tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81703900688456475262012-01-13T03:28:13.860-08:00David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.comBlogger631100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-79568326383930879932012-01-13T03:18:00.001-08:002012-01-13T03:28:13.912-08:00

Google Web Fonts, for when you want to display a $300 font family on your web site—for free. Well, sort of. At least in my case that is true, for on this blog I am now using the Droid Serif font family, which would cost me around $290 if I were to buy the commercial version (e.g., Ascender Fonts). But thanks to Google Web Fonts I can do so for free. All I had to do was perform two very simple

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-73586696575352722342011-10-04T23:53:00.001-07:002011-10-04T23:53:02.051-07:00

“If you had to choose between truth and comfort, which would you choose?” So the question is posed by Matt Oxley rhetorically to the readers of his blog as a way of introducing his thoughts on the existential tension between truth on the one hand and comfort on the other, a tension he experienced as he progressively expunged his former charismatic Christian faith, a painful process of replacing

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-70723223068101124232011-09-29T22:22:00.000-07:002011-09-30T00:50:27.357-07:00

All right, I have decided to resurrect the Itinerarium Mentis blog. Although I will still be contributing articles to the Aristophrenium as my primary commitment, I have chosen to reopen this blog for material that is geared more toward personal introspection and informal engagements and whatever else I feel is not exactly suited for the design and purpose of the Aristophrenium. I also reserve

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-52035113192798724582009-06-18T16:54:00.000-07:002011-09-29T17:32:23.386-07:00

CLOSED I have suspended activity on this blog for the time being. I have invested in a domain and created a web site to publish not only my own writing but that of others too, as a growing collaborative enterprise of authors with a range of view points exploring and examining ideas and topics related to philosophy, religion, and science. I am publishing from the perspective of Christian theism,

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-23573837502837378782009-02-17T23:21:00.000-08:002009-02-17T23:27:40.856-08:00

A reader who I will call 'Doug' had a rebuttal to my Problem of Suffering critique:Your argument seems to be that gratuitous suffering cannot exist because a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent would not allow it. The problem is that the presence of gratuitous suffering is the test; we must establish that it does or doesn't exist without deferring to the conclusion we're trying

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-8544433720839527562009-02-12T22:54:00.001-08:002009-02-12T22:54:56.497-08:00

From the EthicalAtheist.com web page "Questions for God" [1]: Why don't you show yourself? You supposedly made us and want us to believe in you, right? Why the big mystery? You're also omnipresent, right? Why don't you show yourself to all of us at once and have a personal discussion with us? You can pick the date and time, we'll all stop what we are doing, I'm sure. Why doesn't God dance

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-73612256187793400462009-02-10T20:07:00.001-08:002009-02-10T20:07:13.821-08:00

(To listen, click here) Britney, I'm sorry for the lies we told. We took you into our arms, then left you cold. Britney, I'm sorry for this cruel, cruel world. We sell the beauty but destroy the girl. Britney, I'm sorry for your broken heart. We stood aside and watched you fall apart. I'm sorry we told you fame would fill you up, And money moves the man, so drink the

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-21489239907686501402009-02-07T22:16:00.000-08:002009-02-08T01:18:54.385-08:00

Cleaning up and organizing my blog this evening, I noticed this brief excerpt from Sam Harris sitting as an unpublished 'Draft' in my index of blog posts. Evidently I had intended to compose a response but for some reason forgot all about it. It is a succinct Problem of Evil argument which I pulled from his "An Atheist Manifesto" [1]: [God is responsible for human suffering. There is no other

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-31737434799576478272009-02-07T00:12:00.001-08:002009-02-07T20:50:10.106-08:00

The broken clock is a comfort. It helps me sleep tonight. Maybe it can stop tomorrow from stealing all my time. And I am here still waiting, though I still have my doubts. I am damaged, at best—like You've already figured out. I'm falling apart, I'm barely breathing, With a broken heart that's still beating. In the pain there is healing, In Your name I find meaning.

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-68424813590419849522009-02-06T22:37:00.000-08:002009-02-07T23:00:58.007-08:00

When someone wishes to criticize 'X' despite possessing a demonstrable ignorance thereof (e.g., a creationist attack against evolution by someone who does not even understand the basics of evolution), what would that be called? There simply must be something more excoriating than "ignorant." Is that really the most censorious term available? It hardly seems adequate. I need something that will

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-81650828622452186632009-02-05T23:05:00.000-08:002009-02-07T23:01:17.459-08:00

David Silverman is the Communications Director for the web site American Atheists [1], which describes itself as an organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, a total wall of separation between church and state, and providing information about Atheism [2]. A philosopher could almost make a career out of critiquing the ideas and propaganda that are published at that site, but in

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-82632102994347295982009-01-05T23:27:00.001-08:002009-01-06T16:40:02.911-08:00

I had a Christian lady send me a question by email about the Problem of Evil (PoE)—pertaining to her specific case, having been confronted by an atheist on the issue. Evidently this atheist told her that the PoE "proves that the God of the Bible doesn't exist." I told her I can guarantee that the argument he produces to support that claim will be invalid in at least one way, possibly more. She

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-50571411688366773152008-12-28T22:58:00.000-08:002008-12-29T00:16:03.008-08:00

So I just received an email from yet another reader who wanted to wish me a 'Merry Christmas'. Make no mistake, I sincerely appreciate the warm wishes, the fact that these people think of me and take time out of their day to write me such endearing sentiments. That really means a lot to me personally and I am grateful. But it was another reminder of this wretched holiday. Bah, I deplore it.

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-69404832592065469822008-12-27T22:14:00.000-08:002008-12-28T06:02:26.236-08:00

Nothing proves who your real friends are quite like misfortune. When misfortune hits—and what form it takes rarely matters—a real sense of loneliness can envelope me. The perception of that loneliness is not an illusion; I am genuinely alone because, when misfortune befalls me, a number of so-called friends are suddenly nowhere to be found. And that loneliness is palpable because it is precisely

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-70837445123147305812008-12-22T14:58:00.001-08:002008-12-22T14:58:36.929-08:00

Evidently there are some atheists who do not know how to read—which is quite an extraordinary paradox, given their apparent ability to write. You see, despite the fact that my former blog Apologia has been declared 'Closed' for more than a year, it continues to receive drive-by comments from these visitors. (Some might argue that perhaps these visitors are linked to the specific article in

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-76199061951640651982008-12-17T18:47:00.001-08:002009-01-05T23:28:38.298-08:00

It seems that my discussion with Skjæveland on the Problem of Evil (i.e., how it supposedly demonstrates the probability that God doesn’t exist) has drawn to a tentative close. And I want to highlight the term “tentative” because he has not exactly given up yet. Let me explain where we’re at thus far and how we got here. First, a little background information on Skjæveland. He is a 23-year old

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-791091358028168852008-12-14T02:39:00.001-08:002009-01-05T23:29:27.126-08:00

I am currently engaged in an email discussion with a young Norwegian by the name of Håvard Skjæveland on the Problem of Evil argument against the existence of God. (His internet footprint is outdated, he tells me, so take whatever you find about him with a grain of salt.) Our discussion began about four days ago and is still ongoing. Once it is completed, I intend to publish the results here in

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-26437808968265767302008-12-03T20:11:00.001-08:002008-12-03T20:11:22.301-08:00

When it comes to understanding the concept of God as a "personal God," who loves me, cares for me, and desires to have a relationship with me, I just don't get it. It doesn't make sense to me; I feel awkward when I pray, and just don't understand how, out of 6 billion people, I matter a hill of beans to the guy who created the universe. Surely, having done that, he has much more important

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-87133817023204130332008-11-16T04:14:00.001-08:002008-11-16T04:19:10.358-08:00

This is from an old email but I thought I would turn it into a blog post because I think it conveys some important points for consideration, to meditate upon. The question was asked: What does it feel like to be Christian? Did you just know you were saved, like—bam—"Hey, I'm saved now" or what? I'll be frank with you: there is no simple one-size-fits-all answer to this question. That will

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-85450813556625744382008-11-14T19:03:00.001-08:002008-11-14T19:03:01.129-08:00

"Disgusting," a friend commented on my Facebook profile when the social networking web site publicized my becoming a Barack Obama supporter. I stared at that word for several minutes, dumbfounded. I could not decide how to feel or how to react. I felt a number of conflicting feelings simultaneously, mostly because that person had been my best friend for the last four years and typically had

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-54303779336138848682008-11-11T14:24:00.000-08:002008-11-11T20:00:45.103-08:00

In a message board conversation I observed someone saying: The idea of God, having a Son, who is born by a virgin, never sins, never makes a mistake while walking the earth, is crucified, resurrected in three days, and the result of this transpiration of events was the forgiveness of everyone's sins, with the possibility of eternal life with God, is fantastically illogical . . . and this is

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-70208721476399128612008-11-10T17:23:00.000-08:002008-11-10T17:28:29.501-08:00

So I was cruising around The Huffington Post this evening. (Yes, indeed I was. Remember, I am someone who reads from several different points of view, rather than just swallowing the party line from those who advocate a point of view that resonates with mine.) Of particular interest to me was an article entitled "The Victorious Jesus" written by Christine Wicker. I raised my eyebrows in a gesture

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-86197651793744442732008-11-08T00:55:00.000-08:002008-11-08T00:57:04.591-08:00

Pulled from Atheism.org in their "Quotation of the Minute" box:"[Given the legitimacy of purely hypothetical questions] . . . even if God would not approve of torture, it is still true, according to the divine command theory, that if He were to approve of torture, then torture would be right." (Layman, p. 38)Layman has latched onto the Euthyphro dilemma, which has no compelling force against

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-86987352512128490852008-11-07T15:57:00.000-08:002009-01-05T23:30:17.659-08:00

INTRODUCTIONIf one is willing to believe the rhetoric, it is Problem of Evil arguments that make the most convincing case for Atheism. Obviously I have witnessed this rhetoric coming from the ranks of atheists but, curiously enough, I also witness some Christian ministers and apologists saying the same thing. Personally, I am nowhere near convinced; I have yet to discover a Problem of Evil

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-3346355342774677942008-11-06T22:15:00.001-08:002008-11-06T22:16:42.937-08:00

During the last four days there has still been nothing posted at Debunking Christianity that actually attempts to debunk Christianity. There have been three posts: one regards a debate between John Lennox and Michael Shermer; another is Loftus requesting help with some research project, asking Christians to answer what best explains animal suffering; and the third is Garman wrestling with the

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-36580557284430728552008-11-06T17:33:00.001-08:002008-11-06T22:05:28.856-08:00

Under my last blog post "President Barack Obama" a gentlemen by the name of Matthew left some thoughts and questions for me (here):David - yours is the first Christian blog that I've read that is supportive of Obama. All others have focussed on his extreme pro-abortion and pro-homosexual stances - were these not issues for you from a Christian standpoint?Oh, and just to play Devil's Advocate, God

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-44854322903896805262008-11-04T20:25:00.000-08:002008-11-06T22:05:40.269-08:00

To the American people, I extend to you what is sincerely the most heartfelt and incredibly enthusiastic congratulations from your Canadian neighbors on the election of Barack Obama to the office of the President of the United States of America. I know I do not speak for all Canadians but I can assure you I speak for most of them, given the core message from an unprecedented flood of emails that

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-77861723816601621132008-11-02T20:33:00.000-08:002008-11-03T21:03:09.250-08:00

This evening I discovered a new blog. It is not the blog itself that is new; it is simply new to me, as I had not previously encountered it nor had it brought to my attention. (I have not yet figured out a way to determine the date a blog was created when it does not display any navigation by 'date'. Someone should create a service that simplifies this area of research.)At any rate, it should be

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-51510806465286669622008-11-01T02:37:00.000-07:002008-11-12T18:48:46.298-08:00

Discovering Satellite Radio A little over a month ago I bought a Sirius satellite radio and one-year subscription. If you do not know what satellite radio is, it is a technologically advanced alternative to terrestrial radio (e.g., local FM stations), a subscription-based digital radio signal which is broadcast via communications satellite. Absolutely fantastic. I blame Leroy. Right

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-34791302316429833712008-10-20T16:55:00.000-07:002008-10-20T16:58:36.668-07:00

Some skeptics do not adhere to critical thinking as consistently as they should. In my experience, atheistic skeptics exhibit this lack of consistency the most. Critical thinking is not a commendable heuristic if it gets abandoned whenever it inconveniences a pre-existing bias. Rather, critical thinking ought reshape one's bias, not be tossed out when it threatens one's bias.For example, a

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-53811911642261223992008-10-15T17:46:00.000-07:002008-11-06T23:54:15.648-08:00

The following blog post is a direct response to some of the intriguing comments I have received regarding my criticism of Stephen Roberts' infamous Quote. I think the points being raised are too good to be buried in a Comments field which is inevitably lagging further and further behind in the flow of the blog, comments which certainly deserve their own light of day.Anonymous said (his comment

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-76486622549354182812008-06-03T20:26:00.001-07:002008-06-03T20:26:05.606-07:00

"The next time someone tries to tell me that being Christian is the embodiment of logic and reasoning, I don't know what I will do," a young woman on IRC commented. Well here is a really crazy notion for her to consider: engage the person in a critical analysis on that issue. Her comment was in response to something I had said earlier in a conversation with someone else; namely, that an in-depth

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-8268878288418677702008-04-30T19:20:00.000-07:002008-04-30T19:21:29.421-07:00

The following is an email I had received: There's something I don't quite understand in the Bible. It says to "hate the sin" but to "love the sinner," and then in Psalm 5:5 it says about God, "You hate all who do wrong." I don't quite understand what that really means. How can God love us but hate us? And how can we do the same? Am I missing something here? Although I do realize that so many

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-58207858704536718552008-04-28T15:27:00.001-07:002008-04-30T20:20:08.106-07:00

Quite a few months ago (prior to this blog's existence) I had received an email from someone who argues that compatibilism must be false because, according to his reasoning, it contradicts itself. The following is a copy of my response to his email. Determinism and free will cannot both be true because, if determinism is true, then that choice is already determined for me. God knows at this

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-11580661936447792932008-04-21T22:36:00.000-07:002008-04-22T01:55:50.719-07:00

In a segment on All Points West (a regular series on CBC Radio One hosted by Jo-Ann Roberts) earlier this afternoon, Roberts and a select guest discussed the appropriation of environmental concerns by many of today's religions which, if memory serves me, she referred to as "the greening of religion" or the growing spiritual dimensions of socio-ecological issues. She set the tone by opening with

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-46284151571681365462008-04-01T02:12:00.001-07:002008-04-22T01:48:08.915-07:00

From an online discussion I had elsewhere, a young man by the name of Adam responded to me by asserting, "The transcendental argument for the existence of God does in fact attempt to prove God's existence and, therefore, commits the fallacy of circularity." No, it does not. It does not 'prove' his existence; it 'assumes' his existence and shows the inescapable necessity of doing so. It does

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-75265658803599259662008-03-26T01:22:00.001-07:002008-03-26T01:22:24.145-07:00

Suppose an atheist is confronted with a theory of existence which runs contrary to the one he currently holds, and is therefore summarily rejected. The question no one ever seems to ask is: "On what basis did he reject the competing theory?" Think about this. Is it because it failed to square with his current theory of existence? That is, did he enter into the evaluation already assuming the

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-15649333065827860822008-01-21T12:53:00.001-08:002008-04-01T00:49:02.769-07:00

Altruist80 wrote: What if it all came to pass? Picture this. You are sitting at the television, watching the news one day. You see headlines erupting about a Russian (or other northern force) launching a surprise attack on Israel, with no real opposition. But somehow they are forced to turn back with major losses due to command confusion, friendly fire, and natural events. The world enters a time

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-12358638939336497052008-01-15T18:41:00.001-08:002008-04-01T00:53:22.341-07:00

Finally, after a few more subsequent comments posted to my original article (despite that blog being 'Closed'), I received a comment that actually has something intelligible to say—ironically, from Stephen Roberts himself! It has been quite a few years so it was a pleasant surprise to hear from him again. It's nice running into you again, Stephen! Although he posted his comment to a different

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-63610800734257862302007-12-07T01:32:00.000-08:002008-04-01T00:56:11.423-07:00

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits? Thus wrote Carl Sagan, in the first chapter of The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark (Random House, 1996), one of his more popular books which sets out to "explain the scientific method to laymen, and to encourage

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-49484281152355440422007-11-28T02:08:00.001-08:002008-04-01T00:58:16.797-07:00

For a brief time I had a blog called Apologia over at WordPress.com, but since I was unhappy with the limited customization available to free accounts (and do not have the time to play with CSS), I eventually opened my blog here. Having said that, I had written a post there (23/Oct/06) on the now-famous quote originally authored by Stephen Roberts, a former acquaintance of mine from my days in #

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-19409596699882662532007-11-20T04:32:00.001-08:002008-04-01T01:00:59.770-07:00

The following excerpts are from The New Revelations by Neale Donald Walsch (published in the UK by Hodder Mobius), author of Conversations With God. The thesis behind these five statements, Walsh proposes, is that "there are five things you can choose now, if changing your world and the self-destructive direction in which it is moving is what you wish to achieve." 1. You can choose to

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-23112001784080191342007-11-08T01:29:00.000-08:002008-04-01T01:08:04.853-07:00

I transcribed the following from a brief video clip featuring the voice of Voddie Bauchman Jr, a sampler of his thoughts on the "Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern World" (possibly from his Ever Loving Truth Bible studies) posted at the DesiringGod.org Facebook group Don't Waste Your Life. I don't know where the original video is located, and I got nowhere with YouTube.com, so I can't

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-41312097072850226122007-11-07T07:18:00.001-08:002007-11-07T07:18:50.602-08:00

Could there be any holy motivation to believe in Christ where there is no taste for the beauty of Christ? To be sure we could be motivated by the desire to escape hell, or the desire to have material riches, or the desire to rejoin a departed loved one. But how does it honor the Light when the only reason we come to the Light is to find those things that we loved in the dark? Is this saving

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-1481458847767864772007-11-07T06:57:00.001-08:002007-11-07T07:16:49.672-08:00

"What I can't stand is Christians who shove their beliefs down my throat." Of all the ill-thought rhetoric coming from atheists, this oddly phrased tripe is one of those heard most often. (The verificationist mantra tops that list.) I am going to ignore how improbable that notion is, beyond anything other than hyperbolic rhetoric, and instead focus on another, far more revealing aspect of this

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-90616258441944037412007-10-30T13:05:00.001-07:002008-11-07T16:48:38.811-08:00

Kelly: Somewhere along my journey towards a more biblically consistent understanding of salvation I seem to have lost the confidence of knowing what to pray for with regard to God's dealings with someone—what I mean is, their salvation. I know these things are already known to God, and that His timing is impeccable and so forth. I understand that we can't know if a person will come to faith, so..

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-68064411839639814082007-10-29T02:32:00.001-07:002007-10-29T02:32:09.406-07:00

In a strong reaction against the Christian view of values and morals, Tina asserted, "Personally, I view religion as a security blanket with as much correspondence to reality as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy." I commended her having the good sense to admit that it was a product of personal taste rather than scholarly evaluation; however, when it comes to the larger picture of reality as a whole,

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-21379273256055502002007-10-29T01:39:00.001-07:002008-11-07T16:46:56.073-08:00

In a forum elsewhere, 'Sarah' asked any interested parties to weigh in on the following issue (my response to her follows): I was having a discussion with a friend of mine a few months ago about spiritual and religious beliefs, and how they relate to your search for a life partner. He maintained that as we get older we get more set in our ways, and because our spiritual beliefs and values go

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-85189492048764910502007-10-09T14:40:00.001-07:002007-10-09T14:40:13.248-07:00

In a forum discussion elsewhere, a fellow we shall call 'Brad' made the remark that "so many of the comedians these days do not find a God of mercy in the Old or New Testaments," that through irreverent satire they deride the God of Scripture as "vengeful and mean" and that it seemed to reflect a rather common attitude. "It saddens me that this trendy new religion of God-bashing has become a form

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-19707725671332915212007-10-09T10:50:00.001-07:002008-11-07T16:19:09.799-08:00

In a post to the CARM discussion group on Facebook, a young lady had asserted: Anyone can live a morally good life but not be saved; i.e. people can 'do the right thing' and follow the comandments, etc. But without a personal relationship with our Savior, you will not have eternal life. I have to disagree with this. I think we should always be careful of how much philosophical ground we are

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-70598613558597662622007-10-09T10:48:00.001-07:002007-10-09T10:48:03.956-07:00

I have now returned to the blogosphere. I am in my new place, I have my new computer, and my cable modem was installed today. My thanks to you, for your patience, understanding, and prayers.

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-67088260500150570392007-09-13T20:17:00.000-07:002007-10-05T21:53:46.232-07:00

--------------------------------------------------5 Oct 2007, 9:51 PMAlthough I am moved into my new suite now, my broadband connection will not be set up until Tuesday of next week (Oct 9). My apologies for the lengthy delay.--------------------------------------------------20 Sep 2007, 8:53 PMNew computer should be arriving within the first week of October, around the time that I take occupancy

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-19449143063544724182007-09-10T01:46:00.001-07:002008-11-28T21:22:28.273-08:00

David Cramer in one of his posts had a couple of brief comments about omnipotence with respect to logical contradictions: The historic, orthodox definition of omnipotence can be stated as follows: "God can do anything that it is logically possible to do." Don’t get too wrapped up in the "logically possible" language. All that means is, if something can be done, God can do it. So, for example

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-83909668197795876232007-09-09T23:35:00.001-07:002008-11-07T16:33:46.711-08:00

My friend and faithful brother David Cramer has continued his discussion on John Frame's argument but he has done so in two independent posts (here and here). My analysis will distinguish the content of his objection into four individual categories—(1) Objective Evil, (2) The Sovereignty of God, (3) The Cause of Sin, and (4) Cause vs. Authorship—and I will publish on each category over the next

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-72288377694346871702007-09-09T20:19:00.001-07:002008-11-07T16:35:56.401-08:00

In the official CARM Facebook group, Steve Wilson had asked the following question: I believe the question that needs to be [confronted] by Arminians is: If God offers salvation for all, and if it is open to everyone to choose to accept or reject, [then] what about those that the Father does not draw? How does this square with the idea that it is open for everyone? Why can't a man with freewill

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-55011414420125308302007-09-02T02:42:00.001-07:002008-11-07T16:38:34.158-08:00

CARSON: But you're an atheist when it comes to Hinduism, Sarah. DAVID: Um, an 'atheist' is someone who has no belief in ANY gods. Ergo, Sarah cannot be an atheist in any sense, for she believes in at least one God. CARSON: But she does not believe in all gods. DAVID: Right, which means she is not a polytheist. But she is not an atheist. To call her an atheist takes a brutally illogical step.

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-80315945266126470312007-09-01T09:29:00.001-07:002007-09-01T09:31:00.913-07:00

Although there is, at this point in the discussion, no significant material to respond to on Cramer's blog (he is undoubtedly still buried in class work), there are some items worth noting. First of all, Cramer is now aware of my blog, which is why this can now be referred to as a 'discussion'. Although he mistakenly thinks I followed him here, the reality is that I have been with Blogger for

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-14939329440485874052007-08-30T18:24:00.001-07:002007-08-30T18:24:03.808-07:00

David Cramer, a Facebook friend of mine from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, wrote an interesting (albeit brief) piece on his blog this earlier afternoon. Cramer, it would seem, is quite shocked about something theologian John Frame had argued in his scholarly work The Doctrine of God; specifically, that Frame would dare to argue in favour of the idea that God is the cause of sin. Cramer

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-44141144436704161162007-08-25T15:44:00.001-07:002008-11-07T16:41:53.733-08:00

David: God is absolutely responsible for the behavior we choose to do. Why? Because he can stop it, and in select cases he has done so. That makes him responsible; when he can stop it—and has at times—but let's it continue. And he does not stop sin because he has a glorious purpose in it. It's why he created the world in this way in the first place. Richard: So I can go ahead and sin, because if

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-84247529263506697882007-08-23T01:23:00.001-07:002007-08-23T01:23:41.777-07:00

I probably would not be so hard on atheists if they did not make such a fuss about how 'rational' they are. Seriously, people: If you are going to proclaim how rational you are, then be rational! Take my discussion on IRC the other night as one example. And this will be an abridged version of the discussion. There was an atheist whom I shall call Terry. He did not like the fact that his demand

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-30014104773967841772007-08-22T23:05:00.001-07:002007-08-22T23:05:18.905-07:00

As the profile widget says, this journal will follow my religious and intellectual pursuits as I delve ever deeper into my personal relationship with God, a course charted through confronting new challenges, gaining new insights, and discovering or developing my understanding of propositional revelation in or exegetical analysis of Scripture. I will also publish here my thoughts and perspectives

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-55517069134460117052007-01-02T07:31:00.000-08:002008-11-09T07:40:38.880-08:00

An ongoing list of the retarded things I discover atheists saying.Updated: 7/Nov/08"Religion is illogical. Christianity is based on murder, promotes murder and condones murder. People that follow it, by choice, are illogical and evil." —'Daley', Atheist Nexus comments field (here).

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170390068845647526.post-24309170945597485472007-01-01T08:00:00.000-08:002007-10-09T11:05:49.331-07:00

This page functions as an archive of various series I have written on, for your convenience. Cramer & The Cause of Sin Part 1: Introduction Part 2: Some Notes Part 3(a): Objective Evil Part 3(b): The Sovereignty of God Part 3(c): The Cause of Sin Part 3(d): Cause vs. Authorship The Attributes of God Omnipotence

David Smarthttps://profiles.google.com/113964143490157224235noreply@blogger.com0