The Dunamis Word 2

Icon

Upholding The Light Of Jesus In A Dark World

Atheism, The Blind Religion Pt. 1

Matthew 5:12-14

Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

 In a recent review at a website called Debunking Christianity, I came across an article by Lee Randolph, one of the web-site founders who claims to be a former Christian who has lost his faith. The article was designed to bring “reasonable doubts about sin” as discussed in the Bible, to review of scientific evidence and therefore refute the Biblical narrative of sin as being over simplistic and out of date. It didn’t take long to find all kinds of Anti-Christ and Anti-Bible statements and presuppositions. I have written this article in response to his as well as posted the link to his site for your review.

I would suggest that you proceed to their site only after you’ve read my responses to the article, familiarized yourself with humanism and it’s proponents, and done a cursory examination of atheism and related issues so that you will not be deluded by their play on words and suggestions about truth, reality, materialism and freethinking.

Please keep in mind that to be an atheist takes more faith than it does to become a Christian. As Christians our “step in faith” is based on sound facts and empirical evidences such as history, fulfilled prophecy, verifiable witness testimony, and first hand accounts. Atheism is supposedly based on knowledge and science but often leads into self contradictions and self refuting arguments. In order to be an atheist one has to take a “blind leap” into materialism and natural processes with no objective standards and in many cases a grope in the dark in effort to find or construct truth.

My words are highlighted in response to the presuppositions by Mr. Randolph which are preceeded by bullet point. I’ll discuss the different types of atheism in a later writing but for now enjoy this, and please pay special attention to the final suggestion and critique found in Part 2 of this rebuttal.

  • “It argues that if God created us, that since we have biological bases for behavior that heavily influence our freewill, the dichotomy of reward and punishment rather than remediation is unjust because he designed us with a high potential to fail.”

(This statement is based on a faulty understanding of how man was originally created by God. Man was created holy and without blemish within the Christian worldview. Man was not created to sin or with a predisposition to sin. Man was not created, with a propensity to sin. Man was created with the ability to sin. Any such biological discord as expressed within this article is merely the process of sin that will not be eradicated from the Earth and the whole of man until there is a new heaven and a new Earth. This evidence, interpreted properly more appropriately displays the need for a savior. Apostle Paul stated in Rom. 7:24, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”)

  • “Christianity follows in the footsteps of all the other religions before it that correlate blood with fertility, Gods with kings and heroes who struggle with death”.

(Once again, it is convenient and affirming to his supposition for the author to set forth a statement such as this, basing Christianity on mystery religions and religious systems that were in operation prior to the biblical and Hebrew narratives. The truth is that most literature on mystery religions surfaced AFTER 1st Century AD. Because of the success of Christianity, many mystery religions stories faced considerable modifications, and alterations in order to make their teaching more widely accepted in light of the rapid proliferation of the historical, biblical and Christian narratives. Even with all of those changes there is yet NO mystery religious story that parallels the story of Jesus and many other Bible characters. By virtue of this, the Biblical narrative remains unique among rivals. Secondly, most mystery religion narratives do not offer concepts of a singular creator over and of all things, didn’t offer sin as a problem between God and man, and certainly didn’t offer a solution to sin such as faith in the shed blood of Jesus for remission of sins. Further, mystery religions did not offer the concept of a “virgin birth” which is found in Mt. 1:22-23 (as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in Isaiah 7:14.) Finally, prohibitions against paganism and idolatry as found in Judaism and Christianity were not found in mystery religious texts. Based on these arguments and other voluminous examinations that has undertaken these issues, we reject the notion that Christianity has followed the footsteps of mystery religions or other world religions and religious thought.

  • “Basically, religion creates a problem by exaggerating the bad then sells the solution. Its a tried and true technique, that many different organizations (including marketing) practice today. People are bad and they need God or a King to keep them in line.”
  • “But this idea of spirits causing bad behavior was left behind by science. Science has taken a slow track to the point it is today because until recently fruitful “non-destructive” brain research has been impossible. Science has exposed the good/evil false dichotomy and shows that Christianity ignores a lot of very important qualifiers about human behavior.”

(The writer takes the path that all problems or what can generally be accepted as behavioral problems are simply mere natural processes. This concept is better known as naturalism. Straight out of the Humanist Manifesto 2000, the concept of nonreductive materialism states that natural processes and events are best accounted for by reference to material causes. This is why it is imperative to set the foundation that good and evil are false dichotomies (not realities) and that the problems that exist are somehow fabricated by Christianity. This is however a self-defeating proposition and further “debunks” the original argument. If good and evil are false dichotomies by anyone standards including God’s, then all behavioral actions are relative and therefore beyond judgement or correction. The actions of the murderer, thief, rapist etc. are not “evil” according to this theory. By virtue of the same argument, sexual purity, sharing and giving, and dedication to professionalism, hard work and family values are not “good” either. This is the crumbled foundation on which the author lays his presupposition.)

  • “Human behavior is influenced by the following inter-dependent factors and the human is more or less unaware of them.
    – Population and Species attributes
    – Natural selection
    – Genetic Makeup
    – Fetal Development
    – Perinatal Biology
    – Development
    – Acute Hormones
    – Environmental Triggers
    – NeurobiologyWhat you will notice is that Freewill is missing. That is because freewill itself is made up of those components. We don’t have as much “freewill” as we imagine we do.
  • The influence that environmental and biological factors have on the function of the brain limits options and performance without the person even realizing it. These factors are an inseparable part of the decision making process.”

(In these phrases the author has lumped the material function of the brain in with the nonmaterial functioning of the mind and by reason does not distinguish the difference between the two. It should be noted that the mind is not identical to the brain and both are unique in that they have different properties. “The subjective texture of our conscious mental experiences- the feeling of pain, the experience of sound, the awareness of color-is different from anything that is simply physical. If the world were only made of matter, these subjective aspects of consciousness would not exist. But they do exist.” Dr. Hank Hanegraaff Christian Research Journal, Body & Soul A Whole In One Vol. 22 #3. The author mixes both material and nonmaterial aspects against his own worldview when he introduces the concept of “free will” which is a nonmaterial aspect of man’s mind aka SOUL. If as the writer suggests in the entireity of the writing that we are merely material beings, then he believes by his faith that “free-will” does not exist. We are merely beings who’s actions are “fatalistically determined” our choice and ability to choose are mere functions and factors of genetic makeup and brain chemistry, my decision therefore to write this article and your decision to read is not free, but is all fatalistically predetermined. )

  • “It may be that these factors cannot really be appreciated until they are put under stress or do not work properly. Many times the result is behavior that is outside the norm and/or doesn’t meet our expectations. How much culpability does a person have when the tools they are given are not adequate for the task at hand?”

(The author produces this question in concert with his assertions that we are no more than material beings. The question to ask this author in response to his assertions are, “Do you believe the murderer should be held accountable for his actions? Do you believe the one who breaks into your house, steals your goods or rapes your wife and children should be held accountable? Do you believe that the alcoholic that kills a child while driving drunk should be held responsible for their actions? Based this author’s materialistic worldview and deliberations on free-will found here NOONE should be held accountable for any crime committed.)

  • “If we are to be judged according to our thoughts, actions and decisions, and our thoughts, actions and decisions are influenced and or created by physiological factors, then we cannot be judged according to any standard since all people are physiologically unique and some behave in ways that they otherwise would not in different circumstances. How can we be judged for disobeying god when we cannot completely control our thoughts?”

(The author has sought to distinguish the difference between serving God and serving humanity. He seems to jump back and forth when it is convenient for him to do so in order carry out his presupposition further. This is not unusual for humanists. The American humanist Association offers this bold declaration, “”humanism is a philosophy, worldview, or life stance based on naturalism-the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real.”)

  • “Since the brain is a biological device. It can be influenced by physiological factors, and physiological factors induce desire and motivation. Since we cannot get outside of our thoughts and feelings, they make up our personality our “essence”. This renders any judgment by an external supernatural creator meaningless because it would know that we are helpless to feel any other way than our physiological make up will support at the time, and that our behavior and desire will follow that.”

(This statement and the previous 3 statements were statements based on Fatalism)

  • “I argue that if we were put here as a test, then we should have been designed exactly opposite. As it is now, resisting temptation and denying our nature causes frustration and stress. It seems to be a backward system where following the rules results in angst, frustration, poor health and ultimately unhappiness. It seems to be a system designed to demotivate. It seems to be a system designed to foster failure.”

(As the author has proposed, according to this writing, resisting temptation could include holding back feelings of murder, lust, pedophilia, thievery etc. and as such is a problem of our physical and material design. By virtue of his own postulation, humanity is then hopeless and subject its material nature and rely upon the science for a fix. Thus the god of humanism becomes the discovery of science which offers a better hope in the future. The Christian account does not wait on science or material discoveries to change and individuals nature or immaterial self. 2 Cor. 5:17~ “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” The Christian hope is much better than the hope of the atheist and humanist and offers true freedom from the problem of sin in the flesh.)

  • “If god made us, then obviously he is responsible for our architecture. The bible says we prefer sin, and using the definition of sin in the bible, it seems to be true. But what is sin? Who decides what sin is? Is sin being promiscuous or overeating? Human beings would have never survived if they did not act this way. It is necessary behavior in the survival of organisms to procreate as much as they can and eat when they can find food. Natural Selection has filtered this behavior to prominence because those organisms that behaved that way, passed on more copies of themselves, their genes.”

(Though this may seem innocuous to many, the author intentionally misrepresents scripture to build synergy and agreement for his presupposition. He offers that the Bible says that we “prefer sin” and that it’s observation “seems to be true”. The bible actually says this, John 3:19-21, “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” The scripture clearly outline the process of and results of loving sin. Jesus said that men love darkness because their “deeds” were evil not because, as the author suggests, that they are “predisposed” or fatalistically determined to do so. Once again, the author’s view of fatalism is necessary to conclude his presupposition. Another disturbing suggestion here is that somehow bad behavior and human faults are inherited through the genome and as such are justifiable as traits that are naturally selected for the survival of the species. This leads to his justification of racism, hedonism, and other immoral behaviors as being necessary for humanity to survive. I hope society never accepts the premise that murder, molestation, rape, etc are a necessary part of society as the author suggests.)

  • “Dopamine receptors in the brain receive Dopamine that gets released into the blood stream by the endocrine system that provides some of that positive feedback. But a malfunctioning dopamine system or the introduction of foreign bodies that are similar to dopamine can cause addictions. It is a flawed process that can be easily fooled by things such as food, alcohol and cocaine into malfunctioning. Not the high quality I would expect out of the workshop of a God.”

(Here the author says that the system of Dopamine receptors in the brain isn’t that good then goes on to talk about things that abuse and manipulate the system to failure and suggest that if god is the architect of such a system he did a comparatively bad job of design. A good example to refute this suggestion would be the former World trade Center or Twin Towers in New York City. They had excellent design and functionality many of the best features know to modern architecture. They however were not designed to maintain or stand the weight of airplanes full of jet fuel INTENTIONALLY hitting them. They fell. Are we to say that because they fell they were built improperly? Should we say that the building designers were somehow negligent in their duties of architecture? No, reason dictates that the buildings were not designed to come under the direct stress that they came under that day. The result was tragic structural failure. To suggest that the brain should function to its best efficiency after it’s been bombarded with chemicals and stimuli that it was not designed to endure or maintain is incredulous and a very unreasonable argument.)

Click Here For Page 2

47 Responses

  1. thematrixq says:

    “As Christians our “step in faith” is based on sound facts and empirical evidences such as history, fulfilled prophecy, verifiable witness testimony, and first hand accounts.”

    “step in faith” what is the definition of this phrase?

    Belief defined:

    An ACCEPTANCE that a statement is true or that something exists.
    Something one ACCEPTS as true or real; a firmly held OPINION or conviction.(A firmly held belief or opinion)

    faith defined:

    Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
    Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

    Christianity defined:

    The religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its BELIEFS and practices

    From my understanding Christianity requires belief and faith which is NOT “…based on sound facts and empirical evidences such as history, fulfilled prophecy, verifiable witness testimony, and first hand accounts.”

    • dunamis2 says:

      You said:“From my understanding Christianity requires belief and faith which is NOT “…based on sound facts and empirical evidences such as history, fulfilled prophecy, verifiable witness testimony, and first hand accounts.”

      If one begins with wrong premises, one comes up with wrong conclusions. Christianity and its older brother Judaism is rooted in specific sets of facts and events. In fact God revealing himself in the OT was not just to 1 individual or a group of individuals. take Mt. Siani for instance. God spoke to Moses surely, but he also revealed himself to probably more than a million at the base of the mountain. They knew Moses went up to talk with God, not because Moses said so, but because they saw this for themselves. Christianity is rooted in the fact of resurrection and the evidence of the empty tomb. These things are consistent to what Jesus said to whom…”the multitude”…Those that followed him believed because of what he did in real time and the demonstration of resurrection in real time was the evidence of HIS power and authority over all things including life and death. To believe on the testimony that has been delivered as a result is more than a reasonable proposition especially considering that the spiritual realm has not closed, and that Jesus through resurrection lives today consistent with and according to the purpose and teaching of scripture.

      So your premise fails and is not true.

  2. Lab Rat says:

    “As Christians our “step in faith” is based on sound facts and empirical evidences such as history, fulfilled prophecy, verifiable witness testimony, and first hand accounts.”

    REALLY?….sound facts and empirical evidence? I’d love to see some of that. When you talk of fulfilled prophecy you must also talk about the unfulfilled prophecies. Jesus himself said that the kingdom of god would be on earth before that generation (the people alive when he was talking) had passed away. We can’t really verify any of the witnesses (as it was 2000 years ago) and none of the bible is first hand accounts.

    Please do a little more research on your own claims.

    • dunamis2 says:

      You stated: “When you talk of fulfilled prophecy you must also talk about the unfulfilled prophecies.”

      So according to you, which ones are unfulfilled?

      You said: “Jesus himself said that the kingdom of god would be on earth before that generation (the people alive when he was talking) had passed away. We can’t really verify any of the witnesses (as it was 2000 years ago)”

      And Psalms 24:6 said that this is the “generation” of them that seek thy face…based on your astute observations are we to assume that the only one’s that could seek the face of the Lord died some thousand to fifteen hundred years before Jesus? Did that scripture not refer to people in that time frame or could it be that the word “generation” had a greater purpose and more extant use than signifying a 40 to 50 years period of time. In addition Jesus said that his “kingdom was not of this world” meaning that his Kingdom did not consist of the material substance of armies, kings and all of the other things that we see here on earth. So have you ever set out to STUDY what is taught, or do you just follow the hype of the materially illiterate propagandist ramblings? I think the intelligent know the answer….

      You said“and none of the bible is first hand accounts.

      Certainly not true, the OT was based on first hand accounts with scriptures written in the lifetimes of those ascribed in the books or shortly thereafter by the individual’s scribes, the NT fares much better not only providing first hand accounts, but also eye witness testimony that has found to be incredible and well preserved in spite of language differences and topography changes. In fact the NT not only has eyewitness accounts and authors who were eyewitnesses, there is an overwhelming abundance of material most written within a period of 50 years or less of actual events which is a goldmine to any historian piecing together the past. In fact as a comparison, for the story of Apollonius of Tyana there is only 1 account written over 200 years later and most critical scholars hold that story to be a true accounting even if they don;t hold the events to be true. So I will leave you with your own advice”

      Please do a little more research on your own claims.

      • Lab Rat says:

        I am wrong about the New Testament probably being written closer to the time than I thought it had been….my bad….but in Jesus’s quote he was clearly talking to the people who were there, not about countless years and generations later. All “prophets” make claims that things will happen in the lifetime of their followers. It makes it easier to get people to follow them if you promise something will happen before they die, rather than the claims for after death. Pretty big problem for Joseph Smith too.

      • dunamis2 says:

        What you are addressing is what is called preterism. To the point, Jesus being raised from the dead after claiming that he was the Messiah and demonstrating that by his works would have been the equivalent of him ‘coming in the clouds with great power” and that naturally would happen in THAT generation so far as epoch of time. In fact 3 days later. Whether they understood it, is aside from the point or fact that it occurred. Some literalists, even within Christianity, expect that Jesus was saying that the world would end in his lifetime. However, when all evidence is reconciled there is a picture that 1-Jesus kingdom is not of this world, 2- his claim to the messianic office is demonstrated and supported by his works, actions and teachings, and 3- In the second part of Luke (Acts) that question is addressed in the 1st chapter and it is clear that the angelic message is one that distinguishes between a natural and spiritual kingdom or time of restoration. The spiritual restoration was in effect. That was Jesus purpose and mission and we were to live in expectation of the parousia or great and final judgement and reconciliation of all things.

        As I said, this is a debated topic and subject within Christian circles, so I won;t be too dogmatic on you but it’s not a make it or break it type of situation or deal with this issue.

      • Lab Rat says:

        I understand that is different the way everyone reads and interprets it…isn’t that a problem though? If I was telling someone something that was true it shouldn’t be able to be interpreted sooooo differently by so many people and cultures.

      • dunamis2 says:

        When does universal understanding of anything solidify the truth of it? I mean, I can think of countless, and I do mean countless scientific theories on certain material things that are in stark disagreement and in some cases contrary to one another, but yet bot positions are rooted in the same empiricism or observable facts. For instance, take homosexuality…the scientific community is all over the board on this on what they have now among some major organizations is a “consensus” that homosexuality may be normative. The genes don’t say so. The environment doesn’t say so. but scientific “interpretation” varies on the issue. There are many things that have nothing to do with spirituality interpreted differently by people based on the same set of facts. I mean medicine is full of this as well. What the variations shows when it comes to God’s word is that 1- HE is incomprehensible meaning that there are greater facets to what he says than 1 aspect or facet and that no one person or organizations contains all of the facts associated with certain aspects of God’s nature and 2- man’s sin nature is at work shading and in some cases obscuring truth. The vast interpretations of what God said doesn’t change the fact that he said what he did, and in addition, there is vast and overwhelming agreement on the truths that make a difference. Those truths such as the nature of Jesus being divine, the nature of the resurrection and its impact on life itself, his final judgement and reconciliation of the world. There is not too much disagreement between Christians on those things.

      • Lab Rat says:

        “There is not too much disagreement between Christians on those things.”

        That’s insane, you can’t say just because everyone who agrees on this stuff doesn’t disagree on this stuff is crazy…you have to consider the Jews, Islam, and non Christians’ interpretations not just those who agree with you.

      • dunamis2 says:

        I don’t know what point you are making because, I don’t have to consider Jews, Muslims, and every other religion and religious view. They are certainly not the same and some don’t venerate what Christianity does. My statement stands. I’m talking about Christians, not all theists and trying to reconcile their faith or belief. That is foolish.

      • Lab Rat says:

        The Torah is the same book you use…they have interpreted it differently, my statement stands.

        {PHB~ The “Torah” is only the first 5 books of what we call the bible. They are what is called the books of the law or the books of Moses. The Nebiim is the major and minor prophets and their works and the Ketbuim is the books of history, poems and scrolls such as Lamentations and Ruth. So I don;t know what statement you made but to say that the bible is the Torah is incorrect.}

    • dunamis2 says:

      You stated: “When you talk of fulfilled prophecy you must also talk about the unfulfilled prophecies.”

      So according to you, which ones are unfulfilled?

      You said: “Jesus himself said that the kingdom of god would be on earth before that generation (the people alive when he was talking) had passed away. We can’t really verify any of the witnesses (as it was 2000 years ago)”

      And Psalms 24:6 said that this is the “generation” of them that seek thy face…based on your astute observations are we to assume that the only one’s that could seek the face of the Lord died some thousand to fifteen hundred years before Jesus? Did that scripture not refer to people in that time frame or could it be that the word “generation” had a greater purpose and more extant use than signifying a 40 to 50 years period of time. In addition Jesus said that his “kingdom was not of this world” meaning that his Kingdom did not consist of the material substance of armies, kings and all of the other things that we see here on earth. So have you ever set out to STUDY what is taught, or do you just follow the hype of the materially illiterate propagandist ramblings? I think the intelligent know the answer….

      You said“and none of the bible is first hand accounts.

      Certainly not true, the OT was based on first hand accounts with scriptures written in the lifetimes of those ascribed in the books or shortly thereafter by the individual’s scribes, the NT fares much better not only providing first hand accounts, but also eye witness testimony that has found to be incredible and well preserved in spite of language differences and topography changes. In fact the NT not only has eyewitness accounts and authors who were eyewitnesses, there is an overwhelming abundance of material most written within a period of 50 years or less of actual events which is a goldmine to any historian piecing together the past. In fact as a comparison, for the story of Apollonius of Tyana there is only 1 account written over 200 years later and most critical scholars hold that story to be a true accounting even if they don;t hold the events to be true. So I will leave you with your own advice”

      Please do a little more research on your own claims.

  3. Lab Rat says:

    “basing Christianity on mystery religions and religious systems that were in operation prior to the biblical and Hebrew narratives.”

    You’ll need to be more specific to which religions are “mystery” religions. Without being specific you can say “Oh, I wasn’t talking about that religion, its not one of the mystery religions” for anything anyone refutes you with.

  4. David Salako says:

    Interesting article and response Pastor Harvey. I am going to address Lee Randolph’s statements and comments now.

    • David Salako says:

      Lee Randolph stated: “… If God created us, that since we have biological bases for behaviour that heavily influence our free will, the dichotomy of reward and punishment rather than remedation is unjust because he designed us with the potential to fail”.

      My response:

      The first thing i noticed is this: Free will is used in the context of biological determinisim relative to behaviour.
      For he says; “sincw we have a biological bases for behaviou that heavily influence our free will”.

      However to suggest that we have free will and yet there is a biological basis for behaviour is to use two diametrically opposed words in the same context.

      Why? Free will is capacity to choose, determine, and regulate ourselves independent of prior cause.
      A biological basis for behaviour eliminates free will since it influences and predetermines our choices or determines what we will do.
      Therefore we do not choose, regulate, and determine ourselves independent of prior cause(in this context the prior cause is “biological influences”).
      So it follows that he cannot say that we have free will relative to behaviour.
      However this is exactly what he does. But it is a violation of the law of contradiction.

      For; it is either that X is determined or not determined. But, X cannot be determined and not determined at the same time.
      Therefore it follows that his use of “biological influence” and “free will” relative to behaviour is a “logical fallacy”.

      The issue of free will is also an issue of philosophy and neuroscience.

      In philosophy there are two main views that pertain to free will.

      The views are as follows:

      (1.) Compatibilisim: free will is compatible with determinisim.
      And (2.) Non compatibilisim: free will is not compatible with determinisim.

      The term determinisim pertains to our nature. Basically, all events of anatomy are the consequences of prior events.
      will is reduced to a physical event(no proof of this) and consequently they assume it is determined by neurological events.

      It is important to take note of this:

      At the moment in the context of neurosciebce there is no empirical evidence that supports the idea of “the non existence of free fill” or “the existence of free will”.
      But it is possible to argue for the existence of free will.

      In neuroscience some experiments have been used in an attempt to find a neuroscientific or an explanation of physicalisim for the end of finding out the neurophysiological basis for how we choose, regulate, and determine our actions.

      But so far, neuroscientists have no explanations. In fact, what they have found out has raised more questions than answers.

      One such issue pertains to the distinction between correlation and connection relative to will and brain activity.

      For example, if a person picks a pen with conscious intentionality and brain activity is seen, are the events correlated or connected?

      Also, what caused what? In otherwords; did the brain activity cause the intent to pick the pen or did the intent to pick the pen cause the brain activity?
      Finally, what does the brain activity mean?

      Here is my position on free will, neurophysiology, and anatomy relative to behaviour.

      The nervous system can be divided into, namely:

      1. The central nervous system( made up of brain and spinal cord and the 31 nerve cells with millions of subsections that connect the brain to anatomy or the body)
      And 2.The pheripherial nervous system which is made up of sensory neurones and motor nerones. And the pheripherial nervous can be divided into two, namely:

      A. The autonomic nervous system.
      And B. The somatic nervous system.

      The autonomic nervous system can be divided intp two:

      A. The sympathetic nervous system.
      And B. The parasympathetic nervous system.

      Next, let us consider, the somatic nervous system and the autonomic nervous system relative to anatomical behaviour.

      The autonomic nervous system deals with involuntary actions. That is to say, actiona that we do not consciously intend. E.g muscle contraction, digestion, breathing, regulation of body temperature, dilation of blood vessels e.t.c e.t.c

      The somatic nervous system is associated with voluntary actions.
      That is to say, actions that are intentional or actions of conscious intentionality. Such actions need the sanction of the will.

      Thoughts intiate voluntary actions in the brain and the impulse goes to the side of the cerebral cortex of the brain and then down the spinal cord to effectors that cause the contraction necessary for voluntary movement. It is the motor neurones that constitute the pheripherial nervous system that cause the contraction of muscles for voluntary movement. But sensory cells signify the electrochemical impulse to motor neurones from the brain that is activated by “thoughts” that initiate voluntart actions in terms of the processes in it.

      Explained this way, we can say some aspects of anatomy are determined. That is, the aspecta pertaining to the autonomic nervous system.
      But some aspects of anatomy are determined by will and the somatic nervous system.

      Thus we may explain our autonomy as follows:

      We think and intend with consciousness what actions associated with anatomy we want to do and then we execute it using the nervous system. And thus, we determine and regulate ourselves using the nervous system.

      The processes of voluntary actions are neurological events, but we cause and determine the neurological events by mental events.

      “how” is a mystery. For it not known “how” neurones cause human ability. When studying the functional and structural aspect of the brain using FRMI. Or EEG it is observed that damage to an aspect of the brain can lead to a loss of ability or a change in the electrical pattern of the brain can affect behaviour. The electrical pattern of the brain is caused when pottasium ions and sodium ions exist neural pores.

      • David Salako says:

        So, Lee Randolph’s position about free will is conjecture. Even “genetic detetminisim” is not clear.

        For, how do you indentify which genes determine behaviour? It is often stated that those with certain mental disorders have a genetic signature or pattern associated with their dysfunctional behaviour. However, how does one prove that those e
        with an inversion of D.N.A and that suffer with the same mental illness suffer from it because they share the same genetic pattern, if one cannot directly “link” the pattern to the behaviour?

        The genetic position does not exist without the enviromental position.
        In otherwords genetic determinisim works with enviromental determinisim. And so it is assumed that certain genes that constitutes a persons genotype will not be manifested or is determined by their enviroment. That is the belief.

        Now, if we concede the genetic factor in terms of determining how anatomy functions relative to the tendency to drink, then how can the tendency be determined if the addict has stopped drinking and can make choices in terms of not drinking?

        Surely if one can choose contrary to any prior cause it follows that one is free from cause?

        This is what we see in many instances. And consequently, even if genetic determinisim is true evidence exists to oppose it.

        For exmple, some have stated that homosexuality is determined by genes and yet some homosexuals have become heterosexuals. And some homosexuals are celibate.

        But it is true that without a free will terms like culpability and responsibility are simply constructs without any objective reality. And if such terms are not real then punishment and reward are irrational since people are punished or rewarded for what they are personally responsible for.

        Would it not be irrational and unjust to punish someone for what they are not responsible for? And is it not irrational to reward people for what they are not responsible for?

        Surely the answer is yes.

        So, he is right, if only that was true.

        For there is no proof showing that free will exists or does not exist on scientific grounds.

        Therefore it follows that one cannot say God designed us with capacity to fail.

        This issue has not been exhausted. However i need to address the other bullet points. Therefore i am done with the first bullet point.

  5. David Salako says:

    Lee Randolph stated:

    “Christianity follows the footsteps of all other religions before it that correlate blood with fertility Gods with kings and heroes who struggle with death”.

    It is not true that Christianity correlates bloos with fertility. On the contrary it correlates blood with remission of sin and life and cleansing .

    Yes it correlates God with kings because the kingdom of Isreal(4,500 years ago) was theocratic administration.

    Yes Jesus struggled with death but he was not a hero. On the contrary he was a matry

    • David Salako says:

      I will resond to the other bullet points during the week Pastor Harvey.

      • David Salako says:

        Lee Randolph stated: ◦“Basically, religion creates a problem by exaggerating the bad then sells the solution. Its a tried and t
        rue technique, that many different organizations (including marketing) practice today. People are bad and they need God or a King to keep them in line.”
        ◦“But this idea of spirits causing bad behavior was left behind by science. Science has taken a slow track to the point it is today because until recently fruitful “non-destructive” brain research has been impossible. Science has exposed the good/evil false dichotomy and shows that Christianity ignores a lot of very important qualifiers about human behavior.”

        Firstly, Christiantiy does not exaggerate the human condition relative to sin. The fact is Lee is trying to undestimate the true nature of the human condition. The fact is, we are “bad” intrinsically. And we need salvation from our won destructive passions and inclinations. The word salvation simply means deliverance from adverse circumstances. The man who is addicted needs deliverance. The man who is a pathological liar needs deliverance. The man who cannot stop commiting adultery needs deliverance. The mentally deranged man needs dliverance, Those who cannot love need deliverance.

        The fact is in today’s society we see that the problems associated with human nature cannot be solved by technical knowledge and even correctional institutions continue to fail. Thus it clear that men, or even political instituions cannot provide man with his greatest need. That is to say, his great need of slavation from the evil instrinsic in him. We also see that political institutions cannot erradicate poverty and one factor that continues to cause poverty is the greed intrinsic in humnas. And consequently humans need salvation from greed as well.

        Let us not underestimate sin. For, it is the root and cause of all evil and suffering in the world. It endangers us collectively and individually. And consequently we need Salvation from sin.

        What is sin? Well; sin is the transgression of the law. It is the result of the our failure in terms of loving one another consistently with the law. Therefore we need salvation from sin so that we can be free to love.

        This is what the gospel message is about. It is about salvation from sin. Therefore Randolph’s attempt to undermine sin in light of all the grave suffering in the world as a result of it is simply “foolishness”.

  6. David Salako says:

    Randolph stated: ◦“But this idea of spirits causing bad behavior was left behind by science. Science has taken a slow track to the point it is today because until recently fruitful “non-destructive” brain research has been impossible. Science has exposed the good/evil false dichotomy and shows that Christianity ignores a lot of very important qualifiers about
    human behavior.”

    Spirit is not an idea. It is an objective reality that we can be acquainted with. For, mental and psychological aspects and even the consciousness and self can be considered as having a “spiritual nature”.

    For we mat argue as follows:

    (1.) When we observe the brain by devices that are used to study the structural aspects of the brain we cannot see self.
    (2.) What cannot be seen is invisible.
    (3.) Therefroe the self is invisible.

    conclusion: The self has the nature of the spirit.

    Now, even though their are arguments on grounds of assumptions relative to neuroscience that seem to show the correlation between the brain , mind, consciouness, and personhood, they do not disprove that the nature of such things is not spiritual. At most when a person’s personhood is affected by a frontal lobotomy, it simply proves that their is a correlation. Or when a person is affected by brain damge it simply proves that their is a correlation. However it does not prove that the nature of those things is not spirit. The only condition that must be satisfied in order for the self to be considered as a spirit is that it is non corporeal and phsyical.

    We do not even need to prove that it can exist outside the body.

    (1.) Relgious books state that spiritual beings are invisible.
    (2.) Evidence supports the existence of invisible spiritual beings,
    (3.) Therefore relgious books are right about the existence of spirits.

    So, humans are spirits; therefore why should it be difficult to accpet that spritits exist? The fact is this; there are many more arguments that can be used to support the existence of our spiritual nature. And neuroscience cannot prove or disprove the existence of sprirts.

    Next, that there are spritis that can affect the human anture in adverse way is a metaphsyical truth. But, there are mediums who communicate with spirits as well and neuroscience cannot prove or disprove their claims.

    And some people claim to have had outer body experiences. Again. neuroscience cannot prove or disprove their claims.

    The point is this; there is no objective reason that proves that we can dismiss metaphsyical claims.

    • David Salako says:

      Lee Randolph stated: ” human behaviour is influenced by the following;

      – population and species attribute
      – Natural selection
      – Genetic make up
      – Fetal development
      – Perinatal Bioloy
      – Active hormones
      – Development
      – Enviromental triggers
      – Neurobiology
      What you will notice is that free will is missing. That is because free will is made up of those components- we do not have as much “free will” as we imagine we do”.

      I agree that human behaviour is complex and that the there are biological and enviromental factors associated with some behaviours.

      But that does not prove that we do not possess free will. It is also dangerous to think that is so relative to behaviours that violate law or morality.

      For example, the central nervous system, biochemicals, and hormones influence sexual behaviour, but it would be dangerous to suggest that it follows that rapists cannot be culpable or personally responsible for acts od rape.

      To be influenced is one thing and to be determined is another thing.
      For one can still resist influence, but one cannot resist what is determined.

      Lee Randolph also stated that free will made up of those components mentioned above.

      But those factors pertain to human behaviour and not free will.
      And if those determining factors influence human behaviour, then there can be know free will. For free will is to capacity to consciously intend to do independent of prior causes.
      And yet, he insists we have “some free will”.

      (1.) Free will is the capacity to determine ones behaviour independent of prior causes.
      (2.) Human behaviour is influenced by determining biological factors.
      (3.) Therefore humans do not possess free will.

      So how can he say “humans do not have as much free will as we imagine we do”?
      For the argument shows that to say that behaviour is influenced and then to say we do not have as much free will as we imagine we do is irrational unless free will is considered relatively.

      I showed this relativity of free will above in what i wrote about the somatic nervous system and the autonomic nervous system.

      Finally, he says “free will is made up of the components that influence behaviour”.

      However that is an assumption because free will or that ability of mind is not a coorporeal or physical thing that can be examined

      • David Salako says:

        We cannot examine the nature of free will. All aspects of mind function are invisible and personal.
        Therefore there is no access to free will in order to examine its nature for what constitute it.

  7. thematrixq says:

    You said: “If one begins with wrong premises, one comes up with wrong conclusions. Christianity and its older brother Judaism is rooted in specific sets of facts and events.”

    My response: Ok, let’s examine the foundation on which you rest your conclusions. Starting with the old testament specifically the Torah.

    1. Who is the author of the Torah?

    2. When was it written?

    3. We know the God did not write anything down, we know that men wrote these books. How can you verify with empirical methods that they received direct instruction and dictation from God?

    4. Since we know the word ‘God’ is a title what is ‘God’s’ name?

    5. Do you believe the bible contains the literal and inerrant word of God?

    6. Regarding the events written about in the Old Testament, do you have any archaeological and/or or extra-biblical evidence to verify the events actually happened?

    We will proceed under your premise:

    “As Christians our “step in faith” is based on sound facts and empirical evidences such as history, fulfilled prophecy, verifiable witness testimony, and first hand accounts.”

    • dunamis2 says:

      Let me address your inquiry as follows:

      1- Moses and his scribes authored the Torah and as a
      2- work written well over 3500 years ago. The “Torah” is only one section of the OT consisting of the first 5 books written by or under the authority of Moses or his scribes.
      3- Any narratives about Moses death was clearly scribal as opposed to prophetic in the sense of particular events such as his burial etc. You seem to approach it as if it (the Torah) was the whole of the OT. The facts could readily be verified in the time the narrative was written which explains the narrative’s survival. The NT specifies that holy men of God spoke as they were “inspired” by the Holy Ghost. Inspiration does not mean simply encouraged to do so neither does it mean that they were dictating as you state. It means that what they said, God gave them and it was in as much as it records.
      4- God’s name was protected by scribes who believed that the wording and name itself had divine power.
      5- If it is the word of God which it is, it is without error even if the translation is faulted or being modified to come in line with modern data
      6- There are have been over 25,000 archaeological finds that affirm the validity of the biblical account’s narrative. So far as predictive prophecy, there are over 50 specific prophecies regarding the Messiah for instance, that by process of elimination point to Jesus and could not and can not possibly be completed by anyone else.

      My answers are very topical at this point but can certainly be supported by literary and historical evidence

      • thematrixq says:

        Thank you for responding, I appreciate your time and thoughts.

        1. How do you verify that Moses wrote the Torah? What empirical methods do you use to vouch for it’s veracity? What external sources can you cite?

        2. I’m sure you are aware that biblical scholars claim that the Torah contains many writing styles that lead them to speculate that there were many authors. These author wrote many centuries after these events were to have taken place. How do you address this issue?

        3. I understand quite clearly that the Torah is not the whole of the bible but it is the foundation, the bedrock of Judeo-Christian belief. Agreed?

        You say “NT specifies that holy men of God spoke as they were “inspired” by the Holy Ghost”

        This would be circular correct?

        For example: The writers of book of Mormon could say the earlier writings were “inspired” because the later writers said so. Correct?

        So what is your empirical, factual, first hand or extra-biblical proof that the men/man who wrote the Torah were inspired by God?

        4. You said:

        “God’s name was protected by scribes who believed that the wording and name itself had divine power.”

        Again what’s your evidence for this statement?

        5. You said:

        “If it is the word of God which it is, it is without error even if the translation is faulted or being modified to come in line with modern data”

        Is this a logically consistent statement “….it is without error even if the translation is faulted”? How is that logical?

        6 You said:

        “There are have been over 25,000 archaeological finds that affirm the validity of the biblical account’s narrative.”

        What are you sources for these archaeological finds? What archaeologists were involved and what are the dates of their findings?

        You said:

        “So far as predictive prophecy, there are over 50 specific prophecies regarding the Messiah for instance, that by process of elimination point to Jesus and could not and can not possibly be completed by anyone else.”

        Please cite examples with factual, first hand accounts of these prophecies and their fulfillment.

        Thank you very much.

      • dunamis2 says:

        Thanks and I appreciate your time as well even if it is only in asking questions-LOL!!! What you are attempting to do is review a form of Wellhausen’s debunked OT Documentary hypothesis. It was debunked before he wrote it. It was proven to be debunked shortly afterward.

        1- The study of historiography from early and late ANE cultures helps in understanding Moses authorship. Not only that but Moses is hailed in the books himself as being the author (Ex.17:14, 34:28, for example). other OT books affirm Moses authorship as well. The Jewish Talmud affirms Moses’s authorship, Philo and Josephus affirms it as well, this is consistent with Jewish tradition. Jesus himself attributes the giving of the Law to Moses. Paul in his NT epistles does the same. Apostle John does in his Gospel as well. None of the antediluvian fathers deviate. Moses authorship is thoroughly rooted in the history of the nation of people themselves. As far back as 840 BCE the God if the Israelites are referenced by third party sources such as those the Moabites left. Are there any historical references to George Washington in the Congo held by the Congo people? Who holds the record, even if they don’t have it? Now why do we need external verification for our history?

        2- Certainly more than just Moses wrote. The “70 wise men” didn’t write a thing however. We know that Moses’s scribes also wrote. It would have been hard for Moses to have personally recorded events after his death. On that note, We have archaeological evidence that writing existed at least 1,000 years before Moses. There were those who were known as scribes who were given charge to record accurately what was said and told to them. Joshua would have been one who would have had the opportunity to oversee the preservation of certain history as well. Another thing we know about ancient past history is that things changed rather quickly. biblical events are affirmed within their time as a matter of historical literature due to the facts that are recorded within their time. In fact in some cases 50 years changes complete topography. recording events centuries later would expose all kinds of mistakes and misdating of events. We see that with the Quran. This is one criteria that the bible, even the Ot passes quite well. This is how we know it was written and records events in and within their time.

        3a- The Torah is a part of the foundation of Christianity. In addition, current studies affirm that Wellenhausen’s approach that polytheism was prevalent in that day and time (1500-1200 BCE) was incorrect. That monotheistic belief is certainly a foundation of Christian belief.
        3b- What it seems you are looking for is the epistemology of the biblical record. How it is “known” to be true? The algorithm for the validity of the bible is contained within the fact that God did not simply reveal himself to one person. unlike Joseph Smith (one person) of Mormonism, God spoke to over a million at the base of a mountain. This trend continues into the NT. there is always a witness or multiple witnesses. This is consistent with what he spoke in his word about the witness of scripture. In addition the bible has been proven to be accurate in all that it records.

        Now so far as the demand for empirical evidences, are you even attempting to assert that materialism has empirical evidences for all that it holds? That can’t possibly be true and is factually NOT the case for materialistic belief, yet alone anything else. Let’s begin with the origin of life and it’s cause. Where is the empirical evidence please? How about the formulation of the universe and the ‘why’ of physics…empirical evidence please? Let’s become even more personal, where is the empirical evidence for the love you have for your family? I’m not talking about the measurement of the results of that love, I’m talking about the love itself. In fact that “feeling” and “commitment” can never been empirically affirmed or measured, yet it thoroughly exists. Scientifically you hold BELIEFS based on certain criteria. those beliefs are not subject to empirical verification either. Place of of them under a microscope and let us see it if that is possible. It is not. It is funny that even materialists don’t require evidence for their materialism, they just require it of everything else. This is based on a priori of anti-supernaturalism.

        4- We’re not in school and I don’t have time to be you professor, but begin with Jewish studies and historiography of the OT.

        5- Translations from one language to another always lose something. We are a slave to language. The original text communicates the message both contextually accurately and correctly without error. Even with and through the potential of the problem of human agency GOd has preserved his word. Diligent contextual study helps to undercover truths and meanings not readily apparent and that is lost on form critics as well. There is no inconsistency in that. I know a little modern foreign language as well and anyone in the field will affirm that to a degree.

        6a- Archaeology does not prove the inspiration of God or that God spoke. What that has proved is that the writers were accurate and truthful in what they recorded that can be affirmed by archaeology. By 1958, Donald Wiseman, an archaeologist and Professor of Assyriology at the University of London estimated that there were more than 25,000 discoveries that had confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible. [D. J. Wiseman, “Archaeological Confirmations of the Old Testament,” in Carl F. Henry (editor), Revelation and the Bible, 301–302.]

        6b- In fact Josh McDowell records over 61 OT prophetic utterances that Jesus fulfills including his pre-existent nature (which can’t be fulfilled by a non-divine man), his birthplace, his being born of a virgin, his ministry in Galilee, his authority over the elements, miracle working ability and his resurrection. The gospels record the first hand accounts with Paul recording it even earlier in 1 Corinthians 15 stating that over 500 persons at once were witnesses. There were women (which was embarrassing) who were witnesses as well. So this event was well documented.

        Another mistake is to think that the bible was a complete compilation during the first century. It was not. the books did not come together until Marcion in 140 AD presented a canon of scriptures that were circulating with names attached. So when one talks of verifications, the books verify one another by different authors who could be traced and pointed to in their time.

    • dunamis2 says:

      Let me address your inquiry as follows:

      1- Moses and his scribes authored the Torah and as a
      2- work written well over 3500 years ago. The “Torah” is only one section of the OT consisting of the first 5 books written by or under the authority of Moses or his scribes.
      3- Any narratives about Moses death was clearly scribal as opposed to prophetic in the sense of particular events such as his burial etc. You seem to approach it as if it (the Torah) was the whole of the OT. The facts could readily be verified in the time the narrative was written which explains the narrative’s survival. The NT specifies that holy men of God spoke as they were “inspired” by the Holy Ghost. Inspiration does not mean simply encouraged to do so neither does it mean that they were dictating as you state. It means that what they said, God gave them and it was in as much as it records.
      4- God’s name was protected by scribes who believed that the wording and name itself had divine power.
      5- If it is the word of God which it is, it is without error even if the translation is faulted or being modified to come in line with modern data
      6- There are have been over 25,000 archaeological finds that affirm the validity of the biblical account’s narrative. So far as predictive prophecy, there are over 50 specific prophecies regarding the Messiah for instance, that by process of elimination point to Jesus and could not and can not possibly be completed by anyone else.

      My answers are very topical at this point but can certainly be supported by literary and historical evidence

  8. David Salako says:

    Lee Randolph stated: “The influence that environmental and biological factors have on the function of the brain limits options and performance without the person even realizing it. These factors are an inseparable part of the decision making process.”

    Well, this is simply an assertion. For we are not in what way these factors limit brain function relative to decision making.

    Also, the process of decision making or the steps and series of physiological changes that cause decision is not the same as the actual decison making itself.
    Therefore one assumes that the process is connected to the mental state.
    In otherwords during the mental state associated with decison making one may observe brain activity. However one cannot conclude that it is those processes that cause the mental state itself.
    Again, why can’t the mental state be responsible for the processes? In other words there is no reason why an interpretation based on mental states causing brain activity should not be favoured.

    I think that this testimony we are all well aquainted with shows that, even though enviromental factors and biological factors limits brain function, it does not mean that we cannot decide independent of prior influential causes.

    For example; When we decide to do something it happens.
    When we decide to do something and then we cancel it it does not happen. This shows that we can onverrule any overrule.

    Therefore, how can we overrule the limitations of the brain, and the influneces of both biological and enviromental factors if we are automatas?

    So on grounds of aquaintance and experience it can be justified that it does not make sense to say we are influenced by prior causes.

    For if one is influenced to choose green and this is determined, then how can he choose red?
    And if one says, he was determined stated that he was determined to choose grren, but then he was determined ot change his mind it would b an irrational proposition.

    For, how can one be determined to so something and not determined to that thing at the same time?

    It is also important to note this;

    If neuroscientists know what the brain activity mean during decision making, then why can they not tell the subject what he is going to decide to pick and pick prior to decision and picking?

    For example, if a subject was asked to select between ten distinct pens, why can they not tell su what he is going to pick? For surely, if he is determined, then his choices and decision should be predictable.

    For neuroscientists state that the processes of choosing X is already active prior to the subject being conscious of it.
    In other words brain activity can be observed.

    So, then, why can they not predict which pen the subject will decide to prior to his decision to pick a pen?

    They do not. And consequently we must ask, what does the brain activity mean?

    • David Salako says:

      And; how can they say they are observing the decision making process, without knowing what the subject is going to decide? And how can say that they are observing the decision making process or the determining factor or prior cause of the mental state of the actual decision making that precedes conscious decision making without being able to predict the contents of the mental sate in terms of what the subject has decided to pick relative to the pen example?

      Also, even thouigh both biological and enviromental factors limit brain function, it does not imply that it limits mental states.
      For oen cannot prove that the actual mental state itself is influenced by what affects the brain. For mental states cannot be seen. For example, the sate of thinking itself cannot be seen. If it could be seen, then neuroscientists should know the actual content of the thoughts.

      During thinking or states of thinking, the brains electrical activity can be detected by the EEG device, The EEG is a device use to detect the electrical activty of the brain or brain pattern relative or that seem to be connected to mental states.
      The electrical activity of the brain is what neurones that make up the brain use to communicate with each other. And the eletrical activity is caused by potassium ions and sodium ions existing neural pores. During an intense mental state of thinking–i.e debating or teaching— the EEG represents the brains electrical activity(subjectively) as beta waves or frequency. During less vigorous mental states the electrical activity is recorded as alpha waves or frequency. During mental states of relative inactiveness the electrical activity is recorded as theta. And finally, during mental states associated with sleep(REM) or loss of consciousness the electrical activity is recorded as delta waves or frequency.

      It is believed that delat waves signify brain death and the termination of consciousness. The EEG can also be used to detect epilepsy.

      Any way, the point is this; If the electrical activity was the actual mental state, then the neuroscientist should know the contents of what i am thinking about. But they do not. This fact shows that the electrical activity is not the mental state of thinking itself. Moreover, if all they see is electrical activity, then it surely cannot be what i am thinking of, since “words” used to think about something are not electrical things, For everything i have written is the same as it was in my mind. Therefore electrical activity cannot be the mental state of thinking. For if it was then “what” i am thinking about should be known to them prior to the subject telling them “what” he or she was thinking about.

      The point is this; the brain’s chemical reaction or even electrical activity cannot tell us what mental states are like, or what their content is, or their nature.

      Even consciouness cannot be reduced to chemicals since if that were so, then, the objects of consciousness would be known to neuroscience. in other words, if it was, then they should know what it is that i am aware of. That is to say, what the objects of my perception are.

      I agree that enviromental and biological factors affect decision making, but i do not believe that the influence is such so that our decisions are predetermined for reason i have provided above.

  9. David Salako says:

    Lee Randolph stated: “It may be that these factors cannot really be appreciated until they are put under stress or do not work properly. Many times the result is behavior that is outside the norm and/or doesn’t meet our expectations.

    may indicates likely and therefore his position is not absolute. So, it reasonable to think that there may be exceptions to the rule. He also says “many times”, but that does not imply “every time” and consequently it menas that there are times when what he stated is not true.

    He also stated that: “Many times the result is behavior that is outside the norm and/or doesn’t meet our expectations”.

    This shows that we are unpredictable.

    (1.) What is determined is predictable.
    (2.) There are instances in whcih humans are unpredictable.
    (3.)Therefore there are instances in which humans are not determined.

    Also, to say that someone is predictable one must know what one is goind to do and why they are going to do what they do.
    if this condition cannot be satisfied then there is no use saying that a human is predictable.
    It does not follow, just because a person goes to work every friday. That does not prove that they are determined to do so.

    For other reasons may exist for why they do that. For example, to pay the bill. Therefore just because a human behaves the same way frequently it does not follow that, they are determined to behave that way because of prior neurollogical causes. Therefore the cause that determines or that makes a person determined must be shown to exist. For, a person may go to behave in way that is justified by reason. In that example, X is not determined, it may simply be a rational routine for the end of paying bills.

    Stress can be caused by an abnormal amout of the stress hromone cortisol being released. “cortisol” is a biochemical. That is the kind of biological factors he is referring to. And enviromental factors can cause the abnormal increase of cortisol. E.g Not being able to meet a deadline consistently in a work envrioment or excess bills that are due.

    That is the kind of enviromental factors he is referring to.

    And we also see how enviromental factors can affect biological factors that affect the phsyiology of the anatomy to produce stress. However, that does not mean that a person will necessarily act contrary to our expectations. For, we know of people who can handle stress and of people who cannot handle stress. We also know of people who kill themselves as result of stress and of people who do not kill themselves as a result of stress.

    So, the question is;

    Why do two people who have the same amount of cortisol act differently relative to postive or negative? Why does one act contrary to the norm and our expectations? And why does’nt the other?

    So, we see that we cannot make an absolute claim about biological factors and enviromental factors determining and influencing behaviour or decision because of the “exceptions”.

    Again, i do believe that these factors can affect; however, i do not believe that thye affect us alwasy in such a way so that free will does not exist.

  10. David Salako says:

    Lee Randolph stated: “How much culpability does a person have when the tools they are given are not adequate for the task at hand?”

    That is an interesting question. Can we quantify culpability?

    Perahps we can indirectly, by the amount of times a person can make a decision that is consistent with the norm(as he puts it) or our expectations. But is what is “norm” to us often not objective? Yes it is.

    Therefore; what is the norm for behaviour?

    Perhaps we can measure culpability by eradicating all limiting factors of an enviromental or biological nature.

    One thing is for sure though; this, we cannot quantify culpability.

    It seems that Lee Randolph is not adhere to a hard from of determinisim. It seesm he makes room for some from for free will.

    For the question about “how much culpability” indicates this.

    However if he believes in strong determinisim, then he has been contradicitng himself when he uses biological and envirmomental factors in the context of free will.

    It seems that he believes in “compatibilisim” rather than “non compatibilisim” relative to “free will”.

    Next, what does “culpability” mean? Well, “culpability” is a term that implies that a person is “responsible” for their own action because the chose it, intended it, and executed it, independent of prior causes. It a term used in law as well when deciding if a person is responsible for a crime.

    There is a legal criteria used to decide whehter one is culpable or not.

    For example; if a person commits a crime because of tumour on their frontal lobe is he/she culpable?

    If a wife kills her husband while she was sleeping is she culpable? If a man is criminally insane is he culpable?

    Notice that some of the issues are neuroscinetific in nature. And consequently, we see that neuroscience and even psychiatry are being used to determined culpability relative to criminal responsibility.
    And every jurisdiction has its own criteria.

    In some jurisdiction, a person is not guility if they are criminally insane. But in another jurisdiction that same person would be guilty but “criminally insane”.

    The genral criteria fro culpability is as follows: 1. The person must be able to appreciate his/her action. 2. They must be able to undertand the nature of the crime.
    3. Their mental age must be consistent with their actual age.
    4. They must be capable of sound reason.
    5. They must be able to recognize themselves e.t.c e,t,c

    Now, even though law allows “non culpability” it still works under the assumption that we have free will.
    If it did not, then no one is responsible for their own actions.
    We cannot live in a world like that. We cannot make non culpability an accepted legal excuse. It would be dnagerous to do so.

  11. David Salako says:

    Lee Randolph stated: ◦“If we are to be judged according to our thoughts, actions and decisions, and our thoughts, actions and decisions are influenced and or created by physiological factors, then we cannot be judged according to any standard since all people are physiologically unique and some behave in ways that they otherwise would not in different
    circumstances. How can we be judged for disobeying god when we cannot completely control our thoughts?”

    Even if our thoughts, decisions, and actions are influenced or created by physiological factors, rape would still be wrong. Even if our thoughts, decisions, and actions are influneced or created by physiological factors, murdering an innocnet person would still be wrong. Therefore we can still be judged by a standard. The only question is this;

    Can we be culpable for what was not determined by us?

    And even if some people would not have behaved in a certain way had it not been for certain circumstances it would still not make killing you child and eating them morally right because you were very hungry.

    The only questions are; can she be culpable for what was not determined by them? And; is the act “evil” or “morally evil”?

    If the act is evil it implies that what happenend is evil, but it is not morally evil, because she cannot be culpable.

    For there is a disitnction between “evil” and “moral evil”.

    Evil does not require a “moral agent”, but moral evil requires a “moral agent”. To qaulify as a moral agent one must be able to intend a behaviour and conform his/her action to it independent of prior causes.

    • David Salako says:

      Lee Randolph stated: “how can we be judged for disobeying God when we cannot completely control our thoughts?

      The question is;

      On what ground is this determined on?

      That is, our thoughts are not completely controlled by us.

      For i am aware of selecting my own thoughts.
      or i am aware of regulating my own thinking.

      • David Salako says:

        Lee Randolph stated:y”Since the brain is a biological device it can be influened by physiological factors and physiological factors induce desires and motivation.

        my response: The brain is not a device. On the contrary, the brain is a biological and electrical organ that is enclosed in the cranium, consisting of grey matter and white matter, and it is responsible for the interpretation of electrochemical impulse and the regulation of bodily activities.

        It is true that the endocrine system can influence the brain and the central nervous system(made up of brain and spinal cord) can influence the endocrine system. It is also true that both the endocrine system and the central nervous system induce for example sexual desiers. For sexual desires have a biochemical basis. hormones like testesterone are responaible for sexual desires as well.

        In fact every thing to do with sex is believed to be governed by the central nervous system, biochemical activity, and hormones

  12. David Salako says:

    continued from above.

    However that does not mean we cannot choose to have sex independent of those physiological factors. To suggest it implies that is to negate culpability in a situation in which a man rapes a woman. It is to imply that it is his physiology that is responsible.
    It also negates culpability in a situation of adultery.
    The fact is any science that tries to negate the existence of evil is immoral.

    But, it does not necessarily follow that because the brain can be influenced by physiological factors that induce desires and motivations that a man must act according to the desire.

    The desire to have sex illicitely has often been rejected by some. And some have even acted prudently by not putting themselves in situations that they are weak in.
    The fact it is a rapist that endorses the rape regardless of the physiological factors and enviromental factors that induce the desire and motivation. For to suggest that the rapist did not endorse the action is to suggest that his physiology orchestrated everything and caused the act.

    • David Salako says:

      Lee Randolph stated: “Since we cannot get outside of our thoughts and feelings, they make up our personality our “essence”. This renders any judgement by an external creator meaningless because it would know that we are helpless to feel any other way that our physiological make up will support at the time, and that our behaviour and desires will thus follow that”.

      My response: Personality is inferred from behaviour because we cannot see it. we can only see physical characteristics. Thus it is impossible to know what makes up a personality directly. We can only know a happy characteristic from an emotion of happiness. An emotion is an outward facial expression in contrast to feeling which is an inward state that an emotion is communicating. in otherwords the feeling of happiness is not the same as the happiness of emotion.

      Positive emotions occur at the left side of the brain by the release of neuromediators that stimulate that side of the brain. Negative emotions occur at the right side of the brain by the release of neuromediators that stimulate that side of the brain.

      biochemicals like oxytocin, serotonin, and dopamine, and endorphins influence how we feel. And stress hormones like cortisol and adrenine also affect feelings and emotions as well.

      Anger is caused by physiological changes, but does that mean one cannot control anger? Surely not!

      This is why some men who catch their wives cheating are not charged with crimes of passion or second degree murder.

      Consider this; oxytocin is responsible for the feeling of falling in love. Now, does that mean that in the right circumstances we are determined to fall in love and that our feeling of falling in love was based on oxytocin and consequently “we cannot choose or determine who we fall in love with”? Surely not, we can choose who we fall in love with. it is also wise to do so, for it does not follow that because we have feelings for someone it

      • David Salako says:

        continued from above:

        that it means we have made the right choice Not necessarily.

        Lee Randolph states that as a result of the things he stated the judgement of God is meaningless since we cannot feel contrary to our physiological make up and that desires and behaviour will follow that.

        Again, he claims that we determined by our physiological make up to desire and act.

        To suggest that is to imply that a rapist not culpable. Or a murderer is not culpable.

        However that we feel a certain way is not proof showing we must act a certain way.

        When a man sees a woman he may be aroused but it does not follow that he must rape her. Also voluntary actions in terms of the processes are inituated by thoughts and will.

        Also, physiological factors cannot cause a thought with the content of rape because such factors do not know what rape is and consequently such things cannot decide for one to rape. That is a function of the mind.

        He stated something that is very Christian. He stated that God knows we are helpless relative to the way we feel.
        True and that is why salvation is needed.

  13. David Salako says:

    Lee Randolph stated: “I argue that if we were put here as a test, we should have been designed exactly the opposite. As it is now, resisting temptation and denying our nature csuses frustration and stress. It seems to be a backward system when following the rules results in angst, poor health and ultimately unhappiness. It seems to be a system designed to demotivate. It seems to be a system designed to foster failure”.

    Firstly, God does not tempt or test unbelievers.
    And secondly God does not tempt anyone to. do evil because God is omnibebevolent.

    Also, God did not design us to fail.
    For, it is an evil god that designs us to break his rules and yet demands that we keep his rules.

    It is true that the rules are contrary to our nature. But it does not follow from that that the rules are bad. And it also does not follow that the rules are bad beause we are unhappy and frustrated because we cannot keep them.

    To suggest the above is like suggesting that criminal law is bad because one is a serial rapist. A standard of right and wrong must be free from imperfection if it is to show us that we are morally imperfect.

    It is true that resisting temptation can cause frustration and stress that cause the release of cortisol. It is true that enviromental factors can affect our physiology and that this can lead to bad health. However it is not true that it followa that we should not strive against temptation and that we should not strive to avoid situations that can cause temptation. Often we can manage temptation by making good decisions. We cannot negate the law that prohibits rape just because the temptation not to rape is irrestible to a rapist. We cannot because rape is morally wrong and it endangers women and children. We prohibit it on grounds of love which is the basis of our moral consideration relative to women, men, and chidren.
    As for the rapist he or she is responsible for the action even though enviromental factors or physiological factors may aroused the motivation and desire for sex.

    Notice that i stated “sex” and not “rape”. The reason being, physiological factors, enviromental factors, motivations, and desires do not know what rape is. No man’s physiology causes them to rape. The act of rape comes from thoughts and a decision to rape and the sanction of the will. It is an action committed with conscious intentionality.

    Sex is no an cological instinct.

    And consequently, it can be learnt, it is a conscious act, and it can be resisted by the will.

    If rape was an ecological instinct then it must be an act motivated by an urge that cannot be resisted by the will in “all” humans. It must be an act that is not learnt by “all” humans.
    And it must be an act that “all” humans perform with conscious intentionality.

    1. If all humans do not satisfy the conditions that constitute an ecology instinct, then rape is not an instinctive behaviour.
    2. All humans do not satisfy the conditions that constitute an ecological instinct.
    3. Therefore rape is not an instinctive behaviour.

    1. Instinctive begaviours are determined.
    2. Rape is not an instinctive behaviour.
    3. Therefore rape is not determined.

    1. Ecological instincts are determined by genes.
    2. Rape is not an ecogical instinct.
    3. Therefore rape is not determined by genes.

    So then on grounds of arguments it is reasonable to conclude that rape is an intentional act that one knows about and is conscious about even if there are influences.

    Influence can be resisted, but what is determined cannot be resisted. However rape is not a behaviour that is determined. But it can be based on an influence the rapist decided to cooporate with.

    Rape is invented by the mind. It is the mind that invents ways to express sexual desires.

    However some men are aroused by women and they have the same desires as rapists and yet they do not rape. And rapist do not rape in public, this shows it is a calculated act and it is an act that can be controlled.

    It is also important to note that some people have been rehabilitated. Such examples undermine Lee Rabdolph’s position relating to influences of a biological, eniromental, and physiological factors proving a determined nature that determine behaviour.

    Thus his position is not absolute. I say absolute because rehabilitation does not work for all.

    In fact there are some people who are not rehabilitated, instead, they learn how to manage their moral weaknesses.

    Others need technical assistance.

    In such a context people can still be responsible for their own actions.

    God did not design us to fail, but he designed us with the capacity to choose between good and evil relative to a nature that is morally imperfect and that needs his grace in order to successfully make good choices.

    We who are sane always have the capacity to choose but we do not always have the power to conform our actions to what we want to do(good) in contrast to what we do not want to do(evil).

    This is why we need God.

    Really some of the things Lee stated shows that moral behaviour is dependnt on grace.
    Without that grace we cannot successfully resist the evil innate in us every time and perfectly.

    Hence, we need “the gospel”.

    • David Salako says:

      A quick correction. Above when i stated the conditions that constitute an ecological instinct i stated: Rape must be an act that “all” humans perform with conscious intentionality.

      That is an error. It should be “without conscious intentionality” and not, “with conscious intentionality”.

  14. thematrixq says:

    Hello again: My reason for the questions is that I’ve never encountered anyone that claimed Christianity is “step in faith” is based on sound facts and empirical evidences such as history, fulfilled prophecy, verifiable witness testimony, and first hand accounts.” as you have stated. I’ve always thought it was a religious system solely based on faith and belief.

    [PHB~ Well obviously that’s where you went wrong. Christianity, unlike most religions is rooted in faith and evidence. The “fact” and evidence of the empty tomb is one. A historical person, who lived and performed certain acts in history. Archaeologically supported historical places, times and events. All of these things are a part of the Christian narrative. Unlike Mormonism, which is not even a comparison, the bible was formulated over 1,500 years with the contributions of over 40 authors. The book of Mormon was delivered to one man over over a slither of time with no archaeology to support it both internally or externally. The Quran is in the exact same boat revealed to ONE person. There is no comparison. It is based on first had accounts and eyewitness testimony and the narratives prove that the writers didn’t collude to provide a story. Yet critics persist in saying, “they are all the same” THAT is closed mindedness. Refusing to look at the evidence because of a presupposition against supernaturalism, is not a reason to stick one’s head in the sand…yet that’s exactly what the materialist does.]

    You said: ” It was debunked before he wrote it. It was proven to be debunked shortly afterward.”

    Again this is just a statement/opinion if you are methodically investigating and proving something shouldn’t you have references to your claims?

    Also how is it possible to pre-debunk something? Does it mean that the people being presented the information have a closed mind?

    [PHB~ As stated it is closed minded to not look at the facts that exist. Wellhausen refused to modify his theory and adjust it to facts that were current in his day. That is a well known and documented fact of his work. he simply didn’t care about truth and persisted in his fantasy and it caught on well and produced a hyper-criticism against what was already known and established. back in the day R K Harrison, just one of many scholars who were critical of Wellenhausen’s work said:]

    “Whatever else may be adduced in the criticism of Wellenhausen and his school, it is quite evident that his theory of Pentatuchal origins would have been vastly different(if, indeed, it had been formulated at all) had wellenhausen chosen to take account of the archaeological material available for study in his day,…”Wellenhausen took almost no note of the progress in the field of oriental scholarship, and once having arrived at his conclusions, he never troubled to revise his opinion in light of subsequent research in the general field”

    [Harrison, R K: introduction To The Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI. Eerdmans 1969]

    How would you respond to this example of textual criticism?

    In Deut 34:1 Moses is said to be shown the “land of Gilead, unto Dan.” Neither the city nor region of Dan had not been established at that time period. It wasn’t until Jdg 18:29 (well after Joshua’s death) that the city of Laish was given the name Dan and the tribe acquired a land of inheritance. Deut 34:1 cannot have been written prior to the time of the judges.

    [PHB~ Scribal look back is not a problem and certainly not as big of a one as you make it. Basically your complaint is that Dan wasn’t Dan until later, so how was it called Dan then, before it was really Dan? how do you think? Scribal insertion. This is only a problem if Dan wasn’t Dan when it became Dan. Let’s say it was Naphalti or Benjamin, then we have a problem. You think that undermines the scripture, it does no such thing. When one looks at ancient literature and historiography, you will see the same pattern among nations that conquered other nations calling their territory their territory before it actually was. in fact you will see battles of defeat left out of most historical narratives. Especially Syria and Egypt. Does that mean it never happened? I don’t think so. In addition, what does this change? Any material fact? NONE! Is it some sort of proof that scribes changed or created an account? Absolutely not, If the account is true, how was it created? Did the account create the facts, or did the facts create the account?]

    1. The Talmud The body of Jewish civil and ceremonial law and legend comprising the Mishnah (text) and the Gemara (commentary). was 200 CE and 500 CE

    Philo was born between 15-10AD and Josephus was born 37 AD, Thousands of years after the Torah was supposed to be written. They are historians committing oral traditions to paper but that does not mean what they are writing is true and they can’t possibly verify that anything said or done by Moses was true.

    [PHB~ This is the hyper-criticism that i was discussing and it is not even reasonable. In other words, the complaint is that, why should we believe the historians of any nation to be true to their own history? That is about as silly as can be as far as historical narratives are concerned. The REAL process goes like this…the historians provided history…we review that history and follow it in as much as the history stands with supports both internally and externally. Until there is reason to disbelieve a historical narrative, we should conclude that those telling their own history are relaying pertinent fact. In the bible, that is the case. The study of oral history and oral historiography has overwhelmingly proven that the narratives, eventually written down, were the actual events of a nation and it’s leaders. there is overwhelming evidence in this field that justifies that Philo and Josephus and other Jewish scholars by name and course were faithful to the historical preservation of a nation of people. In support of their statements EVERY find and discovery of history proves the bible to be an accurate and historical narrative. Why should ANYONE believe you or any critic over these men telling the history of their nation when their is ample evidence that what they state has been carefully preserved and when all evidence uncovered has supported their assertions??? So you, over 4,000 years removed, are more accurate than them? A nation and all of its historians? Unbelievable! What type of SNAKE OIL are you sellin’…Put it down and go to the nearest detox center to get off that high!]

    Any references from within the bible would be circular, so Paul, John, Jesus are not valid sources just as Prophet Moroni in the book of Mormon is not a valid source for Joseph Smith correct?

    [PHB ~Totally INCORRECT. That is like saying don’t use a dictionary to confirm what is in a dictionary…what kind of sense does that make? In addition there is no comparison to the bible and the biblical narrative to the book of Mormon and little comparison to the Quran. Why? The bible includes narratives by over 40 persons written over 1,500 years. The book of Mormon written by ONE man in his lifetime, the Quran also. There is NO archaeological evidence for Mormon or the book and very little for the Quran and the Quran has been found to include non historical and even wrong information. Where is the comparison??? As stated, until we have reason NOT to believe the bible, it is believable based on what it delivers. The ONLY person who does not like this is the person who has a presupposition of anti-supernaturalism. I think that was Hume’s approach… discount and take out everything that is supernatural. Why? because he didn’t like it…that is garbage every day and all day!!! ]

    You said “Now why do we need external verification for our history?”

    Isn’t this what you have stated? Doesn’t this make your claim verifiable and provable? I was under the impression that our burden is at a higher standard than just belief but on first hand accounts, facts, fulfilled prophecy etc.

    2. You wrote:

    “Joshua would have been one who would have had the opportunity to oversee the preservation of certain history as well.

    This is speculation you don’t know that for a fact and your standard is factual information.

    [PHB~ Well if I can’t know it to be factual, then you certainly can’t know it to not be true. I can know it based on evidence and support of third parties, archaeology and also current and ongoing studies regarding the issue. The more we find the less the critical position becomes. I guess you guys just like swimming upstream.]

    You wrote:

    “Another thing we know about ancient past history is that things changed rather quickly. biblical events are affirmed within their time as a matter of historical literature due to the facts that are recorded within their time.”

    Again we don’t “know” that biblical events were affirmed within there time. This is your opinion, it’s not a factual statement.

    [PHB~ Sorry, wrong again. Current studies on ANE cultures where Oral history was the mode and method of transmission of history affirms my position. Even against critics that continue to say, “that’s only your opinion”…well it is historical FACT by those in the know. Richard Bauckham addresses the critics demand for obscurity in orally transferred historical narratives, quite nicely in Jesus And The Eyewitnesses]

    3a I agree that monotheim is the foundation of Christian belief but surely polytheism was the norm during those times

    There are approximately 89 references to the god Baal in the Old Testament (OT). Further, the OT makes reference to other Canaanite deities including the goddess Asherah (40 times) as well as the goddess Ashtoreth (10 times).3 In total, there appears to be about 139 clear references to major Canaanite deities in the OT.4 In a brief survey of the passages in which reference is made to Baal worship, such things are noted as the high places at which Baal worship occurred within Israel (e.g., Num 22:41)5, Israel’s propensity for engaging in Baal worship at certain points in her history (cf. Judges 2:11; 3:7; 8:33; 10:6, 10, Hosea 2:13, etc.), as well as the cultic practices of certain Baal prophets (cf. 1 Kings 18:25-29).

    [PHB ~ what you are trying to argue is the “evolution of religion hypothesis”, that stated that Israel’s religion became monotheistic over time. that they were never true monotheists, because to be that would have placed them as a nation out of their time frame or epoch. Certainly polytheism, was the norm of the nations surrounding Israel and Israel even apostasized themselves, but that is only evidence of sin and disobedience and not evidence that there was a growth and evolution into monotheism as Wellenhausen’s theory states. In addition the Elba discoveries totally blow this and like theories away. First, there is no evidence that there was no form of animism for this to work and other evidence negates against his primary position on the issues. That Israel sinned, certainly. That Israel suffered because of this certainly. That Israel would repent of this sin…clearly at times.]</b

    3b You wrote:

    " In addition the bible has been proven to be accurate in all that it records."

    The only records that prove this are internal. That makes it circular.

    [FALSE! MUCH and many external verification of biblical assertions and facts. Archaeology is just one field of study that negates your statements. In addition, we have sources not biased in favor of Christianity who affirm many narratives that we see, some even critical of what Christians believed and taught. There is the Jesus passage of Josephus and the James passage and other historians such as Tacitus and writings of Seutoneous that affirm certain aspects of what Christians taught and believed. The teaching and belief wasn’t just made up whole cloth. Aside from all that the bible meets all historical criteria better than any literary work of antiquity, by recording events early, including embarrassing facts, and accurate information verified historically. Your dissent just has no teeth to it at all.]

    You wrote:

    “Now so far as the demand for empirical evidences, are you even attempting to assert that materialism has empirical evidences for all that it holds? ”

    I’m not making that claim I’m challenging your assertion that Christianity is

    “based on sound facts and empirical evidences such as history, fulfilled prophecy, verifiable witness testimony, and first hand accounts.”

    [PHB ~ And I believe I have demonstrated those facts even if you want to discount them or don’t understand them. You certainly haven’t refuted anything with any evidence other than “that’s your opinion”…what kind of argument is that? NONE!]

    4. I asked

    “Since we know the word ‘God’ is a title what is ‘God’s’ name?”

    I think that’s a valid question…we have a books that mentions many deities and calls one deity by more than one name. For example Elohim, Yahweh, El Shaddai, Adonai, etc.

    [PHB~ What name do you suppose that we call and uncaused cause for whom there is no reason and for which there is nothing to support him? The definition or a name is for us, not him.]

    5. I will strongly disagree with you that the bible is inerrant and the translation is faulted but the bible retains it’s inerrancy…that makes no sense to me.

    [PHB~ And I strongly agree with you that it makes no sense to you, because you are what we call a sinner and sinners balk at the words and understanding of a spiritual God although God yet speaks to make sinners interested in the subject to continue to banter. that’s why we talk and continue, not because some “magical” words will be written, but because TRUTH has a lasting effect upon the heart of every man. God’s word is true and without error, even if translations have errors, we know that they are errors as we find greater evidences. However, those errors do not negate biblical truth]

    6a. The latest archaeological completely contradicts your answer.
    From the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning their archaeological findings. 2003

    “The Bible is not – and was never intended to be – a historical document. A work of theology, law, ethics and literature, it does contain historical information; but if we want to evaluate this information we should consider when, how and why the Bible was compiled.”

    The saga of the Israelites, as told in the Bible, was designed as a morality tale to prove the importance of faith in the One God. The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Joshua demonstrate that the Israelites were rewarded when they obeyed God, but were punished when they strayed.

    The historical evidence to back up these events is sparse, and, in some cases, contradictory. In particular, the account of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua in the 14th century bce were destroyed long before he came on the scene. Some, such as Ai and Arad, had been ruins for a 1000 years.

    The Book of Judges, which directly contradicts Joshua, and shows the Israelites settling the land over a prolonged period, is nearer historical reality; but even it cannot be taken at face value.”

    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/9/King+David+and+Jerusalem-+Myth+and+Reality.htm?DisplayMode=print

    [PHB~ told you, put that bottle down or at least come off that weed. It is a killer!!!! Please…do you think ANYONE of any reputation believes this mess???? Not even the most critical Bart Ehrman believes this mess. You do yourself no favor and only display how completely irrational and radical your belief really is.]

    6b The book of Mormon, The Q’uran, and just about all ‘holy’ books verify themselves but it does not make the claims, prophecies etc valid or true. Your claims from within the bible are only valid if a person has faith(strong belief without evidence) and belief that it is the word of god.

    [PHB ~ I’ve addressed this earlier, no need for repetition.]

  15. David Salako says:

    Before i proceed further i would like to add an argument against “determinisim” or “causal determinisism” relative to Lee’s position.

    It is as follows:Argument against determinisim or the idea that choices are predetermined and consequently that the behaviour that follows from the choices are also predetermined:

    1. If the choice to do Y occurs, then choice to do X is not predetermined by prior causes.
    2. The choice to do Y occured.
    3. Therefore the choice to do X is not predetermined by prior causes.

    Let us use the symbol Y to represent the ch…oice to walk and the symbol X to represent the choice not to walk.

    If the choice not to walk(represented as X) was predetermined by prior neurological causes, then the choice to walk(represented as Y) cannot happen.

    For what is determined is fixed,but if it can be changed, then it is not fixed.
    And consequently it follows, that the choice to do X is not predetermined.

    To suggest that X was determined and that Y is determined is to suggest that my X is
    determined and not determined because of Y, which is determined.

    However it is a logical fallacy that violates the tautology and principle of non-contradiction. For to suggest that X is predetermined and not predetermined at the same time is a logical fallacy.

    • David Salako says:

      Lee Randolph stated: “If god made us, then obviously he is responsible for our architecture. The bible says we prefer sin, and using the definition of sin in the bible, it seems to be true. But what is sin? Who decides what sin is? Is sin being promiscuous or overeating? Human beings would have never survived if they did not act this way. It is necessary behavior in the survival of organisms to procreate as much as they can and eat when they can find food. Natural Selection has filtered this behavior to prominence because those organisms that behaved that way, passed on more copies of themselves, their genes.”

      My response: if God made us, it does not follow that he is responsible for sinful nature, just like when a plane crashes it does not necessarily mean that the designer is responsible for the malfunction.

      This issue can be and should be considered in the context of the problem of evil and theodicy.

      In this context evil can be considered analytically.

      It is as follows: 1. Moral evil 2. Phsyical evil. 3. Natural evil and 4. Metaphsyical evil.

      Relative to Lee’s context we ought to consider 1. and 4.

      Moral evil pertains to the intrinsic evil in humans manifested as breaking postive law, moral, or any good law.
      Metaphsyical evil pertains (relative to the context of moral evil) to the imperfection instrinsic in us.

      So, the athiest reasons this way against the postion of an omnibenevolent God.

      1. God created everything.
      2. The evil human nature is a thing.
      3. Therefore God created the evil human nature.

      Or; 1. If human nature is imperfect, then God must be imperfect.
      2. The human nature is imperfect.
      3. Therefore God must be imperfect.

      Or 1. A malfunction is the consequences of an imperfect design.
      2. Metaphsyical evil can be related to brain malfunction.
      3. Therefore the metaphsyical evil that can be related to brain malfunction is the consequences of an imperfect design.

      Conclusion: God is imperfect.

      However, all such arguments that i am using to illustrate the thinking of the atheist are valid, but not sound.

      For relative to moral evil; that humans do evil, does not imply that God created them evil or is responsible for their evil.

      For example if humans watch the poor suffer hunger and yet they can eradicate the hunger, but they dont, it has nothing to do with God, but humans choosing to be selfish.
      And consequnelty the moral evil in that example has nothing to do with God. On the contrary it has to do with humans choosing to be selfish.

      God has given us the capacity to choose between good and evil. He has also given us the capacity to be just or unjust. This is why free will exists. It exists so that we can be responsible for our behaviour.
      So, briefly( even though this is a broad issue) God is not responsible for moral evil.

      Also breifly, relative ot metaphsyical evil; it does not follow that God is responsible for brain malfunction, just like it does not follow, that the designer is responsible for brain malfunction. For something can enter the design to cause it to act in ways contrary to the desginers plan. This is also true in the context of moral evil as well. In the context of brain malfunction, God did not design the human brain to act in dysfunctional ways; that it can and it does, is the consequences of the fall. Even all imperfections that are related to genetic disorders on a molecular level are the consequences of the fall and the sinful nature that all humans have inherited.

      How sin entered the world that God created good can be understood in terms of free will and the consequences of using the free will contrary to God. Sin came into the world by disobedience. Disobedience is the product of a free will.

      God created us with the capacity to choose to disobey him.

  16. David Salako says:

    Lee Randolph stated:The bible says we prefer sin, and using the definition of sin in the bible, it seems to be true. But what is sin? Who decides what sin is? Is sin being promiscuous or
    overeating? Human beings would have never survived if they did not act this way. It is necessary behavior in the survival of organisms to procreate as much as they can and eat when they can find food. Natural Selection has filtered this behavior to prominence because those organisms that behaved that way, passed on more copies of themselves, their genes.”

    My response: Yes, the bible does say we prefer evil. And Lee agrees somewhat relcutantly by saying “this seems to be true”.
    However i am more categorical; for “it is true”.

    Next, he asks: “What sin”?

    My answer: “Sin is the transgression of the law”.(My definition is not mine, but from the king james version of the bible/word for word). And consequently that is an objective definition for what is sin is.

    Next he asks; “who decides what sin is”?

    My answer: God decides what sin is.

    Next he asks; “is sin being promsicous or overeating”?

    My answer: 1. Love is the fulfillment of the law.
    2. Promiscouity is a violation of the law.
    3. Therefore promiscouity is not love.

    Or; 1. Sin is the trangression of the law.
    2. Promiscouity is a trnagression of the law.
    3. Therefore promiscouity is sin.

    Why is prosmicous behaviour sin and not love?

    Well, prosmicous behaviour is not an act that entails love since it increases the spread of S.T.D’S. One cannot say they love someone if they are doing what can damage their health. That is one reason. The risk is real.

    It is sin because any act that does not maifest love does not fulfill the law. And what does not fulfil the law is sin.
    Therefore it follows that promsicouity is sin.

    Next Lee stated:
    Human beings would have never survived if they did not act this way. It is necessary behavior in the survival of organisms to procreate as much as they can and eat when they can find food. Natural Selection has filtered this behavior to prominence because those organisms that behaved that way, passed on more copies of themselves, their genes.”

    My response: This is suprising……. He now tries to show that promiscouity is ebeneficial on grounds of evolution.
    He now tries to justify overeating on grounds of evolutiion and natural selection.

    However his postion is clearly irrational.

    Firstly let us consider overeating;

    Is it wise to amke informed choices relative to eating? Surely the answer is yes. Therefore it is wise to consider ones phsyiology relative to food since obesity can has health implications. And consequently we ought to be promoting the snesible use of food.
    Obesity is linked to heart conditions, diabetes, and death. Thus, it is actually silly to promote overeating in a society that has people who are prone to obesity based on enviromental, psycological, phsyiological, and genetinc factors. It i

    • David Salako says:

      Next let us consider promiscous behaviour:

      It is also irrational to suggest promiscous behaviour as the standard for society since it has damaged society in so many ways. Instead we ought to be promoting healthy sex that does not affect society medically, phsyically, economically, and socially. We ought to promote people procreating responsibily and rationally. We ought to be promoting sex, with commitment and love. And we ought to be promoting sex with marriage.
      And notice he links promsicouity to procreation. It is clear that contraceptives prevent that end. Therefore, he is esentially promoting sex without contraceptives. We all know that contraceptives have not been effective in combating our grwoing STD rates or STI rates. How much more without contraceptives? It is clear that the evolutionary paradigm for behaviouir cannot be applied to good society, unless one wants to destroy the health of members of society. Therefore relative to what Lee is suggesting, promsicous behaviour is a sin and an act that is inconsistent with love. If i can clearly show you this and i am a human, then how can he ask, who decides sin? For surely, it must be God, since i have demostrated that his standard is his both rational, just, right, and good, in contrast to the foolsihness that Lee is promoting.

      Natural selection is the theory(allegedly) that nature randomly selects those traits of an orgainsim’s geneotype that causes them to thrive to succeed in the competiton for food and mate in the struggle in which those organisims that are weak because they cannot exploit there enviroment die because they cannot transmit their genes to successsive generations; but those organisims that are strong and that can exploit their enviroment will transmitt their genes to successive generations.

      Nature(allegedly) sifts out those genes that make up the geneotype of an organisim’s phenotype and consequently the genotype of an orgainims’s phenotype survives and thus preserving that taxa or specie.

      It is important to note that natural selection and evolution is not about moral survival, but survival. It is a view that presnets us with a world without dignity and values, since such things tell us some behvaiours are wrong and consequenlty should not be done. Therefore, when we take Darwinisim or Neo Darwinisim literally, it is diametrically oppsoed to right and wrong.

      In such a world rape would be acceptable like in the animal world. Infanticided would be acceptable like in the animal world. Killing would be accetable like in the animal world(absolutely).

      Science understood in this way(the way Lee understands it) is immoral.

      For just because something evolved, it does not make it moral.

      Anger is an emotion caused at the right side of brain and stress hormones like adrenaline and cortisol and even structural aspects of the brain like the hypothalamus and peneal galand relative to central nervous system and endocrine system are responsible for the physiological changes that cause the emotions(expression of a feeling) and feelings(inward sensation) of anger. And anger can be conisdered relative to evolutionary psycology as a feature that evolved as response to a hsotile enviroment in which the fight or flight mechanisim was necessary.

      However does that mean, that whenever i am angry i can kill? Surely, this is why there is a category of murder known as crime of passions. Crimes of passions or killing because of anger is not the same as first degree or sometimes second degree murder. It can be thought! It can also be classified as involuntary manslaughter which is disitnct from voluntary manslaughter. But my main point is clear. This: That something evolved, does not make it moral or acceptable in a moral and rational society.

      In fact, the truth is, the things LEE endorses for society are dangerous for it and are against reason and morals.

      I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO APOLOGISE FOR THE LINGUSTIC ERROS THAT EXIST AS A RESULT OF ME TYPING TOO QUICKLY AND NOT EDITING MY RESPONSE.

  17. David Salako says:

    Lee Randolph stated: ◦“Dopamine receptors in the brain receive Dopamine that gets released into the blood stream by the endocrine system that provides some of that positive feedback. But a malfunctioning dopamine system or the introduction of foreign bodies that are similar to dopamine can cause addictions. It is a flawed process that can be easily
    fooled by things such as food, alcohol and cocaine into malfunctioning. Not the high quality I would expect out of the workshop of a God.”

    My response: Yes, neuromediators and biochemcials like dopamine and seretonin affect our we feel. Such biochemicals are known as the “feel good” chemicals. Moreover these neurotransmitters are responsible for stimulating the left side of the brain that is responsible for postive emotuions e.g happiness, joy e.t.c

    And it is true that dopamine can contribute to addictions or psychological dependency. For example, even though the alkaloid substance that is extracted from the vascular cells of plants( i am referring to nicotine) causes the psychological dependency of smoking tobacco, it is not the only reason that smokers are dependent or addicted. For dopamine also affects the mind and how smokers perceive smoking. For it hightens the tendency to smoke.

    But is that God’s fault, or the people who created it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Help Support The Ministry

Hot Topics

Media & Podcasts

Pastor's Profile

Study Materials

%d bloggers like this: