CADRE Comments

“. . . Hebrews is a sermon rooted in actual life. It is addressed to a local gathering of men and women who discovered that they could be penetrated by adverse circumstances over which they exercised no control. It throbs with an awareness of the privilege and the cost of discipleship. It is a sensitive pastoral response to the sagging faith of older and tired individuals who were in danger of relinquishing their Christian commitment. It seeks to strengthen them in the face of a new crisis so that they may stand firm in their faith. It warns them of the judgment of God they would incur if they were to waver in their commitment. Exhortations to covenant fidelity and perseverance are grounded in a fresh understanding of the significance of Jesus and his sacrifice.” Lane, p. xlvi. See also Ellingworth, pp. 78-80, cited by Dr. Thomas Constable

on Metacrock's blg https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2020/06/what-is-liberal-theology-p1.html

  I first heard the anecdote about turtles when it starred Wittgenstein. In some class he taught, supposedly, they were referring to the Indian cosmogany in which the earth sits on the back of an elephant and the elephant is on the back of a great turtle. A student asked "what does the turtle sit on?" Supposedly Wittgenstein said "from there on it's turtles all the way down." There is no real proof that Wittgenstein ever said that. Googling the phrase, it is associated with him without proving who said it. Moreover, no one knows what it means. I've seen about six interpretations. It's always associated with the sort of flippant remark a skeptic might make about religious answers. Here I use it as a metaphor for the arrogance of scientism to think that scientific exactitude and certainty rules out the possibility of other realms and forms of truth that science can't seek. One of the most solid things in modern science is the Greek concept

Dialogue with AndyF2 aka"you" https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/06/hinmans-cosmological-argument.html 1. Something exists. 2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances. 3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes 4. Therefore, there exists at least one  eternal thing 5. The  one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things 6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God." 7. Therefore God exists. The False Dichotomy: YOU: "The first issue is that 2 is a false dichotomy. For example, it may be that the universe appeared spontaneous. Joe objects to this because there is no precedence for things appearing spontaneously. However, the same is also true of something existing eternally." ME: Show me an example of anythi

        Micah 5:2 is regarded as a prophecy indicating where the Jewish Messiah would be born, a village called Bethlehem. This passage was written for the purpose of consoling a people devoid of hope, as it describes the arrival of a King in a futuristic sense who will bring about the redemption and restoration of Israel alongside with a kingdom that exists throughout the world. First century Jewish leaders during the first century understood Micah 5:1-2 to be a Messianic prophecy (Matthew 2:3-6; Luke 2:4; John 7:41-42). King David was also born in Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1-13). Jesus Christ is the most prominent figure in his lineage, legally speaking. God raised Christ up to rule eternally in David's royal ancestry through a covenantal promise (2 Samuel 7:12-17).         Now, there is an issue of word rendering in Micah 5:2 as it relates to the divinity of Christ. Translations such as the English Standard Version render the Hebrew word "olam" in this text as  from an

Please read thus whole essay. At the very least I think it either offers a good interesting way to  present design arguments. Or it is a genius new argument atheists have not heard. It is meaningful it us not BS. But you have to read it all to understand it. The argument 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) 2. OP's summed up in TS 3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. 4 . Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a   rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. 5.   minds organize and communicate meaning 6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS 7 .  Concept of God unites TS with universal mind there fore   offers  best explanation for a view that is  R ational, Coherent, and  M eaningful (RCM). 1-3 Randal Rauser's Interview of me On this argument   new (1)  Any rational, coherent