Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser discussed the Biblical evidence for this in the fascinating video below. He argues against the rabbinic view that Yahweh appears in two modes, a younger one and an older one. He sees the evidence as supporting a Christological interpretation that the second Yahweh refers to Jesus. This, he claims, is why the early church could see no discrepancy in claiming Jesus was part of the Godhead. But there is a third interpretation. These people were polytheistic to the core for much of their history, my view. See what you think:
I think when you take a serious look at all of the claims being made about religious truths and the problems we address in philosophy about nearly everything, that everyone should be agnostics. It's the most reasonable position if we can just learn to think independently of the emotional and social need to accept what our particular culture has led us to believe. I became an atheist via agnosticism. I wonder how many other atheists were first agnostics? This is the reason I argue for agnosticism. It's the step in the right direction. It's easier to argue for. And it makes the greatest impact on the believer.
I'm toying with something and wondering what my readers think of it. I put together a scale that depicts extraordinary claims by different groups below. See what you think and of my explanation.
It will be available on time at the end of April. I have put a lot of work into it. I hope it helps.
Enough then of this talk that in order to care for one another we need God. We find evidence of this in other lower species of animals.
Dan and I are friends and he's using my book WIBA in his college classes. We carry on a discussion from time to time and with his permission this is one of them I thought was interesting.
In the following documentary of North Korea we learn that the people are made to believe their leader has supernatural gifts [just before the 21 minute mark]. Yep, that's the nature of human nature. For this reason skepticism is always a virtue.
Nothing encourages me more than the fact that people are saying such nice things about my book, WIBA. Here are two more recommendations:
DagoodS recently wrote on this question. Here is his conclusion:
This week we're all hoping that my debate with Dinesh D'Souza will be available online. Here are my thoughts on what to look for as you evaluate it. I am NOT making excuses. I am NOT saying I won the debate. From all skeptical accounts it looks like I lost, although I have not heard from any Christians in the audience (maybe one). My problem is I need to see it objectively for myself. If you have ever been in a debate then you're thinking on your feet and cannot remember exactly what was said, and when it was said, to have a good judgment about it until you see it later, although people who say I lost are probably right. I am very interested in the comment cards from Christians in the audience since they are my target audience. In any case here are things to look for in debates, not only in mine, but in others as well.
I found this on Facebook and it made me chuckle. Fun is good. Without it we'd take ourselves too seriously. Life is good too.
I've dealt with this before, but as far as I can see there are plausible natural explanations for every piece of evidence a believer uses to defend her faith. Religious experience?...meet wish fulfillment. Near death experiences?...meet oxygen deprived brains. Resurrection of Jesus?...meet a legend based on visionary experiences that were common at the time. Intelligent design?...meet the problem of evil. You'd think there would be something, anything that would show the believer has good solid evidence to believe. There isn't anything like that at all.
Yep. That’s what I think. We're always winners. Let me explain why I think this.
A Mormon negatively commented on the skeptical book, Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon. If this comment does not show the marks of a brainwashed person, then what does?
Brainwashed people do not know they are brainwashed. Given the fact that children are brainwashed to believe based on various cultural mind-control techniques, then there are billions of brainwashed people in the world. Stay on topic. Focus. Agree?
Former Pastor Bruce Gerencser runs an intelligent Blog which I heartily recommend. Recently he answered this question once and for all.
Regarding my chapters on the problem of evil Frank says this of the way I framed the problem:
My 15 minute opening statement: "Does the Christian God Exist?"
I’m going to offer several arguments based on facts we should all agree on that show the Christian God does not exist. My claim is that these facts will force Dinesh into arguing over and over for what I’ll call the Dumb and Dumber Defense, based on the movie with that title starring Jim Carrey. In every single case Dinesh’s response will be pretty much the same. Rather than admit his faith is improbable, he will be forced to claim that what he’s defending is still possible despite these facts. But remember, it’s possible that Jim Carrey could’ve gotten the girl of his dreams in the movie too. The girl said he had a “one in a million” chance at doing so.
Written for Ames Iowa's The Tribune:
I'm doing some preparation for my upcoming debate next Tuesday at the University of Illinois. What's interesting is that I've got to find a way to answer his arguments succinctly and in just a few sentences. While I have my own answers, how would you respond succinctly with an economy of words to the following types of claims?
Below is the
Press Release for this debate. Hope to see some of my readers there.
Christians claim that people who do horrendous evils simply refuse to change despite God's repeated attempts to help them see the error of their ways. If I were God I could change anyone’s mind if I chose to. I could harden a person's heart like the Pharaoh’s. I could speak audibly to them, appear to them, or do a wondrous deed for them. That’s anyone, as in ANYONE. That Christians refuse to acknowledge this tells me something about them. They do not believe after all. They only believe what is convenient to believe. ;-)
and book editor for the 
Magazine, 
, on "The Explanatory Power of Conversion-Visions." Listen to this short BBC interview where he explains why he could 
. He also has an interesting story since he used to be a Protestant. Here's his challenge and our initial discussion below: