Creation Museum’s First Anniversary May 29, 2008
Posted by Jonathan Brennekce in Creation, Uncategorized.Tags: AiG, anniversary, Answers, Answers in Genesis, Creation, Creation vs. Evolution, Musuem
add a comment

Today, the Creation museum celebrates its first anniversary! In case you’re the only person who doesn’t know, more information about the Creation Museum can be found here.
Yes, I see I been a tad sluggish in my posting lately, and am without excuse. I have started a new blog though, more news of that shortly.
Narnia: Prince Caspian May 19, 2008
Posted by Jonathan Brennekce in Uncategorized.Tags: C, Caspian, Disney, Lewis, narnia, Prince, S
1 comment so far

Well why are you just sitting there reading my blog. You ought to be at the theater right now, watching this movie. Prince Caspian absolutely rocks.
Soap. Mouth. Christian? May 19, 2008
Posted by Jonathan Brennekce in Christianity, Random.Tags: Christian, Christianity, cursing, Cussing, sin, swearing, vain, vanity
add a comment
As odd as it seems, one could say that cursing is wrong because it is usually wrong. It is not, to the believer, a sin but to the unbeliever who sees a Christian using foul language, it appears as sin. And should a Christian’s idle words be extrapolated to be the semblance of his faith? Cussing, albeit, may not be a sin in itself, but the believer is to “abstain from all appearance of evil.” (1 Thessalonians 5:22) not only evil itself. Christianity should be markedly different than the culture, as apparent to the unbeliever, and, clearly, one of the most readily seen indications of a person’s character is a person’s language. (Matthew 12:35-36, and Proverbs 4:23) It seems no great leap of logic to see that Christians should not cuss, if merely on account of an unbeliever’s perception. “The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness.” (Proverbs 10:3)
Christianity (as far as its practical application) is not be code of absolutes, like the Levitical Law. So I won’t deny the plausibility of exceptions to what I have said. Even at that, I also won’t bother commenting on the context of such exceptions, seeing as an exception, naturally, follows no strict pattern. Words are not sin, and no one verse in the Bible explicitly condemns cursing, just as it does not unequivocally denounce anger (and really cursing is often an expression of anger). What is said, however, is that believers should “put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.” (Colossians 3:8 ) and “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” (Ephesians 4:30)
Impossible that God is Possibly Impossible….Possibly??? May 14, 2008
Posted by Jonathan Brennekce in Philosophy of Science, Random.Tags: Aquinas, Augustine, Bible, C, Chad, Christianity, Docterman, equilibrium, Evil, exclusive, God, Impossible, Lewis, Mere, mutual, perfect, Possible, S, Thomas
1 comment so far
Chad Docterman of EvilBible.com argues in this article that the very connotations of the term “God” are, in themselves, equivocal, by reason, he stresses, of a mutually exclusive relationship. In his own words:
“What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete–it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.”
Ascribing perfection to a thing (such as God) means that nothing of perfection is wanting in Him. Chad takes this to the extent that any addition to God’s perfection must signify a lack of perfection to be filled. He says, in effect, that perfection cannot seek more perfection. Yet, no amount of perfection added to an already perfect thing will make it any more or less perfect. Chad says “If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium.” False. There can indeed be disequilibrium, so long as the entire stasis, –the equilibrium constant, as it were– always cancels out in infinite equilibrium. In the case of God, because His perfection is infinite, it negates the finite amount of imperfection that exists in creation. So God was neither bored, nor lonely, nor is He pursuing an ever elusive perfection. Chad superimposes human imperfection onto a perfect God, and frankly, the results don’t follow.
In response to his other rhetorical question,“What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create?” God created time and, therefore, nothing need have disturbed the “equilibrium” to have compelled the creation. This argument is similar to the oft’ heard “Who created God?” paradox, which rests on the fallacy of a false dichotomy (i.e. bifurcation, either/or). Black-and-white thinking in this manner leads to the even further error, he opposes the alternatives and seeks to dismiss them by merely ignoring their existence.
“A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.” Chris states. Just as in the above example, God’s infinite perfection nullifies finite imperfection. Thomas Aquinas quotes Augustine and writes, “As Augustine says, ‘Since God is the highest, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.’ This is a part of the infinite goodness og God, that He should allow evil to exist and out of it produce good.” (Summa Theologica, P1, Q2, A1, Rep. Obj. 1)
“Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options” Speaking of mutual exclusivity, how can a thing have freewill, as regards good, and yet not have the ability to chose from its opposite? In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis expounds:
“If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata — of creatures that worked like machines — would hardly be worth creating.”
Hmmm…..? May 12, 2008
Posted by Jonathan Brennekce in Uncategorized.Tags: Comfort, Cowt, crocoduck, Descent, Food, Human, Humaphant, Ray, raycomfortfood
2 comments

These thought provoking images appeared on Ray Comfort’s site today. And all I have to say is…..
More after the break, images produced by Human Descent.
“Is God a Sadistic Monster?” May 12, 2008
Posted by Jonathan Brennekce in Creation, Philosophy of Science, Uncategorized.Tags: angry, Athiesm, Christ, DC, Debunking Christianity, Desolate, God, Jesus, Paladin, wrath
add a comment
“For God to throw ANY person into eternal fire where they will never die and never know respite, and scream and wail while God and Jesus treat it as “music to their ears” is such a morally unconscionable act it beggars description!! The fact is, God is a two-faced hypocrite who employs a “double standard”. He claims not to tolerate cruelty and inhumanity, and he will become the most inhumane, vicious, merciless, animalistic, brutal, sadistic, monster ever in history when, on Judgment Day, he throws the billions of “lost souls” into this eternal barbecue pit.” – Desolate Paladin
I am constantly amazed by what people will say in a rant. But for a writer at Debunking Christianity ranting seems to be the substance of every post, and logic is almost an exception, as he even says:
“Also, as far as your contention that my arguments are void of logic, uhhhhhhh, and your’s aren’t either?? We’re debating religious dogma, doctrines, and values. Logic doesn’t come into play here, but rather subjective values and personal philosophical beliefs and convictions!”
What astounded me most were other claims, however (see this post):
“The judge tells the girl that she will be allowed no legal representation. No one will be permitted to speak on her behalf but she herself. “
His example has no place in scripture. God, indeed, gives us the option of an advocate in the person of Jesus Christ, “We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He himself is the propitiation for our sins…” (1 John 2:1). Christ is a mediator on our behalf –our advocate and ransom– yet the sinner has disavowed Christ the chance to testify on his behalf. “If we deny Him, He also will deny us.” (2 Tim. 2:12) and in Matthew 10:33, “But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven,”
“The girl has committed no “crimes” per se, but has committed many of the same “sins” that an average young woman of her age might have committed in the course of her short life…. The judge tells this girl that although her “crimes” are minor, she will be taken out, doused in gasoline, set ablaze, and then thrown into a vat of sulfuric acid while she is still burning…”
The matter isn’t how of how small or how great one’s sin is, but of what has been done about it. Every one of us is born into sin, and all continue in sin (cf. Romans 3:23). Even so, it is not the sin itself, but the active participation in sin that brings judgment. In Eden, The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil had no apparent magical qualities. It was the action of eating the fruit, of disregarding God’s law, that brought the knowledge of sin –and death. Just as today, it is the act of going against God’s commandment that lays on us the guilt of sin. “But He by no means clears the guilty” (Num. 14:18 )
Since God is infinite, perfect and holy, His law is a mirror of these attributes. What God set up as of utmost value, the sinner –the human– has devalued, and has cast down the perfect law of God. So, judgement is precipitate to the slighest sin, and eternal hell is the logical result of one’s own decision. If one denies God in life, in hell his rejection of God is gratified. There can be absolutely no justification of sin on human terms.
Those who would paint God as sadistic monster need realize their precarious position. The only impediment to a sinner being immediately cast into hell is God’s mercy. Therefore, it is not that God demonstrates unjust wrath in any action, but that He ceases from showing mercy. Consider your own place in the matter, remembering the Advocate that God has provided. You have sinned, and there is absolutely nothing you can do, of yourself, to alleviate God’s righteous wrath. Take heed while you still have a chance.
Great Bushels of Books!!! May 10, 2008
Posted by Jonathan Brennekce in Uncategorized.Tags: Books, Britannica, Classics, Encyclopedia, Harvard
1 comment so far
Just picked up the 15th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (with all but 3 volumes of The Brit’s Great Books collection, slightly less than 1,000,000 volumes) and a 1938 edition of the Harvard Classics (around a dozen volumes) at a neighborhood garage sale… for 20 bucks. I may encounter significant difficulty peeling myself from them to post something today…
Hey P. Z., My Ears Aren’t Bleeding May 9, 2008
Posted by Jonathan Brennekce in Random.Tags: Camp, Casting, Christian, contemporary, Crowns, Day, Jeremy, mac, Music, Myers, P, Pharyngula, Rock, Switchfoot, Third, Toby, tobymac, Z
add a comment
In all honesty I pity P. Z. Myers. Even more so after this post, which nearly verges on quote mining. But quote mining music? That’s a new one, for sure.
So desperate to dis’ Christians is Myers, that he procures this rueful “audio torture” as an abstraction of the entire genre of Christian rock. Needless to say his sampling is trash, the dregs, as it were, of inarticulate, discordant nonsense. If you really want to know what Christians listen to, take it from a Christian, not a hostile “godless liberal” prepossessed to pound Christians at every opportunity.
Alright, you asked for it. Here’s a sampling of my favorites (via youtube): Toby Mac, Switchfoot, Casting Crowns, Third Day, Third Day again, Jeremy Camp and the like. You may or may not like these, to bad. Everyone is suited to their own tastes, right? So how can any one kind of music possibly be a type of a vast and diverse body? I mean, some people listen to classical music or oldies [gasps]…
The Master’s College – Photostream May 7, 2008
Posted by Jonathan Brennekce in Random.Tags: College, Dr., John, MacArthur, Master's, The, TMC, vacation
add a comment

Here’s some photos from my brief visit to The Master’s College, in Van Nuys California. You can’t see much of it from these pictures but the area is surprisingly green and scenic. Or maybe that’s just because it was 60 degrees back home in Idaho –and snowing– at the same time as it was 80 degrees there.

(Above) Outside the student building and gift shop. On the second floor is the cafeteria and grill.

(Above) This would be the science building, featuring offices and labs on the bottom floor and lecture rooms on the top level. Its a nice facility, though rather smaller than the school would like. I attended two lectures in the building, one on General Chemistry ( Dr. Jones) and the other on Cell Biology (Dr. Francis, see here). Following are some more pictures of one of the laboratory rooms inside, with the students at work.


Crevoscope… May 5, 2008
Posted by Jonathan Brennekce in Random.Tags: Creation, Crevoscope, debate, Evolution, free, game, internet, massively, multiplayer, online
add a comment

For anyone seeking a jolt of hilarity, listen up. The gist of the matter is this, there’s a new online game out, Crevoscope. (If you’re looking for a review of it, see Pharyngula’s post here) Massively multiplayer, text-based, free, RPG, yeah… typical online stuff. Right?
Well, wrong. It’s a strange thing, this game. And I think that’s best covered with an example. Entering the cafe, (the which apparently exists for “debating” the strong points of creation or evolution), I selected a random person (who we’ll name XXXXX for the sake of this example) and began to debate.
You find a fellow creationist, and decide to have a practice debate to get ready to beat those evolutionists. Your friend decides to play devils advocate.
You turn toward XXXXXX and say “If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
XXXXXX replies to your argument with “We did not come from monkeys, we evolved from another very monkey like creature.”
Jonathan Brennecke sees that his opponent made a few logical mistakes, but is cautious because something feels right about what he said.XXXXXX says his own argument: “How could Noah possibly fit all those animals into a small boat?”
You think for a moment and say “Well… um… all that matters is that he did!”
XXXXXX smiles with victory.Once again, you challenge your opponent: “If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
XXXXXX replies to your argument with “Scientists say that we evolved from chimps, not monkeys! I guess that God of yours didn’t decide to give you a brain so you could realise this, huh?”
Jonathan Brennecke nods, enjoying seeing his opponent make a complete fool of himself.XXXXXX wins the debate!
I think you get the point… Anyhow, if you ever find me over there (alias is Jonathan Brennecke) feel free to debate. In the meantime, I’m at a loss. Perhaps I’ll figure it out if only I play the game a little more. Or not.
