So I haven't posted for a while... Here is something to chew on:
Young or foolish?
Young does not necessarily mean foolish. Foolish means foolish, it is not determined by age. You can have 90 year old idiots and 12 year old geniuses. Wisdom, the opposite of foolishness, is made up of three things: knowledge, experience, and understanding. You can have a very experienced and knowledgeable old fellow who has no understanding, you can also have a young guy who has lots of knowledge and understanding, but limited experience, neither of these people qualify as wise. Wisdom is something that you can not self diagnose, it must be obvious to other people. This is why God is the most wise being that has ever existed; he has ultimate amounts of every facet of wisdom, he is all knowing, all understanding, and has infinite experience.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Friday, June 29, 2012
Why do so many scientists believe in evolution?
The obvious reason that so many scientists endorse the theory of macroevolutionary process as the best explanation for life origins and development here on earth is because they really believe such to be the case. But is that true, really? Is it possible that there's a lot more to the story than meets the eye?
Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIIA's Resource Associate for Science and Origins, says this:
Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.
Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.
Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:
One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.
Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled “The Biologist,” that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and “J” (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.
G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.
J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.
G: What elephant?
G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!
Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research:
[Scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Biblical worrying.
Biblical Worrying (7)
This actually was not one of the lectures but I decided to talk about it today.
Is it biblical to worry?
My first inclination is to say no. It must not be because it says to worry about nothing:
Matthew 6:27, 34
Philippians 4:6,7,19
1 Peter 5:7
Luke 12:29
John 14:1
A closer look at these verses changed my mind. I separate worry and concern. (I'm just using these for what I'm saying, not for their actual definitions...)
Worry is noticing that you have no bread for tomorrow and staying up fretting.
Concern is knowing that your son is out fighting in Iraq and feeling anxious about him.
I think that it is biblical to be concerned about other's welfare, although it should not become a distraction that prevents a perfect relationship with Christ. As it says in 1 Peter 5:7 you should cast your concerns and anxieties on Jesus and let him handle the stress.
Worry is always wrong. It shows a lack of faith in God's providence and ability to provide for your needs. This is strongly supported by the verses above.
This actually was not one of the lectures but I decided to talk about it today.
Is it biblical to worry?
My first inclination is to say no. It must not be because it says to worry about nothing:
Matthew 6:27, 34
Philippians 4:6,7,19
1 Peter 5:7
Luke 12:29
John 14:1
A closer look at these verses changed my mind. I separate worry and concern. (I'm just using these for what I'm saying, not for their actual definitions...)
Worry is noticing that you have no bread for tomorrow and staying up fretting.
Concern is knowing that your son is out fighting in Iraq and feeling anxious about him.
I think that it is biblical to be concerned about other's welfare, although it should not become a distraction that prevents a perfect relationship with Christ. As it says in 1 Peter 5:7 you should cast your concerns and anxieties on Jesus and let him handle the stress.
Worry is always wrong. It shows a lack of faith in God's providence and ability to provide for your needs. This is strongly supported by the verses above.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Image of the Logos
The Image of the Logos (6)
Being a word eater, part 1.
Key verses: But he answered, "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4 ESV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 ESV)
The most significant event of the 20th century was the decline of the age of typography and the ascent of the age of television.
Why is this significant?
Because with no words you can not think. With no way to organize your thoughts into things with meaning you do not think. This is shown by Helen Keller.
She remembers when she didn't know how to communicate everything was just black nothingness in her mind. There was no meaning to anything. It was only on March 3, 1887, when she learned her first word that she said that she first had a thought and was excited for the next day to
come. She calls that day her soul's birthday.
The imago dei---what is it?
(Image of God)
We have five basic non-physical attributes of a non-physical God.
This is also what separates us from animals. Animals have the first three but to a lesser degree because of the lack of words.
•Intelligence- Language enables a much higher level of intelligence. With no language Helen Keller would have peaked at a low level of smarts. As it works out she was a genius.
•Personality- Animals have a certain level of personality but it is more in their breeds then the individuals. Golden retrievers are more friendly while terriers are more fierce.
•Gregariousness- (a fancy way of saying we like to hang out with other people). Animals form groups too but it is mostly for survival purposes. We group together because humans are attracted to each other.
•Morality-We have innate morality while animals do not. They have no problem killing each other.
•Creativity-We are the only creatures that create for our pleasure alone.
We should consume words.
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12 ESV)
Being a question asker (part 2)
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11 ESV)
When we are consuming words we should not always do it by ourselves. Sometimes we must have discourses with others.
There are three ways we should do this:
•Language acquisition-hearing words.
•Oral discourse-Asking questions of people.
•Literary discourse-Having conversations with authors and books by reading them.
We are a generation raised by appliances. We are raised more by computers than by people. This is not a good set up for learning. The messages might be true but there is no room for questions.
So what is the difference between images and words?
Images:
-Communicate immediately and intuitively.
-Are impressionistic
-Are scanned subjectively
-Can not be judged true or false
Words:
-Communicate through abstraction and analysis
-Are precise and exact
-Are read in linear, logical fashion
-Can be judged as true or false.
Being a word eater, part 1.
Key verses: But he answered, "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4 ESV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 ESV)
The most significant event of the 20th century was the decline of the age of typography and the ascent of the age of television.
Why is this significant?
Because with no words you can not think. With no way to organize your thoughts into things with meaning you do not think. This is shown by Helen Keller.
She remembers when she didn't know how to communicate everything was just black nothingness in her mind. There was no meaning to anything. It was only on March 3, 1887, when she learned her first word that she said that she first had a thought and was excited for the next day to
come. She calls that day her soul's birthday.
The imago dei---what is it?
(Image of God)
We have five basic non-physical attributes of a non-physical God.
This is also what separates us from animals. Animals have the first three but to a lesser degree because of the lack of words.
•Intelligence- Language enables a much higher level of intelligence. With no language Helen Keller would have peaked at a low level of smarts. As it works out she was a genius.
•Personality- Animals have a certain level of personality but it is more in their breeds then the individuals. Golden retrievers are more friendly while terriers are more fierce.
•Gregariousness- (a fancy way of saying we like to hang out with other people). Animals form groups too but it is mostly for survival purposes. We group together because humans are attracted to each other.
•Morality-We have innate morality while animals do not. They have no problem killing each other.
•Creativity-We are the only creatures that create for our pleasure alone.
We should consume words.
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12 ESV)
Being a question asker (part 2)
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11 ESV)
When we are consuming words we should not always do it by ourselves. Sometimes we must have discourses with others.
There are three ways we should do this:
•Language acquisition-hearing words.
•Oral discourse-Asking questions of people.
•Literary discourse-Having conversations with authors and books by reading them.
We are a generation raised by appliances. We are raised more by computers than by people. This is not a good set up for learning. The messages might be true but there is no room for questions.
So what is the difference between images and words?
Images:
-Communicate immediately and intuitively.
-Are impressionistic
-Are scanned subjectively
-Can not be judged true or false
Words:
-Communicate through abstraction and analysis
-Are precise and exact
-Are read in linear, logical fashion
-Can be judged as true or false.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
The Principle Thing
The Principle Thing
Ok let's face it. Logic and reason are good but there is something better: wisdom.
Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. (Ephesians 5:15, 16 ESV)
Wisdom is ALL OVER in the scriptures. READ IT. It goes from Job to the Song of Solomon.
If we live by open doors and green lights we will never get anywhere. We must have wisdom to discern for ourselves what is the path to choose and not just go with the path of least resistance.
There is basically two types of wisdom:
1) That which is from man.
2) That which is from God.
These OFTEN CONFLICT. Obviously the wisdom of God is always gonna be right and because we are often wrong then they are not always gonna go hand in hand.
Wisdom is NOT: What you THINK.
Wisdom is NOT: What YOU think.
Wisdom IS discerning truth.
Foolishness is inventing truth.
Wisdom requires the same thing as a building:
Fortifica/Foundati
Basically that means that you need both a foundation and fortifications. But they must be in their proper place.
A Theory of Wisdom:
-Wisdom starts with worldview
-Wisdom is the consistent outworking of (a) belief (b) action (c) discernment from worldview.
Basically it means wisdom is deciding what to believe and what not to believe.
Three times in the Bible (Proverbs 1:7,9:10, Psalm 111:10) it says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I don't know a whole lot but I do know that when the Bible says something three times it means that it is REALLY important.
So what does it mean to fear God?
1. Establish the right relationship with Him.
2. See the world as he sees it, through His eyes.
Let's look at two examples of people who took different ways in life, one is man's wisdom and the other is God's wisdom. Watch how it turns out:
1. Path of Pleasure
Man: Solomon
And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 2:10, 11 ESV)
It doesn't make you happy. It leaves you with the feeling that you accomplished nothing.
This is man's wisdom: Avoid pain, pursue pleasure.
2. Path of Pain.
Man: Job
Then Job answered the Lord and said: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 'Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.' I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:1-6 ESV)
You go to any public school, raise your hand in class, and tell the teacher that you despise yourself and repent in dust and ashes and you will probably be sent to counseling...
The truth is pain teaches a lesson.
The lesson: the inscrutability of God's ways and our need to glorify Him regardless.
God's wisdom:
Believe truth (the Bible), do good.
Clearly the second option looks foolish but in factuality it is the wise one. Does this mean that you should seek suffering and try to fail? No! It will come soon enough, just read 1 Peter 3:14b-17. It just means that you shouldn't try to avoid pain and pursue pleasure with all you've got.
Ok let's face it. Logic and reason are good but there is something better: wisdom.
Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. (Ephesians 5:15, 16 ESV)
Wisdom is ALL OVER in the scriptures. READ IT. It goes from Job to the Song of Solomon.
If we live by open doors and green lights we will never get anywhere. We must have wisdom to discern for ourselves what is the path to choose and not just go with the path of least resistance.
There is basically two types of wisdom:
1) That which is from man.
2) That which is from God.
These OFTEN CONFLICT. Obviously the wisdom of God is always gonna be right and because we are often wrong then they are not always gonna go hand in hand.
Wisdom is NOT: What you THINK.
Wisdom is NOT: What YOU think.
Wisdom IS discerning truth.
Foolishness is inventing truth.
Wisdom requires the same thing as a building:
Fortifica/Foundati
Basically that means that you need both a foundation and fortifications. But they must be in their proper place.
A Theory of Wisdom:
-Wisdom starts with worldview
-Wisdom is the consistent outworking of (a) belief (b) action (c) discernment from worldview.
Basically it means wisdom is deciding what to believe and what not to believe.
Three times in the Bible (Proverbs 1:7,9:10, Psalm 111:10) it says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I don't know a whole lot but I do know that when the Bible says something three times it means that it is REALLY important.
So what does it mean to fear God?
1. Establish the right relationship with Him.
2. See the world as he sees it, through His eyes.
Let's look at two examples of people who took different ways in life, one is man's wisdom and the other is God's wisdom. Watch how it turns out:
1. Path of Pleasure
Man: Solomon
And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 2:10, 11 ESV)
It doesn't make you happy. It leaves you with the feeling that you accomplished nothing.
This is man's wisdom: Avoid pain, pursue pleasure.
2. Path of Pain.
Man: Job
Then Job answered the Lord and said: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 'Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.' I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:1-6 ESV)
You go to any public school, raise your hand in class, and tell the teacher that you despise yourself and repent in dust and ashes and you will probably be sent to counseling...
The truth is pain teaches a lesson.
The lesson: the inscrutability of God's ways and our need to glorify Him regardless.
God's wisdom:
Believe truth (the Bible), do good.
Clearly the second option looks foolish but in factuality it is the wise one. Does this mean that you should seek suffering and try to fail? No! It will come soon enough, just read 1 Peter 3:14b-17. It just means that you shouldn't try to avoid pain and pursue pleasure with all you've got.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
The Power of Doubt
The Power of Doubt
Mark Bertrand
Read the following passage:
After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar. Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you." And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" Abraham said, "God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together. When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called the name of that place, "The Lord will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided." (Genesis 22:1-14 ESV)
Then read Genesis 18:22-33
Did you notice anything?
Abraham pleads for Sodom, but NOT for Isaac! Why?
Perhaps it is because Abraham knew something about God: God was perfectly holy and told Abraham that murder was wrong. Hmm... How would a perfectly holy God order someone to murder his own son? The answer is that he wouldn't, and perhaps Abraham knew this.
Would God ever order us to murder? This question is asked by atheists a lot as a way to get Christians to doubt. They say that "God told old testament people to kill all the time... Why would he not tell you to?" the answer is very simple: God is perfectly consistent and Holy. He also is perfectly just. Killing is not wrong if the person is being punished by God. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah.
I believe that Abraham knew that whole time that God would never tell him to murder, however he was so tuned into following God that he probably would have gone through with it had God not stopped him.
Let's look at Matthew 28:16-17
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. (Matthew 28:16, 17 ESV)
Did you catch it? "but some doubted"
Is doubt permissible? Yes. But it should not be commonplace.
In the play Hamlet, the prince doubts the legitimacy of his fathers ghost's claims. Hamlet is looking for verification. He must be sure before he kills his uncle. Abraham just believes God, he doesn't question him.
Doubt is powerful. Rene Descartes once said:
"I will suppose therefore, some malicious demon of utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies to deceive me."
Doubt requires grace to be overcome. We can't do it on our own.
Abraham doesn't have to go through with the sacrifice of Isaac but God went through with the sacrifice of Jesus.
Look at the parallels between Romans 8:32 and Genesis 22:16-17
Mark Bertrand
Read the following passage:
After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar. Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you." And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" Abraham said, "God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together. When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called the name of that place, "The Lord will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided." (Genesis 22:1-14 ESV)
Then read Genesis 18:22-33
Did you notice anything?
Abraham pleads for Sodom, but NOT for Isaac! Why?
Perhaps it is because Abraham knew something about God: God was perfectly holy and told Abraham that murder was wrong. Hmm... How would a perfectly holy God order someone to murder his own son? The answer is that he wouldn't, and perhaps Abraham knew this.
Would God ever order us to murder? This question is asked by atheists a lot as a way to get Christians to doubt. They say that "God told old testament people to kill all the time... Why would he not tell you to?" the answer is very simple: God is perfectly consistent and Holy. He also is perfectly just. Killing is not wrong if the person is being punished by God. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah.
I believe that Abraham knew that whole time that God would never tell him to murder, however he was so tuned into following God that he probably would have gone through with it had God not stopped him.
Let's look at Matthew 28:16-17
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. (Matthew 28:16, 17 ESV)
Did you catch it? "but some doubted"
Is doubt permissible? Yes. But it should not be commonplace.
In the play Hamlet, the prince doubts the legitimacy of his fathers ghost's claims. Hamlet is looking for verification. He must be sure before he kills his uncle. Abraham just believes God, he doesn't question him.
Doubt is powerful. Rene Descartes once said:
"I will suppose therefore, some malicious demon of utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies to deceive me."
Doubt requires grace to be overcome. We can't do it on our own.
Abraham doesn't have to go through with the sacrifice of Isaac but God went through with the sacrifice of Jesus.
Look at the parallels between Romans 8:32 and Genesis 22:16-17
Saturday, June 16, 2012
What Kind of Monster are You?
Worldview seeks to answer two main questions:
1. What is the nature of man?
2. What is the nature of God?
We will deal with the first now.
In two books, Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, two different types of natures are described. In Frankenstein man, the monster, is basically good and corrupted by society over the course of the book. In Dr. Jekll and Mr. Hyde a man tries to seperate his good side and his bad side. It backfires when his bad side is created and formed a new man, but his good side is still corrupted too. In that book men are basically evil and individuals are responsible.
I'm gonna make a pretty hefty claim now.
Christianity is the ONLY worldview that assumes that man is basically evil.
Now I know what you are thinking. You have already made a list of other religions that assume that man is evil. These might include:
1. Jewish
2. Morman
3. Muslim
4. Jehovah's Wittness
Well let's look at them then!
1. In the Jewish faith you are required to maintain certain parts of the law in order to make it to heaven. These include sacrifices. If man is able to do anything good on his own then he is not totally evil, and can therefore save himself.
2. Mormons believe that everyone goes to some eternity. You mus work hard to become good enough to go to the good place though and must not be wholly evil.
3. Muslims believe that, even if you are not part of the faith, your good deeds and your bad feeds will be put on a scale and if you have at least 50.0000000001% good deeds then you make it to heaven. This implies that man can become mostly good and this is ridiculous.
4. Jehovah's Wittnesses that Jesus died for us, but God can chose not to accept that ransom. You will only be acceptable if you are good enough to make it in.
"For the wages of sin is Death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
--Romans 6:23
In Christianity man is totally incapable of doing anything not sinful before salvation. This means that we are not only evil, we are TOTALLY evil. The Bible says that men don't even desire salvation. It is all God. We are totally helpless until he decides to save us.
1. What is the nature of man?
2. What is the nature of God?
We will deal with the first now.
In two books, Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, two different types of natures are described. In Frankenstein man, the monster, is basically good and corrupted by society over the course of the book. In Dr. Jekll and Mr. Hyde a man tries to seperate his good side and his bad side. It backfires when his bad side is created and formed a new man, but his good side is still corrupted too. In that book men are basically evil and individuals are responsible.
I'm gonna make a pretty hefty claim now.
Christianity is the ONLY worldview that assumes that man is basically evil.
Now I know what you are thinking. You have already made a list of other religions that assume that man is evil. These might include:
1. Jewish
2. Morman
3. Muslim
4. Jehovah's Wittness
Well let's look at them then!
1. In the Jewish faith you are required to maintain certain parts of the law in order to make it to heaven. These include sacrifices. If man is able to do anything good on his own then he is not totally evil, and can therefore save himself.
2. Mormons believe that everyone goes to some eternity. You mus work hard to become good enough to go to the good place though and must not be wholly evil.
3. Muslims believe that, even if you are not part of the faith, your good deeds and your bad feeds will be put on a scale and if you have at least 50.0000000001% good deeds then you make it to heaven. This implies that man can become mostly good and this is ridiculous.
4. Jehovah's Wittnesses that Jesus died for us, but God can chose not to accept that ransom. You will only be acceptable if you are good enough to make it in.
"For the wages of sin is Death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
--Romans 6:23
In Christianity man is totally incapable of doing anything not sinful before salvation. This means that we are not only evil, we are TOTALLY evil. The Bible says that men don't even desire salvation. It is all God. We are totally helpless until he decides to save us.
Charting Worldviews
Charting Worldviews
In this section we will look at the key points of Christianity vs every other religion, or the world for short.
MAN
Christianity:
-Man is basically evil. This means that we are born totally sinful and incapable of doing ANYTHING not sinful until we are changed by God. (Explained in Law Breakers, coming later)
-Total depravity. This means that we are completely helpless and unable to save ourselves.
-We are called to tell people the bad news. They need to know the bad news before they can hear the good news.
The world:
-Man is basically good. This means that we are born good and corrupted by society. This allows people to blame society for all the stupid stuff they do while still taking credit for doing anything of value.
GOD
Christianity:
-God is infinitely gracious and perfectly holy. The God of the Bible. Yes, he is gracious and holy even when destroying cities. (that is explained in The Power of Doubt coming later)
-The trinity exists.
The World:
-No, He is not.
THE UNIVERSE
Christianity:
-Genesis and John accurately describe Creation.
The World:
-No they don't. Jews will say that Genesis describes creation, but John doesn't.
TRUTH
Christianity:
-Truth is in the Bible. This means that the Bible is the ultimate source or truth and takes authority over any other "truth". No other "truth" has ever been able to disprove any part of the Bible.
The World:
-Truth is in man. That has to be a sad way to live! "You must find your own truth and purpose."
He had three other points (Morality, Family, and Politics) but he ran out of time talking about these.
In this section we will look at the key points of Christianity vs every other religion, or the world for short.
MAN
Christianity:
-Man is basically evil. This means that we are born totally sinful and incapable of doing ANYTHING not sinful until we are changed by God. (Explained in Law Breakers, coming later)
-Total depravity. This means that we are completely helpless and unable to save ourselves.
-We are called to tell people the bad news. They need to know the bad news before they can hear the good news.
The world:
-Man is basically good. This means that we are born good and corrupted by society. This allows people to blame society for all the stupid stuff they do while still taking credit for doing anything of value.
GOD
Christianity:
-God is infinitely gracious and perfectly holy. The God of the Bible. Yes, he is gracious and holy even when destroying cities. (that is explained in The Power of Doubt coming later)
-The trinity exists.
The World:
-No, He is not.
THE UNIVERSE
Christianity:
-Genesis and John accurately describe Creation.
The World:
-No they don't. Jews will say that Genesis describes creation, but John doesn't.
TRUTH
Christianity:
-Truth is in the Bible. This means that the Bible is the ultimate source or truth and takes authority over any other "truth". No other "truth" has ever been able to disprove any part of the Bible.
The World:
-Truth is in man. That has to be a sad way to live! "You must find your own truth and purpose."
He had three other points (Morality, Family, and Politics) but he ran out of time talking about these.
Friday, June 15, 2012
As an Atheist, I Truly Believe Africa Needs God.
The following is an actual article that appeared in the london times, written by Matthew Paris.
Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece
Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it's Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.
It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.
Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.
I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.
But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.
First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.
At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.
We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.
Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers - in some ways less so - but more open.
This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. âPrivatelyâ because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.
It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.
There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: âtheirsâ and therefore best for âthemâ; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.
I don't follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the âbig manâ and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.
Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.
How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds - at the very moment of passing into the new - that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? âBecause it's there,â he said.
To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It's... well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary's further explanation - that nobody else had climbed it - would stand as a second reason for passivity.
Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.
Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.
And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.
Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece
Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it's Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.
It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.
Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.
I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.
But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.
First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.
At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.
We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.
Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers - in some ways less so - but more open.
This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. âPrivatelyâ because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.
It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.
There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: âtheirsâ and therefore best for âthemâ; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.
I don't follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the âbig manâ and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.
Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.
How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds - at the very moment of passing into the new - that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? âBecause it's there,â he said.
To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It's... well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary's further explanation - that nobody else had climbed it - would stand as a second reason for passivity.
Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.
Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.
And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.
Worldview
As most of you know I went to a Worldview Academy last few days. It was pretty epic, but instead of just talking about it I'm gonna try to put the main points of the many lectures in different posts and see how that goes. I am gonna do them in the order that they appear in the book, not how I got them. Without further delay, enjoy...
Blind Faith
First off there is no such thing as an unbeliever.
The absence of belief or faith is just not possible. In fact those who say that they rely on only logic and reason, namely the atheists, rely heavily on faith. For example there are actually at least twelve (12) things that an Atheist MUST take on faith. Here they are:
1. There is no God.
2. Free will and dignity do not exist.
3. Something came from nothing.
4. Life came from non life.
5. Mind and thought do not exist.
6. There are no absolutes.
7. Conscience does not exist.
8. There is no afterlife.
9. There are no angles or demons.
10. Your life has no meaning or purpose.
11. Miracles can not happen.
12. Souls do not exist.
Now I will briefly try to explain why all of these must be taken on faith:
1. Because you must search all knowledge to prove there is no God and when you have searched all knowledge they you will have become God the only way to say that He doesn't exist is faith. (original idea from David Platt)
2. Because, if we evolved and everything is scientific, we are run by different reactions stimulated by different events or emotions we are just robots. Dignity doesn't exist where free will doesn't.
3. Almost all atheists are willing to agree that the universe had to have a definite beginning point and because there was nothing before that then something had to come from nothing.
4. Even scientists with rigged science rooms have never been able to make life from non life, much less watch it happen with no prompting.
5. If we have no actual physical thoughts and there is no such thing as the spiritual dimension thoughts must not exist.
6. Unless you have a holy, eternal, loving, unchanging God you can't have absolutes.
7. If there is no standard for moral values we can not feel bad when we do something wrong because it would not, in fact, be wrong.
8. Pretty self explanatory. If there is no way to prove that there is no afterlife then it must be taken on faith.
9. With no spiritual realm at all them there must be no angles or demons. Hard to explain possessed people then.
10. Life is meaningless with no one giving it meaning. Mortal men can not give meaning or value to anything spiritual, much less life.
11. When you have mathematical proof (another lecture) of the historical accuracy of the Bible and it speaks of miracles but there is no spiritual dimension then something has to give.
12. Souls do not exist. No afterlife, no souls, no nothing.
So the question is not "who has faith and who has reason" it really is who uses the most blind faith.
For a worldview that claims to rely on reason and logic, it is strange that try would require so much faith.
Blind Faith
First off there is no such thing as an unbeliever.
The absence of belief or faith is just not possible. In fact those who say that they rely on only logic and reason, namely the atheists, rely heavily on faith. For example there are actually at least twelve (12) things that an Atheist MUST take on faith. Here they are:
1. There is no God.
2. Free will and dignity do not exist.
3. Something came from nothing.
4. Life came from non life.
5. Mind and thought do not exist.
6. There are no absolutes.
7. Conscience does not exist.
8. There is no afterlife.
9. There are no angles or demons.
10. Your life has no meaning or purpose.
11. Miracles can not happen.
12. Souls do not exist.
Now I will briefly try to explain why all of these must be taken on faith:
1. Because you must search all knowledge to prove there is no God and when you have searched all knowledge they you will have become God the only way to say that He doesn't exist is faith. (original idea from David Platt)
2. Because, if we evolved and everything is scientific, we are run by different reactions stimulated by different events or emotions we are just robots. Dignity doesn't exist where free will doesn't.
3. Almost all atheists are willing to agree that the universe had to have a definite beginning point and because there was nothing before that then something had to come from nothing.
4. Even scientists with rigged science rooms have never been able to make life from non life, much less watch it happen with no prompting.
5. If we have no actual physical thoughts and there is no such thing as the spiritual dimension thoughts must not exist.
6. Unless you have a holy, eternal, loving, unchanging God you can't have absolutes.
7. If there is no standard for moral values we can not feel bad when we do something wrong because it would not, in fact, be wrong.
8. Pretty self explanatory. If there is no way to prove that there is no afterlife then it must be taken on faith.
9. With no spiritual realm at all them there must be no angles or demons. Hard to explain possessed people then.
10. Life is meaningless with no one giving it meaning. Mortal men can not give meaning or value to anything spiritual, much less life.
11. When you have mathematical proof (another lecture) of the historical accuracy of the Bible and it speaks of miracles but there is no spiritual dimension then something has to give.
12. Souls do not exist. No afterlife, no souls, no nothing.
So the question is not "who has faith and who has reason" it really is who uses the most blind faith.
For a worldview that claims to rely on reason and logic, it is strange that try would require so much faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)