Hey yall, I’m in the process to get baptized but, it’s been halted. Reason why is I think the reverend who was gonna do it has some… heretical theological views. Like really bad ones lowkey… It brought up the thought that, if the person who baptizes you is heretical does it still count 😅😅? But also one of her views makes me question if she is only into Christianity. So I’ve decided, after some good council from @Ruth Okezie , to not get baptized by her and wait for another time. The things I need help on are: Should I stay at the church under her leadership? And On my next session with her should I pushback on her theology? (Due to the differences in demographics between me and her I don’t think it will be taken well and I feel it in me it will actually upset/annoy her if I do.) Thanks yall for even reading look forward to y’all’s council! List of her Heresies: •She said that consensual sex is the main only point being made in the Bible when sexuality is a topic. •She stated she was an LGBTQ+ affirming Christian. •She called The Holy Spirit They/Them, She, He. •She said that if I was into Ancestors then getting baptized on All Hallow’s Eve is perfect for me. This is an Episcopal Church.

Barton then continues by examining more closely Augustine’s second strategy for dealing with Gospel discrepancies. This is the approach where Augustine argues that what ultimately matters is the integrity of the truth being communicated, not the exact wording or sequencing of details. In his terms, what matters is not the verba but the res — not the words, but the reality or meaning. The veritatis integritas is what matters most. So differences in wording, sequencing, or detail are not really threatening, because the evangelists are still communicating the same underlying truth. Barton notes that this looks quite close to what many modern readers do with the Gospels. He even connects this to Origen. According to him, Origen argued that some details in John cannot be taken strictly at face value and therefore must be understood allegorically. He also applies narrative criticism to Matthew and finds parts of it unpersuasive if taken as they stand. I’m not familiar enough with Origen to evaluate that directly, so I’m taking Barton’s presentation as it is. At the same time, Barton admits that this approach is somewhat dangerous, because it can lead to a disregard for the text as it stands. Even if it resolves inconsistencies, it risks dissolving the narrative into interpretation. He then shows that this tendency reappears later in the Reformation with Chemnitz, and even earlier with figures like Theodore of Mopsuestia. After that, Barton returns to Augustine’s first strategy when accounts are sufficiently different, they are treated as referring to different events. This reappears in Osiander’s Harmonia Evangelica, where the principle is pushed much further. For Osiander, every detail must be true exactly as stated. So if Matthew and Luke differ, then they must be describing different events. The result is a multiplication of events multiple temple cleansings, multiple similar healings, and so on. Barton describes this as almost comic. He then concludes that, for Osiander, the Gospels become building blocks of a larger harmony. And despite their differences, both Augustine and Osiander share a commitment to an objective harmony they assume that the harmony is already there, and that the reader who sees contradictions is simply mistaken.

Recently, during the debate prep on Thursday, Tim used an objection to things with beginnings needing causes in the property of quantum fields to generate particle-antiparticle pairs seemingly at random with no source. While the obvious response to this is to point out that just because we don't observe the cause doesn't mean there isn't one, and this effect is still contingent on the properties of the fields themselves. However, this led me to think about this effect and how the naturalist would use this process to explain where stuff comes from. A few important notes. 1. Both the Theist and Atheist are following Ockham's Razor, so the theory with the most post hoc assumptions is worse. 2. In physics it is a well-known principle that the source of the vast majority of physical laws comes from symmetries in the universe. 3. One common theory for the Big Bang is that the massive energy condensed into particle anti particle pairs in a process called creation or pair production. 4. The way this process doesn't violate the conservation of energy on normal scales is that the particles and antiparticles annihilate each other. One might ask if these particles always annihilate each other how could the universe come about. The answer is this: In our universe where basically all of the fundamental laws of physics are derived from symmetry we have one absolutely necessary violation of this called CP violation. This causes the decays of Kaons to slightly favor matter to antimatter. The physics itself is not as important as the asymmetry. If the naturalist is to attempt to impose a simple mechanism for the structure of the laws then they would be most reasonable to choose symmetry as this mechanism. To account for this effect they would also need to create an arbitrary limit to this mechanism and establish an asymmetry. This shows that not only are the constants (like the tuning pegs on a guitar) are finely tuned for life and existence, but the underlying structure (the guitar itself) is also finely tuned.

I’ve noticed that Muslims are going around with a silly objection lately. But sadly, it’s trapping a lot of Christians. I’ll share the objection here in hopes that we can workshop how to exegete the solution the VERY manufactured problem. The objection: Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until the eschaton, but then later drinks wine. Matthew 26:29 “I tell you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” John 19:28–30 Jesus, on the cross, is given sour wine, which he tastes/drinks. The basic inference line 1. If Jesus vows to not do X, and then later does X, then he broke his vow 2. Jesus vows to not drink the fruit of the vine (Matthew verse) 3. Jesus drinks sour wine which is from grapes still (John) 4. Therefore Jesus broke his Vow Looking forward to your thoughts guys!

It's been a long time coming, but we finally got none other than Dr. Joshua Sijuwade himself giving us a PRIVATE, never-before-seen lecture on how trinitarianism is true monotheism. This will be taking place at 6 AM PST on Thursday this week (April 23). This will be early for some of you, and perfect for others. Hope to see you there.