I’m confused as to why I’m being challenged.   What I have said is that certain beliefs and practices within Catholicism have departed from the traditional Christian faith.  In other words, people are saved within the Catholic Church in spite of what it it teaches, not because of what it teaches.

Carrie has a great example of what I’m talking about right here.  Notice how this document states that communion with the Church is the key to salvation, not saving faith in Jesus Christ.

This debate topic is too huge to take on in a 90-minute cross-ex format.  There are far too many areas to delve into in that time period.  You have patristic writings, synods and councils, the ever-popular Marian dogmas, the supposed connection between Augustine and Calvin (a topic that I’ve only seen mentioned in a single line in R.C. Sproul’s Chosen by God), and the papacy.  None of these are topics that I have researched in any great depth, so maybe the focus could be on the Sacraments, which is a topic that I have researched before–I would only have to brush up a bit.

However, new baby, job search, and this blog are taking most of my time right now.  Also, I would like to leave Burger King a little better than I found it, which means that I’m trying to focus a lot of effort on improving my management style.  Of course, I can take those sharpened skills anywhere.

So I’m going to hold off on making a decision on this for right now.  When my baby is on a more regular schedule, then perhaps I’ll talk to Dave more seriously.

After I wrote this, I got to thinking that my post, “Celebration of Atheist Women,” is out of step with what I have written in this lengthy refutation.  In other words, I have just said that others should step lightly on sarcasm in regard to outsiders, when I have failed to live up to that ideal.  The post that resided here was nothing but sarcasm, directed mainly at Nicole Smallkowski and Kelly from RRS. This only makes me a hypocrite if I defend my own use of it while condemning other people who use it.  I would also be guilty of using “special pleading,” a logical fallacy that many Christians like to fall back on.  I will make no effort to defend the practice when used by anyone–even me–toward an outsider.

But I can’t undo what has already been done.  All I can do is admit that I was wrong for posting what I did, and then move forward taking care to not repeat the same mistake.

I have re-opened the comments section, if anyone would like to take a mean swipe at me.  I will follow Jesus’ advice in Matthew 5:39.

The Da Vinci Code was published in 2003.  The movie, starring Tom Hanks, came out in 2006.  Now, in 2007, I thought that all of the apologetics material related to this novel had been published.  I was mistaken.

Francis De Souza, an electrical engineer from southern California, has taken on the subject in a new book, Shredding the Da Vinci Code and Vindicating the Deity of Christ, available from Outskirts Press.

I had never heard of Outskirts Press before, but as soon as I opened De Souza’s book and skimmed a few pages, I knew that Outskirts had to be either a vanity press or a self-publisher.  I was absolutely correct–it’s the latter.

How did I know that?  Simple.  De Souza’s book contains no clear separation between paragraphs and no citations.  There is no bibliography.  The poor formatting and the lack of citations are both major strikes against this book, but I thought that I would give it a chance.

I gave up on this book 106 pages into it, and I would have burned it happily forty pages prior to that.  This book is the biggest waste of time, and despite the sentiments of a few positive Amazon reviews, contains no original information.  In fact, had I not known the information that De Souza presented, I would have been hard pressed to learn it from this book.

First, there is no introduction to the book.  Absent the title and book description, I have no way of knowing exactly what and how this book will really present.  But I’m not surprised that this book lacks an introduction.  That would indicate that, at some point, the author thought about what was actually going to be included in this book.  This book seems to be written in a stream-of-consciousness style with no unifying voice.  As if De Souza wrote it as a series of vignettes, but never actually intending to write a full book.

Second, we have the aforementioned paragraph issue.  Sometimes, there is a blank line between paragraphs.  Other times, there is just a hard return.  It is very difficult to visually see where paragraphs end, so the pages look like massive blocks of text.

Third, the grammar is very difficult.  Aside from the usual misplaced commas, the italics sometimes stress the wrong words.  That makes sentences mean things that the author probably never intended.  De Souza often speaks in metaphors but doesn’t explain them adequately.  Related to that, the voice of the book lacks any sort of unity.  Sometimes he speaks directly to the reader.  Sometimes he holds an imaginary conversation with Robert Langdon.  Sometimes he holds an imaginary conversation with Dan Brown.  De Souza never alerts his readers to the switch in voice.

Finally, no bibliography or citations combined with De Souza’s apparent lack of expertise in church history and theology, leaves no credibility whatsoever to any of De Souza’s claims.  That means that this entire book is a farce.  It could be completely made up for all anyone knows, because the author leaves us no way to check out his claims.

With all of that going against it, I gave up on this book after De Souza spends fifteen pages attacking the way Dan Brown writes.  This is really the pot calling the kettle black.  Considering how poorly written De Souza’s book is, that borders on hypocrisy.

The verdict?  This is the worst book I’ve ever read.  I can understand why De Souza had to go to a self-publisher.  No reputable editor would touch this book without major overhauling.  Leave this book on the shelf where it belongs, and check out the other, superior literature debunking Dan Brown’s novel.

This portion is easy to answer:

But let’s say he doesn’t. Let’s say this Christian is merely speculating based upon what he knows of Jesus’ life. And, as a Christian, let’s say you think he’s wrong. Why is his opinion “beyond offensive”? It seems like it has some reasonable historical data to back it up. And even if you do, in fact, believe God really hates homosexuality, is it that hard to believe that Jesus might not agree with every single opinion of his Father? Maybe they differed on this particular issue. Maybe they didn’t, and Jesus took just as hard a line on this as God allegedly did. But this statement by a Christian isn’t completely without merit. (source)

Well, Jesus and His Father not being in complete agreement. That sentiment betrays Jeff’s misunderstanding of what the Trinity actually is. Each Person–Father, Son, and Spirit–is an individual person with all of the faculties of a person. But each is of the same substance: God.

I’ve covered elsewhere that each Person of the Trinity has a unique ministry, and the idea that each is present with the others during the execution of these ministries actually strengthens the notion of each Person’s individuality rather than diminishing it. Jesus, as if proving Jeff’s point that He has a different will than His Father, prayed on the night of His execution, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done” (Lk 22:42).

Jesus is nothing if not consistent. It is pointless to argue whether or not He had different opinions than His Father. He consistently argued, and prayed for, His Father’s will–not His own–to be done.  Jesus’ own opinion is moot in this case.  Jesus would have wanted whatever His Father would have wanted.