"Full" debate with a Jehovah's Witness "Letusreason1234" on the two class theology

Unfortunately, Letsureason backed out of the debate half way through without any notice.  I was really hoping we'd make it through to the end, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a JW would act this way when 99.9 percent of them are nameless and faceless on the internet.  Anyway, i've posted what we did of the debate, which I hope to be useful to some people.  If you watch or listen until the end, i'll provide a short post-debate commentary.

You can watch the debate HERE

You can listen to the debate HERE

Debate with Letusreason1234: My opening statement

As mentioned over a month ago, I will be debating a JW who goes by the nick, Letusreason1234.  However, we couldn't seem to agree on the method by which we'd approach this debate so we decided to do this on YouTube via video responses.  Assuming the full debate will be completed, i'll make an audio download as well as a full length video of the debate.  Here is my opening:

Debate on "hell" now available!

From the Theopologetics Blog:

Episode 70 and Episode 71 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "The punishment of the damned will actually be torment forever and ever." Hiram Diaz, creator of the Involuted Speculations blog and contributor at Grassroots Apologetics, affirms. Chris Date, host of the Theopologetics Podcast, denies. Moderated by Mike Felker of The Apologetic Front. 

Strangely, I had only received audience questions from the annihilationist perspective.  Therefore, I had to come up with the "audience questions" myself in challenging annihilationism.  Anyway, I hope you all enjoy this interaction and feel free to leave your comments!

What do you believe about hell?

In less than a week i'll be moderating a DEBATE on hell and I could really use some help from my readers.  At the end of the debate, there will be a Q&A period where i'll be asking each participant questions "from the audience."  That's you.  If you object to the traditional understanding of hell (conscious torment, etc.) or the conditionalist perspective (annihilationism, conditional punishment, etc.), I need questions from both sides.

If you would, please EMAIL your questions to me and perhaps you'll hear them read and answered in the debate!

I'm very excited to have been selected to moderate and I will certainly be posting the debate here on the blog once its uploaded.  Who knows, this may spark some interest on my part to delve deeper into this issue and refine my own views.

Upcoming Debate with a Jehovah's Witness

My JW friend Letusreason1234 has recently agreed to a formal debate with me.  The debate will be formulated a bit differently than most but the outcome will be the same.  That is, we will be exchanging our videos back and forth so that both sides can articulate the best possible arguments without being put on the spot.  However, there will be live cross examination.  But I think this style of debate will be a good example for those who don't think they can debate because they aren't good debaters.  Hopefully, the full debate will be posted by the end of the month.  It will be in both video and audio form.  The proposition and format will go as follows:

Proposition: There is only one class of Christians with one eternal hope

Affirmative: Mike Felker

Negative: Letusreason1234

Opening Statements (20 minutes each)

Rebuttals (12 minutes each)

Rebuttals (8 minutes each)

Cross examination round 1 (7 minutes each)

Cross examination round 2 (7 minutes each)

Rebuttals (10 minutes each)

Closing Statements (7 minutes each)

Discussion with a Jehovah's Witness "WorldHistory2011" on Independent Thinking

Just last evening I had a most interesting encounter with a JW.  But this wasn't just any encounter; it was recorded.  It all started with the following comment on THIS VIDEO:

But was it a "complete lie?"  Though my comment in 2:25 of that video was made in passing (the subject of the video was something different), I backed up my claim by referencing the following Watchtower quotation:

*** km 9/07 p. 3 Question Box ***

Does “the faithful and discreet slave” endorse independent groups of Witnesses who meet together to engage in Scriptural research or debate?—Matt. 24:45, 47.

No, it does not. And yet, in various parts of the world, a few associates of our organization have formed groups to do independent research on Bible-related subjects. Some have pursued an independent group study of Biblical Hebrew and Greek so as to analyze the accuracy of the New World Translation. Others explore scientific subjects related to the Bible. They have created Web sites and chat rooms for the purpose of exchanging and debating their views. They have also held conferences and produced publications to present their findings and to supplement what is provided at our Christian meetings and through our literature... Thus, “the faithful and discreet slave” does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight. 

 What transpired was a 45 minute discussion with WorldHistory2011.

Go HERE to watch the encounter.

Go HERE to listen to the encounter.

Sye Ten Bruggencate vs. Justin Schieber on Yahweh or Myweh

Recently, Sye appeared on Justin's podcast to discuss presuppositional apologetics.  It appeared that this particular episode was arranged in order to discuss Justin's lecture on presuppositional apologetics.  However, while some of this was discussed, the two spent more time debating the issues in general.

I must say that this is one of the best encounters i've heard on this topic; probably as good, if not better, than Sye's first interaction with Paul Baird on unbelievable.  This was a fast paced contrasting of positions in a near hour of non-stop cross examination from both sides.  While I thought that Sye kept his demeanor at a very patient level, I was a bit disappointed with Justin's performance as he seemed annoyed and frustrated throughout the exchange.

Sye has also informed me that Justin's recording was edited.  I have yet to listen to the unedited version, but will make it available once Sye grants permission or posts in publicly.  At the least, there is supposed to be a transcript of the unedited recording forthcoming.

To listen to the "edited" version of the exchange, go HERE.

A very useful debate on Oneness Christology

Recently, on the THEOPOLOGETICS PODCAST, Michael Burgos (Trinitarian) debated James Anderson (Oneness) on the topic: "The Son personally preexisted the incarnation with the Father."  I must say, this is probably the most useful debate i've heard on this topic.  As a matter of fact, I don't think i've ever heard a Christological debate with a topic this focused.  Usually, its just "Trinity vs. Oneness" or something along those lines.

Of course, some of my readers will disagree with the theological perspectives of both proponents.  However, I think this is a debate that anyone can learn a great deal from. Both men were very well prepared and debated in a cordial fashion.  Therefore, I feel that both positions were more than adequately contrasted.

You can download PART 1 and PART 2.

You can listen to some post-debate discussion between Chris Date (the host) and Michael Burgos HERE and HERE

Gene Cook Interviews an Atheist

Today I listened to a podcast that took place in early February where Gene Cook interviewed/debated an atheist by the name of Justin Shieber.  If my memory serves me correctly, I recommended that Justin contact Gene to appear on his show after learning that he's sharp, articulate, and knows how to defend his position.

When I spoke to Justin, I had learned of a moral theory called DESIRE UTILITARIANISM, which he was happy to explain to me.  Since this is a unique and non-popular moral theory (as far as I can tell), I was happy to learn that Justin had arranged to appear on Gene's show.

Anyone interested in atheism and Christianity will find this one hour cross examination intriguing.  Moral theory and epistemology are discussed and defended from both positions.

You can listen to the full dialogue HERE

James White vs. Jack Moorman on King James Onlyism

This debate was not nearly as long as it should have been. But this debate is one of the few of its kind, given that King James Onlyist by and large are not willing to engage in public moderated debate. However, I think this debate clearly distinguishes between the positions and will prove to be very helpful to anyone interested in the transmission of the text and questions concerning Bible translation.

Atheist Michael Shermer discusses creation with AIG biologist Georgia Purdom

What a great discussion!  Georgia Purdom, who is a Ph.D molecular biologist working for ANSWERS IN GENESIS engaged popular atheist/skeptic Michael Shermer on issues relating to Science, the Bible, evolution, and the age of the earth.  One of my reasons for posting this is because of the way the conversation was conducted.  Shermer was more than respectful in pressing Purdom on these issues and she was gracious to respond accordingly.  Actually, Shermer was the one asking questions the whole time as it seemed to be some kind of interview.

But what I found so great about this is not so much the fact that Purdom provided a biblically sound apologetic (though she certainly did!), but that both parties never let their emotions get involved.  That is, Shermer never asked anything like, "Why is your organization lying to children?  Why is your organization so dishonest?  Are you people really this stupid?"  Instead, he treated Dr. Purdom like an adult.  Both non-believers and Christians can very well learn from this conversation that is so commonly accompanied by heated argument.

Also, if you are one who is interested in seeing how a Creation scientist responds to questions relating to evolution and the age of the earth, I think you'll find this conversation very helpful.

Evolutionist Keith Fox debates ID proponent Michael Behe

For some reason, discussions like these are rare.  And I can't say that's the fault of Intelligent Design advocates in their willingness to debate these issues openly in public forums.  It seems to be the evolutionists who are either insecure in their defense or not wanting to give "creationists a platform" that keeps them from debating.  Imagine if ID'rs and Creationists ruled the scientific establishment and evolutionists were in the minority (this probably was the case in the not-so-distant-past).  If ID'rs and Creationists refused to "debate" and "give evolutionists a platform," what would you conclude about them?  Especially if all these closed-minded creationists published books, appeared on TV, traveled around the world giving lectures, but refused to interact with those they criticized; what would any reasonable-minded person conclude about such persons?  Yeah...I was thinking the same thing.

While he is not an atheist, KEITH FOX strongly opposes ID in such a way that you really couldn't tell the difference.  And thankfully, Dr. Fox is one of the brave few (perhaps because he's a professing Christian) who chooses not to avoid ID'rs as if they're lepers.  And to be even more thankful, JUSTIN BRIERLEY is brave enough to regularly host such interactions.  In this discussion, Fox and Behe engage one another in a fast-paced hour long dialogue on the feasibility of ID and irreducible complexity.  Both sides were respectful to one another and really covered some ground.  This is one of the few ID discussions (perhaps because they are so few) that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the subject.

You can find the mp3 HERE and the itunes podcast feed HERE.

Dialogue/Debate on the Watchtower's "two class" theology

Recenly, I engaged an apologists named STANDFIRM on the Watchtower's "two class" theology on the TOPIX discussion forum. Also joining me was an apologist by the name of "TruthSeeker," who holds a very similar position to me on this issue. Of course, some others chimed in on the discussion, but it was primarily the three of us. As far as I could tell, we covered most aspects of this issue, focusing on many of the "heaven texts," in which me and TruthSeeker argued that all Christians have an eternal hope on a restored earth rather than the WT's view of 144,000 in heaven and the rest living on earth.

Admittedly, I do not hold to the traditional view amongst many of those who oppose JW's, where they argue that Christians will not spend eternity on earth; instead, they will all go to heaven. The reason being, I've found this view (i.e. restored earth) to be more consistent and theologically defensible. Anyway, you can read the entire discussion titled, "Debate on the Eternal Destiny of Christians" HERE.

This also led me to the idea of doing more of a formal debate on this issue, whether audio/video or written. However, getting a JW to do any sort of debate like this is practically a shot in the dark and has no better chance of happening than a snowball in a blast furnace. But hey, I thought i'd give it a shot.

Another great presuppositional debate

In a recent DEBATE, two presuppositionalists went up against two atheists. This was a very high paced debate that I would highly recommend listening to; especially those who are unfamiliar with the presuppositionalist position.

From the atheist side, I was very unimpressed. For some reason they felt the carpet bombing debate technique would work. That is, they thew out every objection under the sun while refusing to go into any level of depth. To be honest, The Davinci Code has more substantive arguments than these guys. By displaying their surface-level (mis)understanding of issues such as textual criticism, they showed they had done almost no reading on the issue. Furthermore, they were grossly ignorant of the presuppositional apologetic. I suppose I can't fault them too much for this since this position is not very popular. At any rate, I believe much better representatives could have and should have been found. Debates are hardly useful when they aren't focused. Perhaps atheistic ethics has no other concern than to disprove Christianity, even if the arguments are bad?

On the Christian side, I believe they did an overall excellent job. While Sye focused his attention on the presuppositional issues, Dustin dealt with some of the specific arguments leveled at them. However, I really felt that they should have spent more time dealing with their arguments. And as James White aptly demonstrates in his debates with unbelievers (whether atheists or liberals), you can be a presuppositionalist and still deal with the specific objections. For instance, if a skeptic argues, "How can you trust the Bible when all we have are copies of copies of copies of copies?" the presuppositionalist can remain consistent and still respond to the specific claim. Instead, presuppositionalists may respond with, "How can you talk about trusting the Bible when you have no rational basis for trusting your rationality?" I do not think this is always necessary. In fact, I believe it can be counterproductive at times. Again, overall these men did a great job and will serve as another testimony to this God-glorifying apologetic.

Discussion on Psalm 102 at Theopologetics

If you are interested in Jewish thought as it relates to Christology, then this will be of interest to you. Over at the THEOPOLOGETICS BLOG, me, DAVID BARRON, and Chris (the blog's author) are discussing some fascinating (at least we think so!) aspects of Psalm 102. The reason this discussion is interesting is because of the author of Hebrews' quotation of Psalm 102:25-27. The discussion is very long, but is worth reading. Anyone can feel free to chime in if they like, as long as it is directly related to the discussion. You can check the whole thing out HERE.

Presuppositional apologetics vs. Atheism on the Unbelievable radio program

Recently, on the UNBELIEVABLE radio program, an atheist "free thinker" engaged a theist on the existence of God.  While this radio show regularly hosts such interactions (i'd highly recommend subscribing to the PODCAST), this one was different.  To my knowledge, this is the first time the host brought on a presuppositionalist.  His name is Sye and runs the very interesting PROOFTHATGODEXISTS.ORG website.

And I must say; this was one of the best interactions i've ever heard on the issue.  Aside from a few "nit-pickies," I think that Sye did a brilliant job of not only explaining the presuppositional approach, but arguing it as well.  If you really want to see how powerful and biblical this apologetic is in action, then look no further.

You can listen to the hour long interaction HERE.

Debates by Stephen Meyer

STEPHEN MEYER is arguably the leading proponent of Intelligent Design in the world today, especially after publishing the book, SIGNATURE IN THE CELL.  In my opinion, if you are such a leading voice in a movement such as this, it is extremely important to be able hold your view up to public scrutiny.  And contrary to men like Richard Dawkins, who has been more public than Meyer will probably ever be, Meyer has been willing to accept challenges in the form of public debate.

Experiencing public debate is one of the most beneficial things you can do in making up your mind on a controversial issue.  And thankfully, Meyer has provided plenty of opportunity for the viewer to decide on whether ID is viable, true, false, improbable, or whatever.  HERE, Meyer's website has provided some very informative debates for free so that anyone can listen and come to their own conclusion.  I've listened to most of these and have found them to be very helpful.  And I would recommend you do the same:

1. Debate with Peter Atikins on Premiere Radio UK

2. Debate on Origins of Life featuring Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Michael Shermer, and Donald Prothero

3. Debate with Chris Mooney on The Michael Medved Show

4. Debate With Peter Ward on The Dori Monson Show (KIRO)

5. Debate With Peter Ward at Talk of the Times (TVW)

6. Debate With Michael Ruse on Ben Wattenberg’s Think Tank (PBS) part 1  part 2

7. Debate with Michael Shermer on Faith Under Fire

Discussion with a Mormon on deification

If you don't think that Mormonism is a completely separate religion from Christianity, think again. This discussion that took place on temple square should make that abundantly clear:

A very useful defense of public debates

It is not just the Jehovah's Witnesses who do not participate in public debate (there are very few exceptions to this). There are also plenty of evangelical Christians who discourage this as well. But I am of the opinion that public, moderated debates are extremely useful. In this timely ARTICLE, James White offers his defense of public debate in opposition to another Christian who does not feel that it is profitable for Christians to do, especially with opposers and apostates to the Christian faith.

A very informative discussion on intelligent design

Recently, on the Unbelievable radio program, intelligent design proponent William Dembski conversed with atheist Lewis Wolpert. In most debates, there is a lot of monologue but very little dialogue. In this one hour radio program, it was a non-stop cross examination. In fact, this was one of the best discussions on the subject that i've ever heard. Personally, I thought Dembski was pretty disingenuous in not allowing Wolpert and the host more time to speak. But I thought that Wolpert was far worse in a different respect; he was incredibly irrational and closed-minded in the most negative sense of the word. According to Wolpert, the only thing that would make evolution false would be if he gave birth to a dog. This should give you a glimpse of where this man is coming from. I also found myself about to drive into a ditch when I heard Wolpert claiming that design could never be detected in biology, nor can one form probabilistic arguments.

I don't want to give too much away. You can listen to the full discussion HERE.