Christians believe, and the Bible says, that Creator God (who is Spirit) brought everything material into existence out of nothing.
The Standard Big Bang Model says that everything material came into existence out of nothing, but the model doesn't / can’t yet say Why or How.
Atheists do not believe in God but they do believe in and trust the scientific model of inquiry - or so they say when it suits their argument :-)
If the BB model is correct, then atheists believe or at least accept that everything came from nothing by nothing.
Of course atheists don’t say this explicitly but it's implicit in the following atheist beliefs:
. No God exists - Do atheists say this or not?
. Nothing Supernatural exists - Do atheists say this or not?
. I only accept what has been determined by science - Do atheists say this or not?
What has been determined by science? The best evidence to date (back ground radiation, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, expanding universe etc. etc) points to:
. Standard Model: Everything existed after the Singularity - 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
. Standard Model: Nothing existed prior to the Singularity; no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no laws of physics.
. Consistently Observed: Nothing begins to exist without an external cause (You, me, machines, buildings, clothes, art, music, galaxies, stars, the universe, even your little brown turds). Everything that begins to exist has a cause that is external to itself.
. Scientifically Obvious: The universe began to exist.
Most atheists accept that the universe contains everything material that exists.
Most atheists accept that anything that begins to exist has a cause. Even Hume wouldn't say something so stupid as that something can begin to exist without a cause.
If just before Everything material existed, Nothing material existed, and if everything that begins to exist has an external cause, then atheists are saying that Nothing caused Everything to come into being.
Now, how is that a Straw Man? OR is there something that atheists believe that is being left unspoken? And if so, what?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
"We call these events [mutations] accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism's hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution. . . Nothing warrants the supposition--or hope--that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised."
Jacques Monod, "Chance and Necessity" New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), pp. 112 - 113
Jacques Monod, "Chance and Necessity" New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), pp. 112 - 113
Dawkins is not alone:
Not long ago some atheists took me to task for suggesting something so foolish as Richard Dawkins claiming that inanimate and inorganic molocules evolved. I then showed them this quote.
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Richard Dawkins, "The Ancestor's Tale"
So absurd is the concept that even these atheists said that regardless of how it looked, Dawkins must have meant something else. Well Dawkins is not alone.
A. G. Cairns-Smith thinks that descendants of ancient crystalline clay organisms may be all around us. He states: “Evolution did not start with the organic molecules that have now become universal to life: indeed I doubt whether the first organisms, even the first evolved organisms, had any organic molecules in them at all.” (Cairns-Smith, 107.)
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Richard Dawkins, "The Ancestor's Tale"
So absurd is the concept that even these atheists said that regardless of how it looked, Dawkins must have meant something else. Well Dawkins is not alone.
A. G. Cairns-Smith thinks that descendants of ancient crystalline clay organisms may be all around us. He states: “Evolution did not start with the organic molecules that have now become universal to life: indeed I doubt whether the first organisms, even the first evolved organisms, had any organic molecules in them at all.” (Cairns-Smith, 107.)
Friday, October 30, 2009
Biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter writes:
There is yet another reason that the universality of the genetic code is not strong evidence for evolution. Simply put, the theory of evolution does not predict the genetic code to be universal (it does not, for that matter, predict the genetic code at all). In fact, leading evolutionists such as Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel are surprised that there aren’t multiple codes in nature.
Consider how evolutionists would react if there were in fact multiple codes in nature. What if plants, animals, and bacteria all had different codes? Such a finding would not falsify evolution; rather, it would be incorporated into the theory. For if the code is arbitrary, why should there be just one? The blind process of evolution would explain why there are multiple codes. In fact, in 1979 certain minor variations in the code were found, and evolutionists believe, not surprisingly, that the variations were caused by the continuing evolution of the universal genetic code. Of course, it would not be a problem for such an explanation to be extended if it were the case that there were multiple codes. There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory. When it comes to the genetic code, evolution can accommodate a range of findings, but it cannot then use one of those findings as supporting evidence. (Hunter, 38.)
There is yet another reason that the universality of the genetic code is not strong evidence for evolution. Simply put, the theory of evolution does not predict the genetic code to be universal (it does not, for that matter, predict the genetic code at all). In fact, leading evolutionists such as Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel are surprised that there aren’t multiple codes in nature.
Consider how evolutionists would react if there were in fact multiple codes in nature. What if plants, animals, and bacteria all had different codes? Such a finding would not falsify evolution; rather, it would be incorporated into the theory. For if the code is arbitrary, why should there be just one? The blind process of evolution would explain why there are multiple codes. In fact, in 1979 certain minor variations in the code were found, and evolutionists believe, not surprisingly, that the variations were caused by the continuing evolution of the universal genetic code. Of course, it would not be a problem for such an explanation to be extended if it were the case that there were multiple codes. There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory. When it comes to the genetic code, evolution can accommodate a range of findings, but it cannot then use one of those findings as supporting evidence. (Hunter, 38.)
“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”
Professor of Mathematical Physics, Frank Tipler
Professor of Mathematical Physics, Frank Tipler
So Says the Relativist
“I’m going to try to persuade you to accept my belief, that you should not try to persuade others to accept your beliefs, because doing that is absolutely wrong.”
Why does the relativist do this? Because s/he believes that h/her beliefs are correct and yours are wrong. Such is the rationale, logic and reasoning of the atheist.
Why does the relativist do this? Because s/he believes that h/her beliefs are correct and yours are wrong. Such is the rationale, logic and reasoning of the atheist.
What A Change We Have In Jesus
For twenty-five years the Apostle Paul endured hardship, deprivation and finally death by beheading in AD64. For twenty-five years Paul gave up everything of earthly value. Why? Why did Paul turn suddenly from a killer of Christians and persecuter of the Christian Church to one of Christianities most effective missionaries? Because Jesus the Christ rose from the dead and confronted Paul as he was on his way to lay waste to yet another congregation.
Because Christ rose from the dead, people by the billions have had their lives changed for the better.
Because Christ rose from the dead, people by the billions have had their lives changed for the better.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The “Chance” Of A Lifetime
Daniel Dennett says that mutations don’t occur even once in a trillion “copyings.”
Geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti says,“[Mutation] effect in all instances is to demolish. Transgressions of the kind needed by Darwinian evolution have never been documented.”
Never documented? Perhaps atheists are suggesting that trillions of “helpful” mutations actually come about easier in the wild than in the lab?
Geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti says,“[Mutation] effect in all instances is to demolish. Transgressions of the kind needed by Darwinian evolution have never been documented.”
Never documented? Perhaps atheists are suggesting that trillions of “helpful” mutations actually come about easier in the wild than in the lab?
God in the Dock
Written by C. S. Lewis, "God in the Dock" addresses the attitude, peculiar to humans, of wanting to do away with their Creator.
Atheists in particular want to see God dead.
Atheists in particular want to take the credit for the killing of Creator God.
Humans look at the world around them and find rising within them anger and rage and indignation that they should have to tolerate anything less than paradise. We compile our list of perceived crimes that God has committed and we stand at His gates, shaking our fists and screaming our protest. We actually feel good, even righteous in demanding that our Creator stand trial.
We are His judge.
We are His jury.
We cross-examine the Almighty and hold Him in contempt when He refuses to answer our charge.
Not only do we feel entitled to an explanation. We feel entitled to recompense.
How is it that we cannot see that we are not qualified to judge our Creator?
It’s His laws, His court.
Shall the pot say to the Potter, “Why have you made me this way?”
Atheists in particular want to see God dead.
Atheists in particular want to take the credit for the killing of Creator God.
Humans look at the world around them and find rising within them anger and rage and indignation that they should have to tolerate anything less than paradise. We compile our list of perceived crimes that God has committed and we stand at His gates, shaking our fists and screaming our protest. We actually feel good, even righteous in demanding that our Creator stand trial.
We are His judge.
We are His jury.
We cross-examine the Almighty and hold Him in contempt when He refuses to answer our charge.
Not only do we feel entitled to an explanation. We feel entitled to recompense.
How is it that we cannot see that we are not qualified to judge our Creator?
It’s His laws, His court.
Shall the pot say to the Potter, “Why have you made me this way?”
The Offer of Mercy
Two thousand years ago, God came to earth in a form that we could recognise and understand. He came to offer us mercy and grace.
Our response was to spit in His face. We pulled out His beard, beat Him with fists and rods and whips until He was unrecognisable. Then we hung Him naked on a Roman cross until dead.
Surprisingly, from a human perspective, HIS offer of mercy and grace still stands.
One day soon, too soon for many, Jesus will gather to Himself and bring safely home those who have accepted that offer.
I hope to see you there.
Because Creator God is all powerful, He CAN rid the cosmos of evil
Because Creator God is all good, He WILL rid the cosmos of evil
Because Creator God is using the consequences of evil to change humankind, and to separate those for and against Him, evil is still present
Creator God has told us ahead of time so that no one will be taken by surprise, that one day soon He CAN and WILL rid the cosmos of evil, including those who have decided to side with evil and rebel against their Creator.
Our response was to spit in His face. We pulled out His beard, beat Him with fists and rods and whips until He was unrecognisable. Then we hung Him naked on a Roman cross until dead.
Surprisingly, from a human perspective, HIS offer of mercy and grace still stands.
One day soon, too soon for many, Jesus will gather to Himself and bring safely home those who have accepted that offer.
I hope to see you there.
Because Creator God is all powerful, He CAN rid the cosmos of evil
Because Creator God is all good, He WILL rid the cosmos of evil
Because Creator God is using the consequences of evil to change humankind, and to separate those for and against Him, evil is still present
Creator God has told us ahead of time so that no one will be taken by surprise, that one day soon He CAN and WILL rid the cosmos of evil, including those who have decided to side with evil and rebel against their Creator.
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather, Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
George Greenstein
George Greenstein
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Arkansas Is Calling
Wow! I commented on a blog yesterday. She was talking about getting married to this guy who doesn’t know that she is an atheist, neither does / did? her parents. She described both her boyfriend and her parents as “devout christians.”
So, based on my experience as a marriage and family therapist, I urged her to think twice about this marriage since she is already lying to her soon to be husband about something that is a common issue in marital breakdown.
So what happens? I find out, from this blogger’s MOTHER, that I was replying to a sixteen year old. The old one lambasted me for
(a) being a counsellor (“You know what a therapist cut in half is? A rapist.”) and
(b) for “harassing” her “little girl.”
The mother's delicate little flower urged me to "SUCK IT MAKARIOS."
The mother is actually defending this child getting married.
What century is it in Arkansas?
So, based on my experience as a marriage and family therapist, I urged her to think twice about this marriage since she is already lying to her soon to be husband about something that is a common issue in marital breakdown.
So what happens? I find out, from this blogger’s MOTHER, that I was replying to a sixteen year old. The old one lambasted me for
(a) being a counsellor (“You know what a therapist cut in half is? A rapist.”) and
(b) for “harassing” her “little girl.”
The mother's delicate little flower urged me to "SUCK IT MAKARIOS."
The mother is actually defending this child getting married.
What century is it in Arkansas?
Change Me - Please!
Before Jesus becomes our guide, we are generally drawn to things that are destructive to our well-being. Destructive thoughts, relationships, behaviours. Healthy thoughts, relationships and behaviours almost repulse us. They seem boring and gross.
After Jesus comes into our lives, we begin to find attractive life-giving and life-enhancing thoughts, relationships and behaviours.
That only makes sense since we were created to live abundantly even in the face of forces that are out to destroy us.
After Jesus comes into our lives, we begin to find attractive life-giving and life-enhancing thoughts, relationships and behaviours.
That only makes sense since we were created to live abundantly even in the face of forces that are out to destroy us.
Eternity and Matter
Eternal does not mean existing forever, at least not necessarily. It does mean existing outside of time. That is another reason we can know that matter has not existed for eternity because matter and energy cannot precede themselves. They cannot precede themselves because “Coming Into Being” is an essential and objective feature of time.
Time, Space, Energy, Matter and the Laws of Physics that govern the constants and qualitities that were in place prior to Planck time came into existence at the Big Bang.
Time, Space, Energy, Matter and the Laws of Physics that govern the constants and qualitities that were in place prior to Planck time came into existence at the Big Bang.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
What Is Truth?
Even though the view that there is no ultimate truth is intimately connected via atheism to the denial of God, such a view is clearly self-contradictory. Such is the illogic of atheism. A self-contradictory belief is an erroneous belief, as is atheism.
To know that disorder exists, one must have an idea of order.
To know that someone is blind, we must know what it means to have sight.
When a sceptic tells you that there is no such thing as truth, or that you are in error regarding your belief in God, that same sceptic is refuting h/her own premise that there is no such thing as truth. For when a sceptic says that Christianity is false, that same sceptic is telling you that s/he is in possession of truth even while telling you that truth does not exist.
Atheism, self-contradictory, absurd, incoherent and illogical to the core.
To know that disorder exists, one must have an idea of order.
To know that someone is blind, we must know what it means to have sight.
When a sceptic tells you that there is no such thing as truth, or that you are in error regarding your belief in God, that same sceptic is refuting h/her own premise that there is no such thing as truth. For when a sceptic says that Christianity is false, that same sceptic is telling you that s/he is in possession of truth even while telling you that truth does not exist.
Atheism, self-contradictory, absurd, incoherent and illogical to the core.
An atheist says to the Christian
Atheist: I’m an atheist.
Christian: Which would also make you a naturalist.
Atheist: Correct. Nothing exists that is not matter or energy.
Christian: And this is something that you just believe, like one of Dawkins’ faith-heads.
Atheist: That’s correct. What? No. No I don’t just believe this. I have proof that nothing but matter and energy exist.
Christian: So you wouldn’t believe that nothing but matter and energy exist if that wasn’t empirically verifiable.
Atheist: That’s right. I’m NOT like a faith-head. That’s what Dawkins was talking about. I’m a Bright and you’re not.
Christian: And what would that proof be?
Atheist: What proof? Proof for what?
Christian: Proof that nothing but matter and energy exist?
Atheist: Well, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Christian: But that only comes into effect after matter and energy were created.
Atheist: Well, there isn’t any proof for God.
Christian: How do you know? I thought you couldn’t prove a negative.
Atheist: That’s right.
Christian: So you don’t actually know that God doesn’t exist.
Atheist: Well, I’m pretty sure that He doesn’t exist.
Christian: But you state dogmatically that matter and energy are all that exists when that is pure speculation. Why do you do that? You’ve told me on other occasions that you don’t accept anything unless it’s been shown to be true by the scientific method of inquiry.
Atheist: Ya. So?
Christians: Naturalism hasn’t been proven by the scientific method of inquiry. It’s takes faith to believe it, and an anti scientific mind-set to state it.
Atheist: Go away.
Christian: Which would also make you a naturalist.
Atheist: Correct. Nothing exists that is not matter or energy.
Christian: And this is something that you just believe, like one of Dawkins’ faith-heads.
Atheist: That’s correct. What? No. No I don’t just believe this. I have proof that nothing but matter and energy exist.
Christian: So you wouldn’t believe that nothing but matter and energy exist if that wasn’t empirically verifiable.
Atheist: That’s right. I’m NOT like a faith-head. That’s what Dawkins was talking about. I’m a Bright and you’re not.
Christian: And what would that proof be?
Atheist: What proof? Proof for what?
Christian: Proof that nothing but matter and energy exist?
Atheist: Well, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Christian: But that only comes into effect after matter and energy were created.
Atheist: Well, there isn’t any proof for God.
Christian: How do you know? I thought you couldn’t prove a negative.
Atheist: That’s right.
Christian: So you don’t actually know that God doesn’t exist.
Atheist: Well, I’m pretty sure that He doesn’t exist.
Christian: But you state dogmatically that matter and energy are all that exists when that is pure speculation. Why do you do that? You’ve told me on other occasions that you don’t accept anything unless it’s been shown to be true by the scientific method of inquiry.
Atheist: Ya. So?
Christians: Naturalism hasn’t been proven by the scientific method of inquiry. It’s takes faith to believe it, and an anti scientific mind-set to state it.
Atheist: Go away.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Here Comes Today
Atheists will say: “I won’t believe / think / accept anything unless it has been “proven” by repeatable, verifiable, testable observations.”
Atheists will say: “It is incoherent to speculate on what was “before” the Big Bang because “before” did not exist. In fact, nothing existed before the Big Bang; not space, not time, not matter nor even the laws of physics.”
Atheists will say: Before the Big Bang there were other Big Bangs and other universes; in fact there were an infinite number of Big Bangs and an infinite number of universes of which ours is just the latest.
===============
I don’t know what you make of that kind of thinking but it makes me feel as though I’m talking to a person whose intelligence and ability for logical thought have been over-ridden by an absurd and illogical world-view; a world-view that is impossible to defend.
For example:
All things being equal, tomorrow is coming. And, according to atheists a new universe is coming. First let’s rid ourselves of the cyclic model.
. “It is said that an Argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a Proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.” Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One - The Search for Other Universes.”
. We know that our universe is not the latest of an infinite number of cycles because in cyclic models entropy is carried forward into the next cycle. There is simply not enough entropy in our universe to have had a previous cycle.
. There is not enough matter in our universe to reverse the current expansion.
Conclusion: The cyclic model is not and cannot be past eternal.
But what about matter itself being eternal or infinite?
As stated, tomorrow is coming. However, for tomorrow to happen we must first proceed through today. For today to become reality, we first had to proceed through yesterday and on and on and on back to day one, or the Big Bang which occurred roughly 14 billion years ago.
Not so say the atheists, out of the other side of their mouths. Atheists say that matter does not have a beginning. The existence of matter just goes back and back and back literally forever. There was no beginning.
So how, if you do not have day one, as Big Bang cosmology suggests, do you get to day two which is necessary for day three and on and on into the future until we arrive at today? Atheists seem to accept that the universe is 14 billion years old. How do they make that statement if they don't accept current measures of time?
Because of what we know, atheists accept that the material infinite does not exist.
Because of what they want to believe, atheists also say that the material infinite does exist.
To atheists, these statements are interchangeable depending on where they are at in the argument and which side of the issue they are arguing.
Because of what we know, atheists accept that the infinite is just a concept.
Because of what they want to believe, atheists also say that the infinite is more than a concept, that it’s real.
To atheists, these statements are interchangeable depending on where they are at in the argument and which side of the issue they are arguing.
Because of what we know, atheists accept that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Because of what they want to believe, atheists says that some things can begin to exist without a cause. In this cause atheists say that everything came from nothing without a cause, or by nothing.
To atheists, these statements are interchangeable depending on where they are at in the argument and which side of the issue they are arguing.
Because of what we know, atheists accept that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause.
Because of what they want to believe, atheists also say that there can be an infinite regress of cause.
To atheists, these statements are interchangeable depending on where they are at in the argument and which side of the issue they are arguing.
Because of the Big Bang which required a cause, an external to matter, space and time cause at that, atheists admit that we’ve reached today but they have no explanation for how that happened.
Atheism - logically indefensible.
Atheists will say: “It is incoherent to speculate on what was “before” the Big Bang because “before” did not exist. In fact, nothing existed before the Big Bang; not space, not time, not matter nor even the laws of physics.”
Atheists will say: Before the Big Bang there were other Big Bangs and other universes; in fact there were an infinite number of Big Bangs and an infinite number of universes of which ours is just the latest.
===============
I don’t know what you make of that kind of thinking but it makes me feel as though I’m talking to a person whose intelligence and ability for logical thought have been over-ridden by an absurd and illogical world-view; a world-view that is impossible to defend.
For example:
All things being equal, tomorrow is coming. And, according to atheists a new universe is coming. First let’s rid ourselves of the cyclic model.
. “It is said that an Argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a Proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.” Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One - The Search for Other Universes.”
. We know that our universe is not the latest of an infinite number of cycles because in cyclic models entropy is carried forward into the next cycle. There is simply not enough entropy in our universe to have had a previous cycle.
. There is not enough matter in our universe to reverse the current expansion.
Conclusion: The cyclic model is not and cannot be past eternal.
But what about matter itself being eternal or infinite?
As stated, tomorrow is coming. However, for tomorrow to happen we must first proceed through today. For today to become reality, we first had to proceed through yesterday and on and on and on back to day one, or the Big Bang which occurred roughly 14 billion years ago.
Not so say the atheists, out of the other side of their mouths. Atheists say that matter does not have a beginning. The existence of matter just goes back and back and back literally forever. There was no beginning.
So how, if you do not have day one, as Big Bang cosmology suggests, do you get to day two which is necessary for day three and on and on into the future until we arrive at today? Atheists seem to accept that the universe is 14 billion years old. How do they make that statement if they don't accept current measures of time?
Because of what we know, atheists accept that the material infinite does not exist.
Because of what they want to believe, atheists also say that the material infinite does exist.
To atheists, these statements are interchangeable depending on where they are at in the argument and which side of the issue they are arguing.
Because of what we know, atheists accept that the infinite is just a concept.
Because of what they want to believe, atheists also say that the infinite is more than a concept, that it’s real.
To atheists, these statements are interchangeable depending on where they are at in the argument and which side of the issue they are arguing.
Because of what we know, atheists accept that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Because of what they want to believe, atheists says that some things can begin to exist without a cause. In this cause atheists say that everything came from nothing without a cause, or by nothing.
To atheists, these statements are interchangeable depending on where they are at in the argument and which side of the issue they are arguing.
Because of what we know, atheists accept that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause.
Because of what they want to believe, atheists also say that there can be an infinite regress of cause.
To atheists, these statements are interchangeable depending on where they are at in the argument and which side of the issue they are arguing.
Because of the Big Bang which required a cause, an external to matter, space and time cause at that, atheists admit that we’ve reached today but they have no explanation for how that happened.
Atheism - logically indefensible.
I Tolerate You
Tolerance is a popular word right now. The thing is, the word “tolerance” actually implies that we disagree with that which we are tolerating. To be tolerant means, in its purest form, in its Christian context that:
. I may disagree with what you are doing but I will love you anyway.
. I may disagree with what you are doing but I will treat you with respect anyway.
. I might not accept what you are doing as correct, but I will accept you.
That’s what Jesus did in His relationships, and if we are followers of Jesus we will do that also. Lord help me to change!
. I may disagree with what you are doing but I will love you anyway.
. I may disagree with what you are doing but I will treat you with respect anyway.
. I might not accept what you are doing as correct, but I will accept you.
That’s what Jesus did in His relationships, and if we are followers of Jesus we will do that also. Lord help me to change!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Above and Beyond the Call
I’m not sure that I can do atheists any longer. The last straw came when two atheists tried to say that intelligence was not required for complex design.
First, PZ Myers, idiot extra ordinaire showed a clip of a pile of drift wood lying on a beach as his refutation of the intelligence > design idea. He even compared the pile of sticks to a human cell and said, in effect, “See? God is not necessary for design.” Terribly sad, that one.
This was closely followed by an atheist who said that a can of paint thrown against a wall could create beautiful design and required no intelligence to bring this about.
Beside not having anything to do with the type of design spoken of in the fine tuning of the universe, to say that paint splashed against a wall was design without intelligence missed an important point.
I tried to show this by saying that the can of paint did not throw itself.
The atheist’s response was that it did not require any intelligence greater than the can of paint itself to throw the paint at the wall.
I asked if he thought that perhaps another can of paint threw the first can of paint.
The atheist, whose mind must have been almost completely starved for oxygen allowed that “an arm threw the paint.”
How desperate must one be to avoid the obvious, to even imagine that such a thing could pass for a sufficient explanation? Even if a machine had been invented to throw the can of paint at the wall, an intelligence would have been required to build the machine.
The fact is, intelligence IS required for both design and for information. We find design in the formation of the universe (without it the universe would not exist). And we find the need for intelligently designed information to be in place for one cell to reproduce or replicate itself.
Atheists, the same people who tell anyone who will listen that they only rely on the results of repeatable, observable, verifiable information, in the very next breath uphold their atheism with pure speculation. As an example, this same atheist said that he did indeed believe in eternal matter and the infinite regress of cause.
To openly ignore and / or deny accepted facts of science in order to preserve the absurd, illogical and incoherent concept of atheism leads to comments so profoundly stupid that I’m not sure I can continue commenting to the replies that I receive. My need to talk may override my weariness but seriously, how much can one person be expected to endure?
Of course I’ll continue to blog but as to answering comments - mmm, I don’t know. I’ll have to think about it.
First, PZ Myers, idiot extra ordinaire showed a clip of a pile of drift wood lying on a beach as his refutation of the intelligence > design idea. He even compared the pile of sticks to a human cell and said, in effect, “See? God is not necessary for design.” Terribly sad, that one.
This was closely followed by an atheist who said that a can of paint thrown against a wall could create beautiful design and required no intelligence to bring this about.
Beside not having anything to do with the type of design spoken of in the fine tuning of the universe, to say that paint splashed against a wall was design without intelligence missed an important point.
I tried to show this by saying that the can of paint did not throw itself.
The atheist’s response was that it did not require any intelligence greater than the can of paint itself to throw the paint at the wall.
I asked if he thought that perhaps another can of paint threw the first can of paint.
The atheist, whose mind must have been almost completely starved for oxygen allowed that “an arm threw the paint.”
How desperate must one be to avoid the obvious, to even imagine that such a thing could pass for a sufficient explanation? Even if a machine had been invented to throw the can of paint at the wall, an intelligence would have been required to build the machine.
The fact is, intelligence IS required for both design and for information. We find design in the formation of the universe (without it the universe would not exist). And we find the need for intelligently designed information to be in place for one cell to reproduce or replicate itself.
Atheists, the same people who tell anyone who will listen that they only rely on the results of repeatable, observable, verifiable information, in the very next breath uphold their atheism with pure speculation. As an example, this same atheist said that he did indeed believe in eternal matter and the infinite regress of cause.
To openly ignore and / or deny accepted facts of science in order to preserve the absurd, illogical and incoherent concept of atheism leads to comments so profoundly stupid that I’m not sure I can continue commenting to the replies that I receive. My need to talk may override my weariness but seriously, how much can one person be expected to endure?
Of course I’ll continue to blog but as to answering comments - mmm, I don’t know. I’ll have to think about it.
Who's Your Guide?
“From the very first day, we were there, taking it all in - we heard it with our own ears, saw it with our own eyes, verified it with our own hands. The Word of Life (Jesus) appeared right before our eyes; we saw it happen! And now we’re telling you in most sober prose that what we witnessed was incredibly, this: The infinite Life of God himself took shape before us. We saw it, we heard it, and now we’re telling you so you can experience it along with us, this communion with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. This, in essence, is the message we heard from Christ and are passing on to you: "God is light, pure light; there’s not a trace of darkness in him."” 1st John 1: 1-5
Atheists of course say that the Apostle John is lying through his teeth about knowing Jesus. How much less can they accept that God is light, in Him there is no darkness? Centuries before John lived, the Psalmist also knew God in this context. "You [God] are a lamp for my feet, a light to illuminate my path."
This is something with which all Christians can identify. The Psalmist was using a metaphor that people in that time could easily identify with. Walking along a mountainous path in the dark was treacherous. No less so than trying to navigate life itself. Being able to trust Jesus, our Creator as to how best live our lives is a wonderful release from worry.
The Joy that I experience because of my walk with Jesus, my trust in Jesus, my faith in Jesus is all out of proportion to the circumstances of my life. I know Him in whom I believe and I declare, along with John that Jesus is absolutely trustworthy. He will never steer you wrong.
Atheists of course say that the Apostle John is lying through his teeth about knowing Jesus. How much less can they accept that God is light, in Him there is no darkness? Centuries before John lived, the Psalmist also knew God in this context. "You [God] are a lamp for my feet, a light to illuminate my path."
This is something with which all Christians can identify. The Psalmist was using a metaphor that people in that time could easily identify with. Walking along a mountainous path in the dark was treacherous. No less so than trying to navigate life itself. Being able to trust Jesus, our Creator as to how best live our lives is a wonderful release from worry.
The Joy that I experience because of my walk with Jesus, my trust in Jesus, my faith in Jesus is all out of proportion to the circumstances of my life. I know Him in whom I believe and I declare, along with John that Jesus is absolutely trustworthy. He will never steer you wrong.
Jesus Loves Me, This I Know
Sinners were powerfully attracted to Jesus’ love for them.
Pharisees and atheists are powerfully offended that Jesus loves sinners
Jesus wanted to love sinners into changing
Pharisees and atheists want to punish sinners into conforming.
If loving those caught in sin presented a risk of sinners thinking their lifestyle is being condoned, then Jesus would have never gone to the cross.
Pharisees and atheists are powerfully offended that Jesus loves sinners
Jesus wanted to love sinners into changing
Pharisees and atheists want to punish sinners into conforming.
If loving those caught in sin presented a risk of sinners thinking their lifestyle is being condoned, then Jesus would have never gone to the cross.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Religion and Violence
Atheists are notorious for wanting to rid the world of religion (read Christianity) and their stated reason is the violence promoted and carried out by religion (read Islam).
Oh yes, atheists will bring up the 5 or so abortionists that have been murdered over the last ten years (I'm not suggesting that that's ok). And some will go back a millennia to rant about the crusades and inquisitions (I'm not suggesting that those were ok). Anybody with a brain knows that those behaviours are impossible to square with the teachings of Jesus. So the question becomes, Why aren’t there Christian terrorists? Here’s one explanation.
“If your fundamental [world-view] is based upon a man dying on the cross for his enemies,
If the very heart of your self-image and your religion is a man praying for his enemies as he died for them, sacrificing for them, loving them.
If that sinks into your heart of hearts, it’s going to produce the kind of life that the early Christians produced - the most inclusive possible life out of the most exclusive claim - and that is, this is the truth. But what is the truth? The truth is a God become weak, loving, and dying for the people who oppose him, dying forgiving them.
Tim Keller, “Reason for God,” in The Explorer, www.veritas.org/explorer/fall2008.html#story1
Oh yes, atheists will bring up the 5 or so abortionists that have been murdered over the last ten years (I'm not suggesting that that's ok). And some will go back a millennia to rant about the crusades and inquisitions (I'm not suggesting that those were ok). Anybody with a brain knows that those behaviours are impossible to square with the teachings of Jesus. So the question becomes, Why aren’t there Christian terrorists? Here’s one explanation.
“If your fundamental [world-view] is based upon a man dying on the cross for his enemies,
If the very heart of your self-image and your religion is a man praying for his enemies as he died for them, sacrificing for them, loving them.
If that sinks into your heart of hearts, it’s going to produce the kind of life that the early Christians produced - the most inclusive possible life out of the most exclusive claim - and that is, this is the truth. But what is the truth? The truth is a God become weak, loving, and dying for the people who oppose him, dying forgiving them.
Tim Keller, “Reason for God,” in The Explorer, www.veritas.org/explorer/fall2008.html#story1
If God . . .
If the salvation of our soul is the most important event, and
If the preparation of our soul for eternity is the most important task, then
The “problem” of suffering, becomes the “proper use of suffering,” for
God uses the suffering that is experienced in this fallen and dying world to change us and shape us into Christlikeness and the readying of us for our existence in eternity.
If the preparation of our soul for eternity is the most important task, then
The “problem” of suffering, becomes the “proper use of suffering,” for
God uses the suffering that is experienced in this fallen and dying world to change us and shape us into Christlikeness and the readying of us for our existence in eternity.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thoughts on Hell
Luke 16:24-31 - Hell is being the way we are now - forever. Notice that the rich man is still ordering Lazarus around, still seeing Lazarus as inferior.
Atheists rant about the horrors of hell but never seek the beauty of heaven. Atheists recoil with feigned shock at a God of Justice while sneering at His love which compels Him to cancel their debt at His own expense.
Atheists rant about the horrors of hell but never seek the beauty of heaven. Atheists recoil with feigned shock at a God of Justice while sneering at His love which compels Him to cancel their debt at His own expense.
Bear Accused of Murder
The gruesome murder of one Russian and the attempted murder of another by an ice skating bear has led to calls for a ban on skates, says Russian official. The official, who asked to remain anonymous said, “This would not have happened if bears were not allowed to wield sharp steel blades, four of them at a time, no less.”
The family of the man who died, Vladimir Kutyurkocoff, who own the largest skate making plant in Russia retorted, “Skates don’t kill people, you idiot. Bears kill people!”
The family of the man who died, Vladimir Kutyurkocoff, who own the largest skate making plant in Russia retorted, “Skates don’t kill people, you idiot. Bears kill people!”
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
British astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle
British astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle
Dawkins Does Standup
The more that I read atheist Richard Dawkins the more convinced I am that he, in many, many places is attempting to inject levity into his bile spewing books. Seriously! I think this guy is trying to rehearse for some future Standup Comedy Routine. I want to touch on just a couple examples.
The first is, Dawkins complains that he finds the Bible to be disjointed.
Ha! Do you get it? “The Bible appears disjointed!” No? Well, he is British after all. Their humour is a bit off for those of us in North America. But it’s still pretty funny if you’ve had enough coffee. I mean, the Bible is a collection of sixty-six (66) documents, written over a period of a thousand years. It was written by people like fishermen, tent-makers, kings, shepherds, doctors and tax collectors and some very strange prophets. They were written when these people were gloriously happy and desperately sad. They were written just after victory and just after defeat. Yes the prophecies are miraculous and the connections to Jesus from Genesis to Revelation are cohesive and awe inspiring, but Dawkins is unable to even know that thread exists.
So here we have Richard Dawkins attempting to shatter Christianity’s foundations by proclaiming, [The Bible is] “a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjoined documents” I mean, c’mon, that observation has to be a joke. Ok, so maybe it’s not his best stuff, but still . . . How about this?
In one of his books, Dawkins does this schtick where he pretends to be God. In the “God Delusion,” Dawkins is talking about how Theologians claim the ability to interpret the Bible and he says (I’ll do it in a low, booming God-like voice)
“They cannot get away with it!”
Isn’t that good? Priceless really. Richard Dawkins is talking to those most skilled in their specialty, not his specialty, not someone else’s craft but their specialty and he in effect says,
“I won’t allow it!” I’m putting my foot down on what Theologians can and cannot say about the Bible.”
While grandiosity has always been a charge levelled at atheists, this bit of humour on the part of Dawkins really does take it to a whole new level. A hilarious level if you will. Terry Eagleton, in his review of Dawkins’ The God Delusion, states, “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”
Still not convinced that Richard Dawkins is trying to be a comedian? Check this out.
Atheists have been complaining about the bad press that they’ve been getting over the last - um, forever. For some reason, people tend to see them as arrogant, raging, prideful and aloof. Because of that, atheists have been looking to their fearless leaders for some tips on turning this around. What’s Dawkins’ solution? Get ready now ‘cause this really is funny. Dawkins says,
“Let’s go out into the world and publically identify ourselves Brights!”
C’mon now, even if you’re the most miserable atheist that has ever evolved, you have to admit, That’s Funny! I mean, have you ever wondered what kind of a person needs other people to think of h/himself as a Bright (it means intelligent - specifically, more intelligent that you)? And what kind of a person publicly calls himself that in order to project a more humble, softer, more pleasing and acceptable exterior no less? To send the message that atheists aren’t those who look down their noses on others, Richard Dawkins says to his followers, “Tell them, “I’m a Bright, and you’re not.””
Don’t tell me he didn’t mean that as a joke. Or perhaps he means that the joke is on his atheist followers. After all, once you become as cynical as Richard Dawkins, it becomes almost impossible to differentiate on whom you confer your cynicism. Just ask the three people who’ve been married to him.
. So here we have this man who is either not able to know, or who is pretending to not know that he doesn't have the right to dictate to scholars what they can and cannot say about their own field of study.
. Here we have Richard the Great telling his followers to do the very thing that will make non atheists think even less of sceptics than they already do.
. Here we have someone pretending to be a historical scholar who is either not able to know, or who is pretending to not know the difference between symbolic and literal phrases in the Bible. He even seems to not be able to differentiate between metaphor, irony, or hyperbole. Really, if Richard Dawkins can’t say, this is where a poem ends and a moral directive begins, if he can’t understand that a political diatribe just can’t be mixed with romantic literature, and if finding these variations in genre within the same book comes off as disjointed and difficult to understand for him, then perhaps he should simply stick to biology and leave the Bible completely alone.
Why should he do this? Because the Bible has nothing to say to Richard Dawkins. The Bible is for spiritual seekers. It is not for those who mock and deride those humble enough to admit that they need help
The first is, Dawkins complains that he finds the Bible to be disjointed.
Ha! Do you get it? “The Bible appears disjointed!” No? Well, he is British after all. Their humour is a bit off for those of us in North America. But it’s still pretty funny if you’ve had enough coffee. I mean, the Bible is a collection of sixty-six (66) documents, written over a period of a thousand years. It was written by people like fishermen, tent-makers, kings, shepherds, doctors and tax collectors and some very strange prophets. They were written when these people were gloriously happy and desperately sad. They were written just after victory and just after defeat. Yes the prophecies are miraculous and the connections to Jesus from Genesis to Revelation are cohesive and awe inspiring, but Dawkins is unable to even know that thread exists.
So here we have Richard Dawkins attempting to shatter Christianity’s foundations by proclaiming, [The Bible is] “a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjoined documents” I mean, c’mon, that observation has to be a joke. Ok, so maybe it’s not his best stuff, but still . . . How about this?
In one of his books, Dawkins does this schtick where he pretends to be God. In the “God Delusion,” Dawkins is talking about how Theologians claim the ability to interpret the Bible and he says (I’ll do it in a low, booming God-like voice)
“They cannot get away with it!”
Isn’t that good? Priceless really. Richard Dawkins is talking to those most skilled in their specialty, not his specialty, not someone else’s craft but their specialty and he in effect says,
“I won’t allow it!” I’m putting my foot down on what Theologians can and cannot say about the Bible.”
While grandiosity has always been a charge levelled at atheists, this bit of humour on the part of Dawkins really does take it to a whole new level. A hilarious level if you will. Terry Eagleton, in his review of Dawkins’ The God Delusion, states, “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”
Still not convinced that Richard Dawkins is trying to be a comedian? Check this out.
Atheists have been complaining about the bad press that they’ve been getting over the last - um, forever. For some reason, people tend to see them as arrogant, raging, prideful and aloof. Because of that, atheists have been looking to their fearless leaders for some tips on turning this around. What’s Dawkins’ solution? Get ready now ‘cause this really is funny. Dawkins says,
“Let’s go out into the world and publically identify ourselves Brights!”
C’mon now, even if you’re the most miserable atheist that has ever evolved, you have to admit, That’s Funny! I mean, have you ever wondered what kind of a person needs other people to think of h/himself as a Bright (it means intelligent - specifically, more intelligent that you)? And what kind of a person publicly calls himself that in order to project a more humble, softer, more pleasing and acceptable exterior no less? To send the message that atheists aren’t those who look down their noses on others, Richard Dawkins says to his followers, “Tell them, “I’m a Bright, and you’re not.””
Don’t tell me he didn’t mean that as a joke. Or perhaps he means that the joke is on his atheist followers. After all, once you become as cynical as Richard Dawkins, it becomes almost impossible to differentiate on whom you confer your cynicism. Just ask the three people who’ve been married to him.
. So here we have this man who is either not able to know, or who is pretending to not know that he doesn't have the right to dictate to scholars what they can and cannot say about their own field of study.
. Here we have Richard the Great telling his followers to do the very thing that will make non atheists think even less of sceptics than they already do.
. Here we have someone pretending to be a historical scholar who is either not able to know, or who is pretending to not know the difference between symbolic and literal phrases in the Bible. He even seems to not be able to differentiate between metaphor, irony, or hyperbole. Really, if Richard Dawkins can’t say, this is where a poem ends and a moral directive begins, if he can’t understand that a political diatribe just can’t be mixed with romantic literature, and if finding these variations in genre within the same book comes off as disjointed and difficult to understand for him, then perhaps he should simply stick to biology and leave the Bible completely alone.
Why should he do this? Because the Bible has nothing to say to Richard Dawkins. The Bible is for spiritual seekers. It is not for those who mock and deride those humble enough to admit that they need help
Thursday, October 22, 2009
"God is Back"
That's the title of a new book by atheist author Adrian Wooldridge. In his wide ranging reseach Wooldridge found that secular Europe is fast becoming isolated in a world-wide surge of Christianity.
"I must say I have more respect, I felt more warmth for religion after doing research for the book, partly because of the people I came across, such as the Pentecostal pastor in Philadelphia who has done the most amazing work dealing with crack cocaine. It did strike me that religious people have done amazing work to help the poor. But where are the atheists doing exactly same thing?"
Atheist author Adrian Wooldridge - “God is Back”
"I must say I have more respect, I felt more warmth for religion after doing research for the book, partly because of the people I came across, such as the Pentecostal pastor in Philadelphia who has done the most amazing work dealing with crack cocaine. It did strike me that religious people have done amazing work to help the poor. But where are the atheists doing exactly same thing?"
Atheist author Adrian Wooldridge - “God is Back”
Sale Ends Tuesday!
We've all heard warnings like that. "Hurry in," they tell us. "This offer won't last."
In another dimension, just beyond the reach of our senses, another sale is on now.
For those who want to pay full price for their sins (eternity in hell) that opportunity remains open until your last heartbeat.
However, for a limited time only, you and anyone and everyone who wants can experience the sale of a lifetime.
In fact, at absolutely no charge to you, you can have eternity in paradise.
But don’t wait. This Offer Ends Quickly with little or no warning.
In another dimension, just beyond the reach of our senses, another sale is on now.
For those who want to pay full price for their sins (eternity in hell) that opportunity remains open until your last heartbeat.
However, for a limited time only, you and anyone and everyone who wants can experience the sale of a lifetime.
In fact, at absolutely no charge to you, you can have eternity in paradise.
But don’t wait. This Offer Ends Quickly with little or no warning.
Why Me?
When we encounter the consequences of this fallen world, be it death or disease or violence, regardless of the cause, God will give that suffering or difficulty meaning and context and purpose. In fact, if you look carefully (Christians only), you’ll see that the difficulty that you’re experiencing has been exquisitely designed to root out the most disgusting aspects of your character.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
God's Sovereignty
When Joseph was sold into slavery, it wasn’t some random event. It was part of God’s sovereign plan, as are the things that happen to us. After a couple decades of real hardship, Joseph said to the brothers that had sold him, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”
God meant for it to happen, and He meant for good to come out of it.
What atheists cannot stand is the fact that God’s plan for the redemption of the universe takes priority over our feelings.
The beauty of Joseph’s story is that it shows two things:
. Sin, satan and suffering NEVER have the last word
. The things that happen to us are NEVER an indication of the level of God’s love for us.
God meant for it to happen, and He meant for good to come out of it.
What atheists cannot stand is the fact that God’s plan for the redemption of the universe takes priority over our feelings.
The beauty of Joseph’s story is that it shows two things:
. Sin, satan and suffering NEVER have the last word
. The things that happen to us are NEVER an indication of the level of God’s love for us.
“I have set you an example”
I suppose I return to this setting too often. It’s just that I find it so powerful. In it we find Jesus, taking the lowest job in that culture, too lowly for a Jew and one reserved for Gentile servants. On the night before He was crucified, Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, even the feet of Judas, the man who within a couple hours would betray Jesus to His executioners. And when He finished, Jesus said to His disciples, “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.”
Oh my, does our world ever need this in the worst way. Our world needs us to be people who willingly and with a set purpose of mind, help others wash the crud of the world from their bodies and minds. The hatred, the anger, the bitterness and resentments. I work with so many Christians who have been pushed and pushed and pushed by violent or mean spirited family members. And the world in all its wisdom says,
“Push back.”
“Don’t let her get away with that.”
“He doesn’t deserve to be forgiven.”
I see those who have forgotten that freedom to live an abundant life is not found in gossip, or adultery, or in lying or cheating. People have become so accustomed to the sin that’s all about us that they, almost without thinking, begin to believe that divorce and remarriage really isn’t that big a deal. Those people start to believe that self-love is a good thing, that stepping on others is required to get ahead. We start to believe that entering the kind of relationships where layer after layer of emotional protection is required, is to be expected.
Instead, as Jesus showed us, we need to sit down with others, to humble ourselves even before our enemies and bless them. To encourage them. To speak the truth in love. Ah me, I fail so dreadfully at this. I too so easily fall into the pattern of returning fire with fire. We need to not be overcome with evil but overcome evil with good. If my King could die for me, surely I can serve others for Him.
Oh my, does our world ever need this in the worst way. Our world needs us to be people who willingly and with a set purpose of mind, help others wash the crud of the world from their bodies and minds. The hatred, the anger, the bitterness and resentments. I work with so many Christians who have been pushed and pushed and pushed by violent or mean spirited family members. And the world in all its wisdom says,
“Push back.”
“Don’t let her get away with that.”
“He doesn’t deserve to be forgiven.”
I see those who have forgotten that freedom to live an abundant life is not found in gossip, or adultery, or in lying or cheating. People have become so accustomed to the sin that’s all about us that they, almost without thinking, begin to believe that divorce and remarriage really isn’t that big a deal. Those people start to believe that self-love is a good thing, that stepping on others is required to get ahead. We start to believe that entering the kind of relationships where layer after layer of emotional protection is required, is to be expected.
Instead, as Jesus showed us, we need to sit down with others, to humble ourselves even before our enemies and bless them. To encourage them. To speak the truth in love. Ah me, I fail so dreadfully at this. I too so easily fall into the pattern of returning fire with fire. We need to not be overcome with evil but overcome evil with good. If my King could die for me, surely I can serve others for Him.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Talkin 'bout my generation
I grew up in a generation that believed, we actually believed that drug induced feelings of love was the real thing.
I grew up in a generation that believed, we really believed that “if you can’t be with the one you love baby, then love the one you’re with.”
My generation set the stage for the scourge of HIV.
We believed that what we were doing was right and good for society.
I find that terribly embarrassing.
I grew up in a generation that believed, we really believed that “if you can’t be with the one you love baby, then love the one you’re with.”
My generation set the stage for the scourge of HIV.
We believed that what we were doing was right and good for society.
I find that terribly embarrassing.
That Does It For Me!
I think it was Rab who said something like, “If God gave me irrefutable proof of his existence, I’d believe.”
Regardless of whether that statement is believable (it isn't), we do have cases where that has happened. The Apostle Paul is just one example. Jesus' family is another. Of course there are hundreds of others, but the point I want to make is, or, the question that I want to ask is, How would you know if someone claimed that he’d had irrefutable proof? What would be the best indication that they weren’t lying?
Of course, you can’t know for sure, but the lives of Paul and Jesus' brother James give us a pretty good indication of what to look for. Everyone in the Bible, who is described as having encountered God, demonstrated a dramatic transformation in character and in the direction of their life’s goals. At the very least, that’s what one would expect. Again, none are documented better than the lives of Paul and James.
Paul, the zealot, the Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Educated - the top of his profession. Listen to how Paul describes it. “If anyone else thinks he has reason to put confidence in the flesh. I have more: circumcised on the eight day, of the people of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.”
Here was someone that hated Christianity even more than Ditchens and their followers. In a relentless and tenacious hatred of those who followed Jesus, Paul tortured and killed those he believed were making the world a worse place in which to live.
James, and indeed his mother and siblings all thought Jesus was insane to be telling people that He was God incarnate. Yet, after the resurrection, we find all of them now part of the Christian camp.
After meeting Jesus face to face, both Paul and James began to worship Him whom they had both denied. Both were willing to die for the claim that they’d experienced the risen Christ. Both gave their lives to the cause of Christ, to minister to the poor and the sick and the outcast, just as Jesus had done during His time on earth.
Anybody can lie with words, like the Mormon Joseph Smith.
Anyone can be mistaken, like Rab. He wouldn’t become a Christian upon “seeing” Jesus. Atheists don’t believe in miracles and Rab would call his "irrefutable proof" a hallucination or something.
People whose lives dramatically change however, require further investigation. Dying to self in order to live for others requires some type of intervention from one's Creator. That is why, having experienced my own transformation under the Spirit and Power of the risen Jesus, a transformation that is similar to that of the first witnesses to the risen Christ, I am all the more sure of Him in whom I have believed. Irrefutable Proof? The risen and living Jesus does it for me.
Regardless of whether that statement is believable (it isn't), we do have cases where that has happened. The Apostle Paul is just one example. Jesus' family is another. Of course there are hundreds of others, but the point I want to make is, or, the question that I want to ask is, How would you know if someone claimed that he’d had irrefutable proof? What would be the best indication that they weren’t lying?
Of course, you can’t know for sure, but the lives of Paul and Jesus' brother James give us a pretty good indication of what to look for. Everyone in the Bible, who is described as having encountered God, demonstrated a dramatic transformation in character and in the direction of their life’s goals. At the very least, that’s what one would expect. Again, none are documented better than the lives of Paul and James.
Paul, the zealot, the Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Educated - the top of his profession. Listen to how Paul describes it. “If anyone else thinks he has reason to put confidence in the flesh. I have more: circumcised on the eight day, of the people of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.”
Here was someone that hated Christianity even more than Ditchens and their followers. In a relentless and tenacious hatred of those who followed Jesus, Paul tortured and killed those he believed were making the world a worse place in which to live.
James, and indeed his mother and siblings all thought Jesus was insane to be telling people that He was God incarnate. Yet, after the resurrection, we find all of them now part of the Christian camp.
After meeting Jesus face to face, both Paul and James began to worship Him whom they had both denied. Both were willing to die for the claim that they’d experienced the risen Christ. Both gave their lives to the cause of Christ, to minister to the poor and the sick and the outcast, just as Jesus had done during His time on earth.
Anybody can lie with words, like the Mormon Joseph Smith.
Anyone can be mistaken, like Rab. He wouldn’t become a Christian upon “seeing” Jesus. Atheists don’t believe in miracles and Rab would call his "irrefutable proof" a hallucination or something.
People whose lives dramatically change however, require further investigation. Dying to self in order to live for others requires some type of intervention from one's Creator. That is why, having experienced my own transformation under the Spirit and Power of the risen Jesus, a transformation that is similar to that of the first witnesses to the risen Christ, I am all the more sure of Him in whom I have believed. Irrefutable Proof? The risen and living Jesus does it for me.
Atheists Get It Right Again
Over the years I’ve noticed that atheists, from time to time express a more accurate understanding of Creator God than do many Christians. For example, asking the question, “How can a loving God allow suffering in the world,” is not just a question, it’s one of the most important questions ever. This morning it just dawned on me that atheists have got it right again. As it turns out, atheists also draw attention to the correct amount of horror, fear and dread regarding Creator God.
I used to think that the term “fear of the Lord” meant respect; like having respect for fire. At the very least that’s what it means. I’m not so sure anymore that's all that it means. In fact that kind of attitude might just be another example of the human condition. Our pride keeps us from experiencing a sense of awe when contemplating our Creator, and we’re too arrogant to experience the terror that is appropriate in the presence of a Being who is capable of sending us to eternal death.
Atheists at least get the latter issue. They are shocked that any God could, and worse, would keep them from entering heaven. Yet we can’t deny the fact that if the Bible is a revelation from God, to us, about Himself, fear is one of the emotions that He wishes to evoke in us. And, if what the Bible teaches about heaven and hell is correct, then fear is an appropriate response for those who choose to remain enemies of their Creator.
Now, here is where Christians part ways with the atheist. For Christians we will never experience the wrath of God; the wrath that we are told to fear. For atheists on the other hand, the future looks grim. The horror and the terror they attribute to this “monster” will be fully realised at the end of the atheist's short, short time on earth.
I used to think that the term “fear of the Lord” meant respect; like having respect for fire. At the very least that’s what it means. I’m not so sure anymore that's all that it means. In fact that kind of attitude might just be another example of the human condition. Our pride keeps us from experiencing a sense of awe when contemplating our Creator, and we’re too arrogant to experience the terror that is appropriate in the presence of a Being who is capable of sending us to eternal death.
Atheists at least get the latter issue. They are shocked that any God could, and worse, would keep them from entering heaven. Yet we can’t deny the fact that if the Bible is a revelation from God, to us, about Himself, fear is one of the emotions that He wishes to evoke in us. And, if what the Bible teaches about heaven and hell is correct, then fear is an appropriate response for those who choose to remain enemies of their Creator.
Now, here is where Christians part ways with the atheist. For Christians we will never experience the wrath of God; the wrath that we are told to fear. For atheists on the other hand, the future looks grim. The horror and the terror they attribute to this “monster” will be fully realised at the end of the atheist's short, short time on earth.
Monday, October 19, 2009
It Doesn’t Make Any Sense!
1) Some people believe In God - He exists, He is Sovereign, He is a Creator etc.
2) Some people believe in beliefs about God - He is loving, He is kind, He is merciful
We also have beliefs about those beliefs about God
- It wouldn’t be loving to allow my child to die
- It wouldn’t be kind to allow my partner to leave me
- It wouldn’t be merciful to let those I love go to hell
Those beliefs about love and kindness and mercy become our beliefs about God.
. A loving God wouldn’t allow my child to die
. A kind God wouldn’t allow my partner to leave me
. A merciful God will make those I love become Christians
So when our child dies or when our husband / wife leaves, or when those we love remain hostile and angry toward God, some people come to a conclusion NOT that their beliefs about God were wrong, but that their belief in the existence of God must be wrong.
Now, God may NOT exist, but His existence is not, will not and indeed cannot be proven based on the twists and turns of life’s journey.
2) Some people believe in beliefs about God - He is loving, He is kind, He is merciful
We also have beliefs about those beliefs about God
- It wouldn’t be loving to allow my child to die
- It wouldn’t be kind to allow my partner to leave me
- It wouldn’t be merciful to let those I love go to hell
Those beliefs about love and kindness and mercy become our beliefs about God.
. A loving God wouldn’t allow my child to die
. A kind God wouldn’t allow my partner to leave me
. A merciful God will make those I love become Christians
So when our child dies or when our husband / wife leaves, or when those we love remain hostile and angry toward God, some people come to a conclusion NOT that their beliefs about God were wrong, but that their belief in the existence of God must be wrong.
Now, God may NOT exist, but His existence is not, will not and indeed cannot be proven based on the twists and turns of life’s journey.
SPAM Heals!
Many have already seen the atheist version of a clever person praying to a can of SPAM and lo and behold, he began to feel better. Even a simpleton qualifies for genius in the atheist camp.
Dawkins on Faith
“Faith is the great cop-out the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. Faith is not allowed to justify itself by argument.”
Richard Dawkins, “A Devil’s Chaplain,” 117
Maybe we should ask Dawkins what evidence he has for this definition of faith. What defence can he mount for such an ignorant statement? Does he know of anyone but other atheists who would say something so stupid? Does he have any evidence at all? Does he cite any authorities on faith?
Of course if a Christian cites an authority, our evidence is called a fallacy because it comes FROM an authority. There is not a single group of people on the planet who have so carefully guarded their beliefs from scrutiny as have atheists.
As it turns out, Richard Dawkins is simply presenting his own twisted, and bigoted ideas on faith. Millions of atheists read this crud and that is the impression of Christian faith with which atheists live.
Richard Dawkins, “A Devil’s Chaplain,” 117
Maybe we should ask Dawkins what evidence he has for this definition of faith. What defence can he mount for such an ignorant statement? Does he know of anyone but other atheists who would say something so stupid? Does he have any evidence at all? Does he cite any authorities on faith?
Of course if a Christian cites an authority, our evidence is called a fallacy because it comes FROM an authority. There is not a single group of people on the planet who have so carefully guarded their beliefs from scrutiny as have atheists.
As it turns out, Richard Dawkins is simply presenting his own twisted, and bigoted ideas on faith. Millions of atheists read this crud and that is the impression of Christian faith with which atheists live.
Are You Worthy of Love?
No matter who you are
No matter what you’ve done
No matter what other people think about you
No matter what you think about yourself
God - Loves - YOU
No matter what you’ve done
No matter what other people think about you
No matter what you think about yourself
God - Loves - YOU
Sunday, October 18, 2009
If We’re Born Good
If we’re born good, as atheists would have us believe, why do we have to teach our toddlers to be good?
If we’re born good:
Why do you have to teach your children to not lie?
Is it because society has taught your two-year-old to live a deceitful life?
Why do you have to teach your children to not hit?
Is it because society has taught your two-year-old to be violent?
Why do you have to teach your children to not take what doesn’t belong to them?
Is it because corporate society has taught your two-year-old to be greedy?
Just wondering.
If we’re born good:
Why do you have to teach your children to not lie?
Is it because society has taught your two-year-old to live a deceitful life?
Why do you have to teach your children to not hit?
Is it because society has taught your two-year-old to be violent?
Why do you have to teach your children to not take what doesn’t belong to them?
Is it because corporate society has taught your two-year-old to be greedy?
Just wondering.
Mohammed pads his rhetoric
I read something interesting today. The length of the Koran could be cut by almost 50%, if we took Mohammed's 27 versions of the Exodus from Egypt, and his 28 versions of Noah's Ark, all written in the first 57 chapters of the Koran, and reduced them to one account each.
And, I gotta tell ya, if I, as all good muslims do, had to memorise the Koran, one version of each would be plenty. Especially since most muslims don't know they're repeating the same story over and over and over again because most muslim don't know Arabic, the language in which the Koran is to be memorised.
And, I gotta tell ya, if I, as all good muslims do, had to memorise the Koran, one version of each would be plenty. Especially since most muslims don't know they're repeating the same story over and over and over again because most muslim don't know Arabic, the language in which the Koran is to be memorised.
Joseph Smith
"Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet...When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408, 409)
- Joseph Smith: founder, prophet, seer, and revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
- Joseph Smith: founder, prophet, seer, and revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
I'm better than you.
Have you ever wondered what sets you apart from those who take part in genocides? Have you ever wondered if, had you been born in that part of the world, having been fed the same hatred from an early age, experienced the same injustice, do you think that you’d say "No," instead of taking part in the killing of your neighbours?
And if you think that you’d be different than those people, if, like many atheists, you think that you're better than those people, just exactly what is wrong with you?
And if you think that you’d be different than those people, if, like many atheists, you think that you're better than those people, just exactly what is wrong with you?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
All Charges Against Dawkins Dropped
The greatest law of man - Do Not Murder
The greatest crime against man - To kill another human being (unless she’s small and powerless).
The Greatest Law of God - Love the Lord your God with all your Heart, Soul, Mind, and Strength.
The Greatest Crime Against God - Deny His existence and teach others to disbelieve as well.
What atheists ignore is that God is the source of all life and all joy. When the human soul rebels against God, it loses its life. You see, a human being is body as well as soul. The soul is the “I” for which Darwinists have no explanation other than to say that it must be an illusion. Regardless of this darkened thinking, we are single creatures, not double: we are not body and soul as much as we are embodied soul, or a soul inhabiting ITs body.
So for those like Richard Dawkins and all other atheists who take the gift and deny the Giver, the body must share in the soul's inevitable consequence. Hell is not a consequence that is external and imposed, like a ticket for speeding. Neither does it come from a capricious God, like a parent saying “No, I’m too tired,” after first promising to take a young child to the park. Eternity in hell is as natural and unavoidable as broken bones from running in front of a fast moving vehicle, or a sick stomach from eating too much candy on Halloween. It can not only be predicted, it IS predicted well in advance. Going to hell is nothing more than reaching the end of a road upon which one has been travelling for the duration of one’s time on earth.
However, it need not be that way. Jesus died for everyone, even for those who hate Him, revile Him, curse Him and encourage others to deny His very existence. At any point between now and the moment of your death, all that one has to do is admit that you’ve chosen the wrong path, plead guilty if you will, and ask for the chance to start again. At that moment any atheist who so chooses, including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or even you can be completely forgiven, and given a new start at life. All charges will be dropped. Hell and the wrath of God are not something that you will ever need to face. Even Richard Dawkins does not need to spend eternity in hell. He can live free now, and remain free for eternity.
I had one atheist tell me, "It's too good to be true." Well, I know what he means. The reality however is that it's too good to NOT be true. There isn't a human on earth who would have, could have or did, invent this. Grace is a concept that is totally foreign to the human mind. Why? Because we want to believe that we can save ourselves.
Aheists positively hate the concept of grace. Not understanding that they are included in any removal of grace for the guilty, atheists rage against the idea that someone who is guilty should be able to “get off scott free.” Thinking of someone who they deem to be a much worse individual than themselves, atheists demand JUSTICE for the guilty. Here’s what one sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, self-righteous atheist said at the thought that a person more “guilty” than herself should be pronounced “not guilty” by God.
“All those twisted bastards have to do is say, "Heavenly Father, in Jesus' name I repent of my sins and open my heart to let Jesus come inside of me. I come before you that I’m guilty. I admit to you that I’ve done horrible things to many people. Jesus, You are my Lord and Savior and even though I’m a degenerate scum, I believe you died for my sins and you were raised from the dead. Fill me with your Holy Spirit. Thank You Father for saving me in Jesus' name. Amen.” See. Anybody gets to go to heaven. You accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior and whatever you’ve done, it no longer matters. Ignoring that you might have even killed a child? NOT IMPORTANT. Because according to the New Testament, all you have to do is ask for forgiveness and BAMMO. Get out of hell free card. FUCK THAT!”
If you're trying to look it up, it comes from Fiery, Homeschooler's blog.
Rather than “it no longer matters [what you’ve done],” atheists fail to comprehend that what you’ve done matters so much that it cost Jesus His very life to cover the cost of your sins. Because they don’t get that, the concept of grace is an abomination to the atheist mind. They seem unable to think far enough ahead to a time when more than anything else in the world, they will cry out for grace, but it will be too late.
In a cycle of fallacy and fantasy, like the woman above, atheists rage at the thought of justice not being carried out against those they deem to be guilty. On the other hand, atheists rage at the thought of being punished for their guilt. How primitive! How backward! Being willing to punish oneself just to ensure that someone you dislike is also punished seems so stone-age, so childish, so - atheist.
In a cycle of fallacy and fantasy, atheists rage whenever they feel exposed to the presence of God, even to the mention of His name. Yet, they also rage at God’s promise to give them their deepest desire. In just a few moments He’s going to leave them absolutely alone for eternity.
As C. S. Lewis once said, “We all want progress, but progress means getting nearer to the place to which you want to go. If a person has taken a wrong turn, then going further down that path will get you no closer to where you want to be. In such a case, the person who turns around the soonest and heads in the correct direction is the most progressive person.”
Atheists, raging at the thought of mercy. Atheists, proclaiming loudly that they don’t need mercy. Atheists, stuck in a cycle of fallacy and fantasy.
The greatest crime against man - To kill another human being (unless she’s small and powerless).
The Greatest Law of God - Love the Lord your God with all your Heart, Soul, Mind, and Strength.
The Greatest Crime Against God - Deny His existence and teach others to disbelieve as well.
What atheists ignore is that God is the source of all life and all joy. When the human soul rebels against God, it loses its life. You see, a human being is body as well as soul. The soul is the “I” for which Darwinists have no explanation other than to say that it must be an illusion. Regardless of this darkened thinking, we are single creatures, not double: we are not body and soul as much as we are embodied soul, or a soul inhabiting ITs body.
So for those like Richard Dawkins and all other atheists who take the gift and deny the Giver, the body must share in the soul's inevitable consequence. Hell is not a consequence that is external and imposed, like a ticket for speeding. Neither does it come from a capricious God, like a parent saying “No, I’m too tired,” after first promising to take a young child to the park. Eternity in hell is as natural and unavoidable as broken bones from running in front of a fast moving vehicle, or a sick stomach from eating too much candy on Halloween. It can not only be predicted, it IS predicted well in advance. Going to hell is nothing more than reaching the end of a road upon which one has been travelling for the duration of one’s time on earth.
However, it need not be that way. Jesus died for everyone, even for those who hate Him, revile Him, curse Him and encourage others to deny His very existence. At any point between now and the moment of your death, all that one has to do is admit that you’ve chosen the wrong path, plead guilty if you will, and ask for the chance to start again. At that moment any atheist who so chooses, including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or even you can be completely forgiven, and given a new start at life. All charges will be dropped. Hell and the wrath of God are not something that you will ever need to face. Even Richard Dawkins does not need to spend eternity in hell. He can live free now, and remain free for eternity.
I had one atheist tell me, "It's too good to be true." Well, I know what he means. The reality however is that it's too good to NOT be true. There isn't a human on earth who would have, could have or did, invent this. Grace is a concept that is totally foreign to the human mind. Why? Because we want to believe that we can save ourselves.
Aheists positively hate the concept of grace. Not understanding that they are included in any removal of grace for the guilty, atheists rage against the idea that someone who is guilty should be able to “get off scott free.” Thinking of someone who they deem to be a much worse individual than themselves, atheists demand JUSTICE for the guilty. Here’s what one sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, self-righteous atheist said at the thought that a person more “guilty” than herself should be pronounced “not guilty” by God.
“All those twisted bastards have to do is say, "Heavenly Father, in Jesus' name I repent of my sins and open my heart to let Jesus come inside of me. I come before you that I’m guilty. I admit to you that I’ve done horrible things to many people. Jesus, You are my Lord and Savior and even though I’m a degenerate scum, I believe you died for my sins and you were raised from the dead. Fill me with your Holy Spirit. Thank You Father for saving me in Jesus' name. Amen.” See. Anybody gets to go to heaven. You accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior and whatever you’ve done, it no longer matters. Ignoring that you might have even killed a child? NOT IMPORTANT. Because according to the New Testament, all you have to do is ask for forgiveness and BAMMO. Get out of hell free card. FUCK THAT!”
If you're trying to look it up, it comes from Fiery, Homeschooler's blog.
Rather than “it no longer matters [what you’ve done],” atheists fail to comprehend that what you’ve done matters so much that it cost Jesus His very life to cover the cost of your sins. Because they don’t get that, the concept of grace is an abomination to the atheist mind. They seem unable to think far enough ahead to a time when more than anything else in the world, they will cry out for grace, but it will be too late.
In a cycle of fallacy and fantasy, like the woman above, atheists rage at the thought of justice not being carried out against those they deem to be guilty. On the other hand, atheists rage at the thought of being punished for their guilt. How primitive! How backward! Being willing to punish oneself just to ensure that someone you dislike is also punished seems so stone-age, so childish, so - atheist.
In a cycle of fallacy and fantasy, atheists rage whenever they feel exposed to the presence of God, even to the mention of His name. Yet, they also rage at God’s promise to give them their deepest desire. In just a few moments He’s going to leave them absolutely alone for eternity.
As C. S. Lewis once said, “We all want progress, but progress means getting nearer to the place to which you want to go. If a person has taken a wrong turn, then going further down that path will get you no closer to where you want to be. In such a case, the person who turns around the soonest and heads in the correct direction is the most progressive person.”
Atheists, raging at the thought of mercy. Atheists, proclaiming loudly that they don’t need mercy. Atheists, stuck in a cycle of fallacy and fantasy.
Why Are You Judging Me?
Every once in awhile atheists will take a Christian to task for “judging” the atheist. Some of them will even say, “Look at Matthew 7:1.”
In a case like this, it’s context, context, context. Yes, Jesus is recorded as saying, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” This is true on many levels. One of the levels I see in counselling all the time. Those who judge others FEEL that others judge them just as harshly. So that’s one possibility that fits the secular paradigm.
Taken in context however, the meaning is not exactly as atheists would like it to be. While Jesus is saying that I have a plank in my eye, He is also recognising that my neighbour does indeed have a problem in his eye as well. Jesus is not telling us to not help others with moral problems. He’s saying in the process of helping others. We need to be aware of our own moral struggles - first. It’s a case of helping others while maintaining an attitude of, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
Now, while I’ve called Dawkins an idiot, and that’s flat out judging, just a few verses later Jesus is calling people pigs and dogs and wolves in sheep’s clothing. I’ll admit to being wrong in calling Dawkins an idiot, but obviously Jesus is not telling us to not point out what is wrong.
As well, we need to ask the atheist, “What do you mean when you say, “Don’t judge”?” Because the atheist is obviously judging me by telling me that I’m wrong to judge others. Of course the atheist could say, “Your God’s rules don’t apply to me,” and technically at least, s/he’s right. The atheist lives by h/her own rules and s/he makes them up as s/he goes.
Nevertheless, Jesus tells us to be discerning. He doesn’t say, “Don’t make any judgements.” He says to make right judgements, good judgements, judgements based on truth and not to be used as a tool for controlling others. I was called self-righteous this morning by an atheist and if that COULD be true, then that kind of judging would in deed be wrong. Romans 3:27 and Ephesians 2:8-9 touch on this subject. The only reason that an atheist would make this kind of judgement is because an atheist cannot conceive of holding to a moral truth without looking down on or judging someone who holds to a different moral standard. This is similar to differentiating between accepting someone’s sin and tolerating someone’s sin. To be tolerant means that I disagree with you BUT I will treat you with respect regardless. I believe that in most cases, when an atheist says she is tolerant, she really means that she accepts the other person’s sin as though it is not sin.
So, an atheist who gets upset at another person’s “truth” is a very strange creature. When atheists preach, “What’s right for you is right for you, and what’s right for me is right for me,” then they have no option but to allow others, including Christians to live their lives as they see fit. And if my judging others is wrong, then your judging me is also wrong.
In a case like this, it’s context, context, context. Yes, Jesus is recorded as saying, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” This is true on many levels. One of the levels I see in counselling all the time. Those who judge others FEEL that others judge them just as harshly. So that’s one possibility that fits the secular paradigm.
Taken in context however, the meaning is not exactly as atheists would like it to be. While Jesus is saying that I have a plank in my eye, He is also recognising that my neighbour does indeed have a problem in his eye as well. Jesus is not telling us to not help others with moral problems. He’s saying in the process of helping others. We need to be aware of our own moral struggles - first. It’s a case of helping others while maintaining an attitude of, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
Now, while I’ve called Dawkins an idiot, and that’s flat out judging, just a few verses later Jesus is calling people pigs and dogs and wolves in sheep’s clothing. I’ll admit to being wrong in calling Dawkins an idiot, but obviously Jesus is not telling us to not point out what is wrong.
As well, we need to ask the atheist, “What do you mean when you say, “Don’t judge”?” Because the atheist is obviously judging me by telling me that I’m wrong to judge others. Of course the atheist could say, “Your God’s rules don’t apply to me,” and technically at least, s/he’s right. The atheist lives by h/her own rules and s/he makes them up as s/he goes.
Nevertheless, Jesus tells us to be discerning. He doesn’t say, “Don’t make any judgements.” He says to make right judgements, good judgements, judgements based on truth and not to be used as a tool for controlling others. I was called self-righteous this morning by an atheist and if that COULD be true, then that kind of judging would in deed be wrong. Romans 3:27 and Ephesians 2:8-9 touch on this subject. The only reason that an atheist would make this kind of judgement is because an atheist cannot conceive of holding to a moral truth without looking down on or judging someone who holds to a different moral standard. This is similar to differentiating between accepting someone’s sin and tolerating someone’s sin. To be tolerant means that I disagree with you BUT I will treat you with respect regardless. I believe that in most cases, when an atheist says she is tolerant, she really means that she accepts the other person’s sin as though it is not sin.
So, an atheist who gets upset at another person’s “truth” is a very strange creature. When atheists preach, “What’s right for you is right for you, and what’s right for me is right for me,” then they have no option but to allow others, including Christians to live their lives as they see fit. And if my judging others is wrong, then your judging me is also wrong.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
You Like?
Killing of a woman, a shudra or an atheist is not sinful. Woman is an embodiment of the worst desires, hatred, deceit, jealously and bad character. Women should never be given freedom”. Bhagvad Gita (Manu 1X. 17 and V.47, 147). ...
Atheist Comics!
"The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from NOTHING"
Victor Stenger, "Has Science Found God?" (Free Inquiry), Vol. 19, No.1
The really funny part? Atheists are so desperate to rule out Creator God that they actually repeat foolishness like this. They actually believe, "Nothing created everything." Priceless!
One of the atheists snooping around here even said that the universe created itself. It's hard to know which is more appropriate, to laugh or to cry.
Victor Stenger, "Has Science Found God?" (Free Inquiry), Vol. 19, No.1
The really funny part? Atheists are so desperate to rule out Creator God that they actually repeat foolishness like this. They actually believe, "Nothing created everything." Priceless!
One of the atheists snooping around here even said that the universe created itself. It's hard to know which is more appropriate, to laugh or to cry.
Richard Dawkins Thinks You Are A Fool
. Richard Dawkins tells us that the unknown origins of the universe pose no problem for Darwin’s theory.
. Richard Dawkins tells us the origin of the universe really isn’t that difficult to comprehend.
. Richard Dawkins tells us that the “spontaneous arising” of DNA should not surprise us.
. Richard Dawkins tells us that “the magic of large numbers” makes anything possible.
. Richard Dawkins tells us that perhaps a billion planets in the universe host life.
. Richard Dawkins tells us his conjecture on the origins of life “completely demolishes” any need for design or designer to explain non-life turning into life.
Do any of these nonsensical statements embarrass his followers? I don’t think so.
The irony of Richard Dawkins believing that life arose from non-life in a primordial soup on planet earth is almost too much to contain without laughing out loud. What’s the irony you ask? The idea that it was a vast ocean or pre-biotic soup is not the result of specific and detailed evidence. It is in fact an idea that comes directly from the Bible. Noting this, mathematician Hubert Yockey, who is no fan of Richard says that Dawkins must be a religious fanatic to even suggest such a thing.
The comments above are just Richard Dawkins gambling that the majority of atheists are fools. Come to think about it, from a Biblical perspective that’s a sure bet.
Obviously he’s testing the waters to see just how far he can push their gullible nature. What follows however is what proves how serious Richard Dawkins is about his smoke and mirrors show.
A living system must do at least three things:
. It must be able to process energy
. It must be able to store information and
. It must be able to replicate.
Living things do this. Non living things don’t do this.
In my mind, Richard’s comment that there are a billion or more planets with life on them shows us several things.
. Insurmountable improbabilities pose no intellectual problems for this preeminent atheist.
. Richard Dawkins hates a God that he doesn’t believe in so much that his rage has absolutely clouded his judgement.
. Or Richard Dawkins is a hypocrite of first order, contradicting what he says with what he does. Before you say ‘O Rod, that’s just unfair,’compare this next comment of Dawkins with his adamant demand that there is no God (something that cannot be supported by current evidence), and that there is life on at least a billion planets (something else that cannot be supported by current evidence).
“As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence.”
That’s a comment that Dawkins levels at Christians but obviously lives out in his own life.
Now, if you love watching someone attempt to beat the odds, forget Las Vegas or Monte Carlo. It’s far more entertaining to let Richard Dawkins explain how life came about. To put the modern atheist’s supposition on origins in perspective, an atheist astronomer has calculated the following regarding our coming into being.
Penrose and Hawking have calculated that the odds of a life supporting universe such as ours, with it’s exquisitely finely tuned constants and quantities coming into being by chance or by accident to be one chance in 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.
Think about that for a few moments. It’s important!
The reality of those odds should hit you like a truck. Why? Because science states that anything greater than 10 ^ 50 is the same as impossible. On the one hand Hawking has said “If all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth were possible universes, and only one of those grains of sand was a universe that allowed for the existence of intelligent life, then that one grain of sand is the universe we inhabit. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
In the face of this evidence, why would Hawking continue to search for natural solutions? He has to. In order to maintain their dogmatic denial of God’s existence, atheists must believe that the impossible is possible.
Not to be outdone by Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins proposes that the following all came about via random chance.
There are eighty different types of amino acids.
Only twenty of them are found in living organisms.
According to evolutionary biologists, out of the eighty amino acids (that evolved from absolutely dead matter, remember, inert gases to be exact):
. The exact correct collection of amino acids were able to isolate themselves.
According to evolutionary biologists, these amino acids linked themselves together:
. In just the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules.
So what we’re faced with is the extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems. The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place. There is no known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems. All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules. Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed! There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes have never been known to produce information.
According to atheists, without any intelligence guiding the process, all the possible combinations regarding the beginnings of life just fell into place. Not only that but, as Richard knows, other molecules tend to react more readily with amino acids than amino acids react with each other. How did those extraneous molecules get eliminated? Just luck? Just time plus luck? Does Richard Dawkins have an answer? No, he doesn’t. Perhaps that’s why it irritates him so much when he meets Christians who appear to do the same thing. We tend to despise in others the flaws that we are dimly aware of in our own lives. Nevertheless, does it matter to him that he doesn’t have an answer? Apparently not. Dawkins says that - listen carefully because this is Dawkins at this best -
“Once the vital ingredient - some kind of genetic molecule - is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow.”
Well, yes, of course. So let’s not worry ourselves with how the vital ingredient got into place. It’s only the single most important step in all of biology. Let’s just skip along to the wonders of evolution shall we?
You see Dawkins must think you are a fool because as he knows, as improbable as a coded molecule simply appearing out of lifeless gases is, a coded molecule is not all that you need to make life. That “vital ingredient - that genetic molecule” being in place so that natural selection can follow is light years from what I’ve explained so far.
My question is, does that fact matter to you? And if not, why not?
Then there’s the issue of the coming together of an equal number of amino acids that are right and left-handed. Why?
. Only the left-handed amino acids work in living matter.
. Only these select left-handed amino acids must link together in the right sequence.
. The correct kind of chemical bonds - meaning peptide bonds must come into existence.
. These have to form themselves (without any guiding principle, remember) into the correct position.
. Only then will the protein be able to fold in a specific three-dimensional way.
. If this doesn’t all happen exactly right, it simply won’t function.
Richard tells you without the flicker of a smile, and expects you to believe that this has happened not just once, which is implausible enough, but a billion times, by accident, with no intelligence guiding this process. It’s like a blindfolded person reaching into a basket full of one billion letters from all the language groups in the world and coming up with a sentence that says, in only one language -
"Atheists are gullible. They will grasp at the most preposterous claim. As long as Richard Dawkins tells them that it’s true.”
Not only must this person get all the right letters for the right words. The grammar must be correct. The punctuation must be correct. The spacing must be proper. Remember of course the letters might come out of the basket upside down, or backwards or they might simply be the wrong letters. The letters in the above three sentences represent the amino acids that have to be put together in just the right manner to make a protein molecule. In pure cynicism Richard Dawkins thinks that you, the fool that he imagines you to be, will not have any problem with this. But that’s just first step.
. Creating one protein molecule doesn’t mean that you’ve created life.
. Now you have to bring together a collection of protein molecules -
. Roughly two hundred protein molecules with just the right functions are needed to get a typical living cell.
Now we can begin to see why Richard Dawkins’ new hypothesis is a call for infinite universes. The odds of non life turning into life, accidentally, in just one universe even within an infinite time frame is infinitely impossible. In the desperate atheist mind-set, if you have enough universes where this might happen, well, it just “logically” increases your odds that the impossible might become possible. I don’t know what Oy Vey means but I think that it might fit here. Anyhow -
This of course, proposed by Darwin and upheld by today’s Senate of leading atheists requires the theory of helpful mutations. Daniel Dennett says that mutations don’t occur even once in a trillion “copyings.” And we need not just any mutation but helpful mutations. Geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti says, “[Mutation] effect in all instances is to demolish. Transgressions of the kind needed by Darwinian evolution have never been documented.” After all, with many millions of mutations in over a century of highly controlled laboratory work with the fruit fly, science has totally failed to show that helpful mutations would occur frequently enough to go from one cell to us in an eternity. Perhaps these atheist authors are suggesting that trillions of “helpful” mutations actually come about easier in the wild than in the lab? As long as Dawkins’ followers are naive enough to keep buying his books he'll keep churning out absurd thoughts one after another.
Now, we must remember that the guiding principle in assembling all these pieces is DNA. In a classic understatement, Richard Dawkins says, “all that’s needed” is DNA / RNA. Not unlike those who used to believe that maggots “spontaneously” arose from covered heaps of garbage, and thus proved that God did not exist, DNA is what Dawkins says spontaneously arose from completely dead matter. Here’s a few important points about DNA.
. Every cell of every plant and animal has to have a DNA molecule.
. DNA works hand in glove with RNA to direct the correct sequencing of amino acids.
. It’s able to do this through biochemical instructions (the information) that are encoded on the DNA. Dawkins’ “vital ingredient” is a code written in a four-letter chemical alphabet whose letters are combined in various sequences to form words, sentences and paragraphs. All the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell are written in that DNA code. In fact this code works just like the letters of our alphabet, to form what we want to say. But this isn’t just a sentence or even a thousand sentences. Whatever put these directions into the cell had a lot to say. In fact each single microscopic cell in the human body contains more information than is contained in 1,000 sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
. It can only be bigotry, atheist chauvinism and ultra scientism that causes Richard Dawkins to refuse to ask,
“Who programmed the cell with its digital code?
Who gave it the capacity to make copies of itself?
Who made a universe with the laws that could produce mankind?
What is the ultimate explanation for why reality is structured in this way and not another?”
Dawkins, who insists that evolution operates according to principles of time and chance neglects the fact that it also depends on the exquisitely finely tuned laws of a universe that itself is not the product of time and chance. Richard Dawkins hopes that you are too dull of mind to think about that.
Where did this DNA come from and how did it come into being are important questions because the making of DNA makes the development of a protein cell look like child’s play. Both DNA and RNA are extremely complicated, yet Dawkins would have you believe that DNA appeared out of inert gas and for that to happen, all it took was lots & lots of time.
Why then, when the synthesis of key building blocks for DNA and RNA have never been successfully created except under highly implausible conditions, why would Richard Dawkins have you believe that it could come about in the hostile conditions of early earth? It’s because he thinks you are a fool. He hopes that you won’t guess that his hypotheses arise due solely to his rabid hatred for Christianity.
Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany said, “The difficulties in synthesizing DNA and RNA are at present beyond our imagination.”
Since atheist scientists are nothing if not imaginative, that statement says a lot.
As Nobel Prize-winner Sir Francis Crick said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”
So here we have the belief system of the Richard Dawkins: A person who says that he has no need of faith. He’s a person who says that he’s sceptical of any strongly held beliefs in the absence of evidence. Yet this person confidently boasts that life began:
. When biopolymers (such as proteins) became assembled
. With only the right building blocks (amino acids)
. And only the correct isomers (left-handed amino acids)
. Joined with only the correct peptide bonds
. In only the correct sequence.
How does this come about by accident? Dawkins says “mutation” as though simply saying the word solves the problems. Anyone who questions Dawkins is immediately called a “Creationist” which in Richard’s mind renders the questioner intellectually impotent. As Richard recently said, “Thinking is anathema to religion.” Meanwhile Richard Dawkins gazes into the heavens and proclaims “Lots of Galaxies? Problem solved!”
Citing Dawkins as a prime example, mathematician Hubert Yockey writes, “People who do not understand probability often say that extremely improbable events occur frequently.”
Ignoring simple chemistry and hoping no one will notice, Richard Dawkins also glibly ignores, Omne Vivum ex vivo - “Life can only come from life.” Nothing that has taken place in scientific inquiry has done anything to realistically suggest, much less prove that it can be any other way.
. Richard Dawkins tells us the origin of the universe really isn’t that difficult to comprehend.
. Richard Dawkins tells us that the “spontaneous arising” of DNA should not surprise us.
. Richard Dawkins tells us that “the magic of large numbers” makes anything possible.
. Richard Dawkins tells us that perhaps a billion planets in the universe host life.
. Richard Dawkins tells us his conjecture on the origins of life “completely demolishes” any need for design or designer to explain non-life turning into life.
Do any of these nonsensical statements embarrass his followers? I don’t think so.
The irony of Richard Dawkins believing that life arose from non-life in a primordial soup on planet earth is almost too much to contain without laughing out loud. What’s the irony you ask? The idea that it was a vast ocean or pre-biotic soup is not the result of specific and detailed evidence. It is in fact an idea that comes directly from the Bible. Noting this, mathematician Hubert Yockey, who is no fan of Richard says that Dawkins must be a religious fanatic to even suggest such a thing.
The comments above are just Richard Dawkins gambling that the majority of atheists are fools. Come to think about it, from a Biblical perspective that’s a sure bet.
Obviously he’s testing the waters to see just how far he can push their gullible nature. What follows however is what proves how serious Richard Dawkins is about his smoke and mirrors show.
A living system must do at least three things:
. It must be able to process energy
. It must be able to store information and
. It must be able to replicate.
Living things do this. Non living things don’t do this.
In my mind, Richard’s comment that there are a billion or more planets with life on them shows us several things.
. Insurmountable improbabilities pose no intellectual problems for this preeminent atheist.
. Richard Dawkins hates a God that he doesn’t believe in so much that his rage has absolutely clouded his judgement.
. Or Richard Dawkins is a hypocrite of first order, contradicting what he says with what he does. Before you say ‘O Rod, that’s just unfair,’compare this next comment of Dawkins with his adamant demand that there is no God (something that cannot be supported by current evidence), and that there is life on at least a billion planets (something else that cannot be supported by current evidence).
“As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence.”
That’s a comment that Dawkins levels at Christians but obviously lives out in his own life.
Now, if you love watching someone attempt to beat the odds, forget Las Vegas or Monte Carlo. It’s far more entertaining to let Richard Dawkins explain how life came about. To put the modern atheist’s supposition on origins in perspective, an atheist astronomer has calculated the following regarding our coming into being.
Penrose and Hawking have calculated that the odds of a life supporting universe such as ours, with it’s exquisitely finely tuned constants and quantities coming into being by chance or by accident to be one chance in 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.
Think about that for a few moments. It’s important!
The reality of those odds should hit you like a truck. Why? Because science states that anything greater than 10 ^ 50 is the same as impossible. On the one hand Hawking has said “If all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth were possible universes, and only one of those grains of sand was a universe that allowed for the existence of intelligent life, then that one grain of sand is the universe we inhabit. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
In the face of this evidence, why would Hawking continue to search for natural solutions? He has to. In order to maintain their dogmatic denial of God’s existence, atheists must believe that the impossible is possible.
Not to be outdone by Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins proposes that the following all came about via random chance.
There are eighty different types of amino acids.
Only twenty of them are found in living organisms.
According to evolutionary biologists, out of the eighty amino acids (that evolved from absolutely dead matter, remember, inert gases to be exact):
. The exact correct collection of amino acids were able to isolate themselves.
According to evolutionary biologists, these amino acids linked themselves together:
. In just the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules.
So what we’re faced with is the extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems. The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place. There is no known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems. All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules. Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed! There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes have never been known to produce information.
According to atheists, without any intelligence guiding the process, all the possible combinations regarding the beginnings of life just fell into place. Not only that but, as Richard knows, other molecules tend to react more readily with amino acids than amino acids react with each other. How did those extraneous molecules get eliminated? Just luck? Just time plus luck? Does Richard Dawkins have an answer? No, he doesn’t. Perhaps that’s why it irritates him so much when he meets Christians who appear to do the same thing. We tend to despise in others the flaws that we are dimly aware of in our own lives. Nevertheless, does it matter to him that he doesn’t have an answer? Apparently not. Dawkins says that - listen carefully because this is Dawkins at this best -
“Once the vital ingredient - some kind of genetic molecule - is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow.”
Well, yes, of course. So let’s not worry ourselves with how the vital ingredient got into place. It’s only the single most important step in all of biology. Let’s just skip along to the wonders of evolution shall we?
You see Dawkins must think you are a fool because as he knows, as improbable as a coded molecule simply appearing out of lifeless gases is, a coded molecule is not all that you need to make life. That “vital ingredient - that genetic molecule” being in place so that natural selection can follow is light years from what I’ve explained so far.
My question is, does that fact matter to you? And if not, why not?
Then there’s the issue of the coming together of an equal number of amino acids that are right and left-handed. Why?
. Only the left-handed amino acids work in living matter.
. Only these select left-handed amino acids must link together in the right sequence.
. The correct kind of chemical bonds - meaning peptide bonds must come into existence.
. These have to form themselves (without any guiding principle, remember) into the correct position.
. Only then will the protein be able to fold in a specific three-dimensional way.
. If this doesn’t all happen exactly right, it simply won’t function.
Richard tells you without the flicker of a smile, and expects you to believe that this has happened not just once, which is implausible enough, but a billion times, by accident, with no intelligence guiding this process. It’s like a blindfolded person reaching into a basket full of one billion letters from all the language groups in the world and coming up with a sentence that says, in only one language -
"Atheists are gullible. They will grasp at the most preposterous claim. As long as Richard Dawkins tells them that it’s true.”
Not only must this person get all the right letters for the right words. The grammar must be correct. The punctuation must be correct. The spacing must be proper. Remember of course the letters might come out of the basket upside down, or backwards or they might simply be the wrong letters. The letters in the above three sentences represent the amino acids that have to be put together in just the right manner to make a protein molecule. In pure cynicism Richard Dawkins thinks that you, the fool that he imagines you to be, will not have any problem with this. But that’s just first step.
. Creating one protein molecule doesn’t mean that you’ve created life.
. Now you have to bring together a collection of protein molecules -
. Roughly two hundred protein molecules with just the right functions are needed to get a typical living cell.
Now we can begin to see why Richard Dawkins’ new hypothesis is a call for infinite universes. The odds of non life turning into life, accidentally, in just one universe even within an infinite time frame is infinitely impossible. In the desperate atheist mind-set, if you have enough universes where this might happen, well, it just “logically” increases your odds that the impossible might become possible. I don’t know what Oy Vey means but I think that it might fit here. Anyhow -
This of course, proposed by Darwin and upheld by today’s Senate of leading atheists requires the theory of helpful mutations. Daniel Dennett says that mutations don’t occur even once in a trillion “copyings.” And we need not just any mutation but helpful mutations. Geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti says, “[Mutation] effect in all instances is to demolish. Transgressions of the kind needed by Darwinian evolution have never been documented.” After all, with many millions of mutations in over a century of highly controlled laboratory work with the fruit fly, science has totally failed to show that helpful mutations would occur frequently enough to go from one cell to us in an eternity. Perhaps these atheist authors are suggesting that trillions of “helpful” mutations actually come about easier in the wild than in the lab? As long as Dawkins’ followers are naive enough to keep buying his books he'll keep churning out absurd thoughts one after another.
Now, we must remember that the guiding principle in assembling all these pieces is DNA. In a classic understatement, Richard Dawkins says, “all that’s needed” is DNA / RNA. Not unlike those who used to believe that maggots “spontaneously” arose from covered heaps of garbage, and thus proved that God did not exist, DNA is what Dawkins says spontaneously arose from completely dead matter. Here’s a few important points about DNA.
. Every cell of every plant and animal has to have a DNA molecule.
. DNA works hand in glove with RNA to direct the correct sequencing of amino acids.
. It’s able to do this through biochemical instructions (the information) that are encoded on the DNA. Dawkins’ “vital ingredient” is a code written in a four-letter chemical alphabet whose letters are combined in various sequences to form words, sentences and paragraphs. All the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell are written in that DNA code. In fact this code works just like the letters of our alphabet, to form what we want to say. But this isn’t just a sentence or even a thousand sentences. Whatever put these directions into the cell had a lot to say. In fact each single microscopic cell in the human body contains more information than is contained in 1,000 sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
. It can only be bigotry, atheist chauvinism and ultra scientism that causes Richard Dawkins to refuse to ask,
“Who programmed the cell with its digital code?
Who gave it the capacity to make copies of itself?
Who made a universe with the laws that could produce mankind?
What is the ultimate explanation for why reality is structured in this way and not another?”
Dawkins, who insists that evolution operates according to principles of time and chance neglects the fact that it also depends on the exquisitely finely tuned laws of a universe that itself is not the product of time and chance. Richard Dawkins hopes that you are too dull of mind to think about that.
Where did this DNA come from and how did it come into being are important questions because the making of DNA makes the development of a protein cell look like child’s play. Both DNA and RNA are extremely complicated, yet Dawkins would have you believe that DNA appeared out of inert gas and for that to happen, all it took was lots & lots of time.
Why then, when the synthesis of key building blocks for DNA and RNA have never been successfully created except under highly implausible conditions, why would Richard Dawkins have you believe that it could come about in the hostile conditions of early earth? It’s because he thinks you are a fool. He hopes that you won’t guess that his hypotheses arise due solely to his rabid hatred for Christianity.
Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany said, “The difficulties in synthesizing DNA and RNA are at present beyond our imagination.”
Since atheist scientists are nothing if not imaginative, that statement says a lot.
As Nobel Prize-winner Sir Francis Crick said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”
So here we have the belief system of the Richard Dawkins: A person who says that he has no need of faith. He’s a person who says that he’s sceptical of any strongly held beliefs in the absence of evidence. Yet this person confidently boasts that life began:
. When biopolymers (such as proteins) became assembled
. With only the right building blocks (amino acids)
. And only the correct isomers (left-handed amino acids)
. Joined with only the correct peptide bonds
. In only the correct sequence.
How does this come about by accident? Dawkins says “mutation” as though simply saying the word solves the problems. Anyone who questions Dawkins is immediately called a “Creationist” which in Richard’s mind renders the questioner intellectually impotent. As Richard recently said, “Thinking is anathema to religion.” Meanwhile Richard Dawkins gazes into the heavens and proclaims “Lots of Galaxies? Problem solved!”
Citing Dawkins as a prime example, mathematician Hubert Yockey writes, “People who do not understand probability often say that extremely improbable events occur frequently.”
Ignoring simple chemistry and hoping no one will notice, Richard Dawkins also glibly ignores, Omne Vivum ex vivo - “Life can only come from life.” Nothing that has taken place in scientific inquiry has done anything to realistically suggest, much less prove that it can be any other way.
Atheist Euphemisms
I said in my last post that the most determined atheists are coming out of the closet and posting their favourite YouTube authorities as proof that
“life coming from non-life is a well-understood process.”
I have to smile every time I write that. You see, “well-understood” is the atheist euphemism for “pretend” “bluff” “guess” or “assume.”
In the present case, I suspect it would be prudent to review just how much has been assumed:
First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive;
Second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine;
Third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose;
Fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides;
Fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and
Sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry.
These assumptions are not only vexing but progressively so, ending in a serious impediment to thought. All questions about the global origins of these strange and baffling systems seen to demand answers that the model itself cannot by its nature provide.
Berlinski in Commentary Feb. 2006
“life coming from non-life is a well-understood process.”
I have to smile every time I write that. You see, “well-understood” is the atheist euphemism for “pretend” “bluff” “guess” or “assume.”
In the present case, I suspect it would be prudent to review just how much has been assumed:
First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive;
Second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine;
Third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose;
Fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides;
Fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and
Sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry.
These assumptions are not only vexing but progressively so, ending in a serious impediment to thought. All questions about the global origins of these strange and baffling systems seen to demand answers that the model itself cannot by its nature provide.
Berlinski in Commentary Feb. 2006
Atheist Origin of Life Mythology
For awhile, when I’d say that atheists believed that inanimate and inorganic gases could evolve, I got responses about how stupid I was to believe such a thing. Meaning of course that I was wrong for thinking that any atheist would be so stupid as to believe such a thing. Well now it’s out there for all to see. If you look at the comments to my last two posts, you’ll see that the bravest of the bunch are willing to put it in print with their monikers attached.
Dead gases evolving into life is “a well known process.”
Apparently there is even a fairly well developed mythology to go with it:
“The credibility of this scenario is supported by the authority of Hesiod (Theogony c. 700 B.C.) Who tells us that Aphrodite (her name means foam-born) arose from the sea foam on the island of Cythera. From there she was wafted on Homer’s “wine dark sea” to Cyprus. The goddess, being immortal, was able to escape the effect of the intense ultraviolet light on the Earth at the time. Which is good since that would have exposed mortal organisms to a lethal dose in less than 0.3 seconds. Aphrodite is still widely worshipped today, especially near colleges, universities and atheist meet-ups.”
For the rest of us, as far as the emergence of mortal beings is concerned, one must be a little more sceptical about this mode of origination.
Hubert Yockey,"Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of LIfe," (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005),117
Dead gases evolving into life is “a well known process.”
Apparently there is even a fairly well developed mythology to go with it:
“The credibility of this scenario is supported by the authority of Hesiod (Theogony c. 700 B.C.) Who tells us that Aphrodite (her name means foam-born) arose from the sea foam on the island of Cythera. From there she was wafted on Homer’s “wine dark sea” to Cyprus. The goddess, being immortal, was able to escape the effect of the intense ultraviolet light on the Earth at the time. Which is good since that would have exposed mortal organisms to a lethal dose in less than 0.3 seconds. Aphrodite is still widely worshipped today, especially near colleges, universities and atheist meet-ups.”
For the rest of us, as far as the emergence of mortal beings is concerned, one must be a little more sceptical about this mode of origination.
Hubert Yockey,"Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of LIfe," (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005),117
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Hey! I Created Life!
That’s what Stanley Miller told the world several decades ago. And you know what? An atheist just presented it to me today. As he did his victory dance, I had to break it to him that what he was celebrating was a fraud. The fact that atheists so desperately seek out, recall and interpret evidence in a manner that helps to sustain their beliefs leads them to grasp on to "mistakes" like the one that Miller and Oparin foisted upon the eager and accepting atheist community.
Miller and Oparin told the world that with an atmosphere composed of ammonia, methane and hydrogen all it took was a shock of lightening and presto. Life from non life. God was no longer needed.
Long after NASA showed us that primordial earth was virtually absent ammonia, methane and hydrogen, and long after it was known that primordial earth was most likely water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (a combination which would not give the same results),and:
Like Dawkins still says today:
. One scientist in response to the conclusions of this fraud said, The creation of life was not a chance event. Rather, it was inevitable."
Like Dawkins still says today:
. One scientist in response to the conclusions of this fraud said, The appearance of life is essentially an automatic development.
Like Dawkins still says today:
. One scientist in response to the conclusions of this fraud said, What Miller did was the single most convincing step in proving that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos. Remember Dawkins prediction that there is life evolving on a billion planets even as we speak? (((Snerk))) What a goof.
And so the results perpetrated by this fraud continue to this very day, and atheists lap it up because if something will help to fend off the absurdity of atheism, fraud or no fraud, atheists will grab on to it like their childhood blanket.
Miller and Oparin told the world that with an atmosphere composed of ammonia, methane and hydrogen all it took was a shock of lightening and presto. Life from non life. God was no longer needed.
Long after NASA showed us that primordial earth was virtually absent ammonia, methane and hydrogen, and long after it was known that primordial earth was most likely water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (a combination which would not give the same results),and:
Like Dawkins still says today:
. One scientist in response to the conclusions of this fraud said, The creation of life was not a chance event. Rather, it was inevitable."
Like Dawkins still says today:
. One scientist in response to the conclusions of this fraud said, The appearance of life is essentially an automatic development.
Like Dawkins still says today:
. One scientist in response to the conclusions of this fraud said, What Miller did was the single most convincing step in proving that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos. Remember Dawkins prediction that there is life evolving on a billion planets even as we speak? (((Snerk))) What a goof.
And so the results perpetrated by this fraud continue to this very day, and atheists lap it up because if something will help to fend off the absurdity of atheism, fraud or no fraud, atheists will grab on to it like their childhood blanket.
Maggots from Dead Garbage = No God
Atheists have been with us for a long, long time. They're still using the same old argument. Life from non life is no big deal. One even told me today that Life arising from non life is a "well understood process." Let's elect one of these guys to office shall we?
Omne vivmm ex vivo Life must come only from life. Everything in the study of the origins of life, to date (except the speculations of that lunatic Dawkins) has done nothing but confirm this axiom.
Omne vivmm ex vivo Life must come only from life. Everything in the study of the origins of life, to date (except the speculations of that lunatic Dawkins) has done nothing but confirm this axiom.
Atheists and Suffering
Rather have an all powerful God allowing pain and suffering for some purpose that cannot be readilly understood, atheists would rather experience senseless, meaningless and purposeless suffering.
Why do they do this? One of the reasons is that if we can understand a thing and can define it, then we believe at some level that we are that thing's master. We cannot understand or define life; we cannot understand or define God; consequently we are master of neither. Logic and reason are always on the hunt for definition, and anything that cannot be defined is apt to be defied. Atheism defies God and defies life. Atheism will not have anything that cannot be defined on a rational basis. They forget that the things that make up elemental human life cannot be defined.
============
Why do they do this? One of the reasons is that if we can understand a thing and can define it, then we believe at some level that we are that thing's master. We cannot understand or define life; we cannot understand or define God; consequently we are master of neither. Logic and reason are always on the hunt for definition, and anything that cannot be defined is apt to be defied. Atheism defies God and defies life. Atheism will not have anything that cannot be defined on a rational basis. They forget that the things that make up elemental human life cannot be defined.
============
Atheists Ignore Science?
Atheists are in an enviable position. While the rest of us must live by and adhere to the laws of science, atheists can ignore these same laws at will. They're even celebrated by other atheists for ignoring scientific laws. Take for example The Law of First Cause.
"The universe is just there and that's all."
Bertrand Russel and Frederick Copleston, "The Existence of God," in John Hick, ed., "The Existence of God,"(New York: Macmillan, 1964), 175
"The universe is just there and that's all."
Bertrand Russel and Frederick Copleston, "The Existence of God," in John Hick, ed., "The Existence of God,"(New York: Macmillan, 1964), 175
They Invented a Nut Case.
That's what some people say; that Jesus’ followers made up stories about Him. Some even go so far as to say that the very existence of Jesus is a total fiction. My question then is, why this Jesus? If they were going to write a fiction, why would they write a fiction that made themselves look stupid? If you're going to invent a story, why not make your hero look good? Here's what I mean.
If Jesus was a real person but wasn't who He said He was, then He really was a nut case. After all, if you know anyone who thinks s/he's God, it's because you either met that person on the psych ward or you know very well that the person needs to be admitted to the psych ward.
If Jesus is a fictional character that you want to make people think is Great:
. Why invent a crazy "hero."
. Why have Jesus submit to John's baptism?
. Why mention that Jesus' family thought He was nuts
. Why invent a Messiah that doesn't meet the expectations of the religious authorities?
. Why write about ministry failures on the part of Jesus followers?
. Why show Jesus freaking out over a fig tree that shouldn't have had figs anyway?
. Why call Jesus, The King of the Jews when He didn't rule over Israel?
. Why invent a ridiculous story about a virgin birth? An illegitimate hero? C'mon.
. Why would the authors talk about themselves in such a way that makes them seem incompetent, foolish, selfish and dull of mind?
Why document these things if they aren't true? When historical scholars find these kinds of stories, when stories fit the "criteria of embarrassment" scholars hear authenticity. They hear truth. Why can’t atheists overcome their bias and allow for personal honesty when judging the authenticity of the New Testament documents?
If Jesus was a real person but wasn't who He said He was, then He really was a nut case. After all, if you know anyone who thinks s/he's God, it's because you either met that person on the psych ward or you know very well that the person needs to be admitted to the psych ward.
If Jesus is a fictional character that you want to make people think is Great:
. Why invent a crazy "hero."
. Why have Jesus submit to John's baptism?
. Why mention that Jesus' family thought He was nuts
. Why invent a Messiah that doesn't meet the expectations of the religious authorities?
. Why write about ministry failures on the part of Jesus followers?
. Why show Jesus freaking out over a fig tree that shouldn't have had figs anyway?
. Why call Jesus, The King of the Jews when He didn't rule over Israel?
. Why invent a ridiculous story about a virgin birth? An illegitimate hero? C'mon.
. Why would the authors talk about themselves in such a way that makes them seem incompetent, foolish, selfish and dull of mind?
Why document these things if they aren't true? When historical scholars find these kinds of stories, when stories fit the "criteria of embarrassment" scholars hear authenticity. They hear truth. Why can’t atheists overcome their bias and allow for personal honesty when judging the authenticity of the New Testament documents?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Science Refined by Theology
"The [Old Testament] was not composed in response to cosmological discoveries as an attempt to force an agreement between theology and cosmology. Theology presents a fixed view of the universe. Science, through its progressively improved understanding of the world, has come to agree with theology."
Gerald Schroder, "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible" (New York: Bantam Books, 1990) 91, 160
Gerald Schroder, "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible" (New York: Bantam Books, 1990) 91, 160
Do you doubt Jesus?
. John the Baptiser told people about the Messiah just prior to Jesus making His public appearance.
. John the Baptiser was confident when he said, “Here comes a man whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”
. John the Baptiser explained to people that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah.
. John the Baptiser was at the top of his game when Jesus began His public ministry.
John changed lives. He made waves. He challenged the social power structure with a powerful message of the need for repentance. And then it happened. John the Baptiser pushed some powerful buttons. He got arrested.
Anyone who has followed Jesus for more than a little while knows what it’s like when Jesus takes off the training wheels. A child dies. The layoff notice comes. Co workers mock. Questions for God of “Why would You allow this to happen when you know that I love You?” are tempting. And then, comes the question, “Jesus, are You really who You said You are, God incarnate?”
As John sat in a dungeon, perhaps knowing that his days on earth were short in number, he sent friends to ask the same questions of Jesus.
“Are you really the One we’ve been waiting for?”
Jesus didn’t even answer, at least not directly. And we read, “Tell John what you see Me doing.”
And He continued healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, making the lame and crippled walk, curing leprosy, freeing people from demon possession, forgiving sins. Why would this reassure John that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, God incarnate? Because Jesus was doing things that were prophesied that the Messiah would do, and He was doing things that were inconceivable from a human point of view. These people knew that disease does not respond to words. These people knew that the elements don’t change at a command. These people knew that Jesus was doing the impossible.
If you are doubting, if the lies of pagans or atheists cause you to second guess your earlier beliefs, tell Him what’s going on. Let God know of your struggles. He understands. He loves you and cares about you. And don’t worry if you wobble. Taking the training wheels off is the only way to become good at following the path Jesus has chosen for you.
. John the Baptiser was confident when he said, “Here comes a man whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”
. John the Baptiser explained to people that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah.
. John the Baptiser was at the top of his game when Jesus began His public ministry.
John changed lives. He made waves. He challenged the social power structure with a powerful message of the need for repentance. And then it happened. John the Baptiser pushed some powerful buttons. He got arrested.
Anyone who has followed Jesus for more than a little while knows what it’s like when Jesus takes off the training wheels. A child dies. The layoff notice comes. Co workers mock. Questions for God of “Why would You allow this to happen when you know that I love You?” are tempting. And then, comes the question, “Jesus, are You really who You said You are, God incarnate?”
As John sat in a dungeon, perhaps knowing that his days on earth were short in number, he sent friends to ask the same questions of Jesus.
“Are you really the One we’ve been waiting for?”
Jesus didn’t even answer, at least not directly. And we read, “Tell John what you see Me doing.”
And He continued healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, making the lame and crippled walk, curing leprosy, freeing people from demon possession, forgiving sins. Why would this reassure John that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, God incarnate? Because Jesus was doing things that were prophesied that the Messiah would do, and He was doing things that were inconceivable from a human point of view. These people knew that disease does not respond to words. These people knew that the elements don’t change at a command. These people knew that Jesus was doing the impossible.
If you are doubting, if the lies of pagans or atheists cause you to second guess your earlier beliefs, tell Him what’s going on. Let God know of your struggles. He understands. He loves you and cares about you. And don’t worry if you wobble. Taking the training wheels off is the only way to become good at following the path Jesus has chosen for you.
Do You Want The Position?
Setting: Twenty young people fresh out of highschool are applying for a job. They’re a typical class of students. Some are very academically minded. A couple are bullies who have been pushed along rather than passing on merit. The rest fall somewhere in between. An ability test is required of those applying. All are invited back three days later where they are informed that none of them passed the test. All have failed.
Employer: “As you know, not one of you passed the ability test. However I have decided to hire anyone who wants to be hired.”
Jordon: “What kind of nut-job is this?” Jordon muttered to Jaida who was beside him.
Employer: “None of you are qualified to work here. However, if you would like to work here raise your hands.”
While people looked quizzically at each other, four hands shot up; Bret, Baily, Marissa, and Amber’s.
Employer: “Thank you to the rest. You may go home now.”
Jaida: “Excuse me?”
Employer: “Yes.”
Jaida: “Could we find out what our marks were?”
Employer: “Sure. Let me make some copies.”
After handing around papers that displayed all of the marks, the employer hears,
Amber: “But this isn’t fair. I only got 43 and Jaida got 86. Yet you’re giving me a job instead of Jaida!”
Jaida: “Ya and Bret only got 13 and you hired him!”
Employer: “Can’t I pick who I want to pick? Bret raised his hand and I hired him. What’s wrong with that?”
Jaida: “But I scored higher than either Amber or Bret!”
Employer: “So?”
Jaida: “They failed!”
Employer: “The passing mark was 100. You also failed.”
Jaida: “They failed more than me. I did better than they did.”
Employer: “They raised their hands and asked to be hired. You just sat there.”
Jaida: But I need this job. We all do.
Employer: So why didn't raise your hands when the offer was on the table?
Jaida: I thought it was a joke. This is a joke. You’re a joke!
The employer shrugs and tells the ones he’s hired to follow him into a different room. The door locks.
Employer: “As you know, not one of you passed the ability test. However I have decided to hire anyone who wants to be hired.”
Jordon: “What kind of nut-job is this?” Jordon muttered to Jaida who was beside him.
Employer: “None of you are qualified to work here. However, if you would like to work here raise your hands.”
While people looked quizzically at each other, four hands shot up; Bret, Baily, Marissa, and Amber’s.
Employer: “Thank you to the rest. You may go home now.”
Jaida: “Excuse me?”
Employer: “Yes.”
Jaida: “Could we find out what our marks were?”
Employer: “Sure. Let me make some copies.”
After handing around papers that displayed all of the marks, the employer hears,
Amber: “But this isn’t fair. I only got 43 and Jaida got 86. Yet you’re giving me a job instead of Jaida!”
Jaida: “Ya and Bret only got 13 and you hired him!”
Employer: “Can’t I pick who I want to pick? Bret raised his hand and I hired him. What’s wrong with that?”
Jaida: “But I scored higher than either Amber or Bret!”
Employer: “So?”
Jaida: “They failed!”
Employer: “The passing mark was 100. You also failed.”
Jaida: “They failed more than me. I did better than they did.”
Employer: “They raised their hands and asked to be hired. You just sat there.”
Jaida: But I need this job. We all do.
Employer: So why didn't raise your hands when the offer was on the table?
Jaida: I thought it was a joke. This is a joke. You’re a joke!
The employer shrugs and tells the ones he’s hired to follow him into a different room. The door locks.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Singularity = Miracle
Miracle - “An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers.”
Miracle - “An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature.”
Because it took place without the aid of the laws of physics / science, indeed, because it did not even require natural and material involvement, the Singularity, the beginning, the Big Bang Creation Event is a working definition of a miracle.
Miracle - “An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature.”
Because it took place without the aid of the laws of physics / science, indeed, because it did not even require natural and material involvement, the Singularity, the beginning, the Big Bang Creation Event is a working definition of a miracle.
It Doesn't Make Sense Without God
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1996) 131
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1996) 131
I Know Miracles Happen
In fact I am a walking example of a miracle. I worship Creator God. This is not through effort or even desire. In fact, for most of my life my desire was to ignore religion and the god that I didn’t think existed. Yet here I am today, sold out to Jesus the Messiah.
He changed me. He transformed me into a trophy of grace. Creator God took this once cold, cold heart and gave it the ability to love. He took this lying soul and gave it the ability to be honest. Jesus took a man completely focussed on himself and turned him into someone who is willing to give of himself, his time, his money so that others might live and know the Lord Jesus Christ.
Worshipping God is not natural. As many an atheist has said, “I couldn’t believe in God even if I wanted to.” Absolutely correct. Unless God works a miracle in a person’s soul, an intimate, healed and forgiven relationship with Creator God is impossible.
He changed me. He transformed me into a trophy of grace. Creator God took this once cold, cold heart and gave it the ability to love. He took this lying soul and gave it the ability to be honest. Jesus took a man completely focussed on himself and turned him into someone who is willing to give of himself, his time, his money so that others might live and know the Lord Jesus Christ.
Worshipping God is not natural. As many an atheist has said, “I couldn’t believe in God even if I wanted to.” Absolutely correct. Unless God works a miracle in a person’s soul, an intimate, healed and forgiven relationship with Creator God is impossible.
Ooops - She Did It Again
“Science is the only reliable means of discovering truth.”
I gathered that it was a teenager saying this so perhaps we should cut her some slack but still, it’s a comment that is certainly not rare on atheist blogs. What this young atheist is talking about is positivism. Those who have devolved into scientism actually believe this.
PROBLEM: Why would we believe that science or the scientific method of inquiry is the only reliable means of discovering truth when that idea itself can’t be proven scientifically?
Some atheists will tell you that logic is just a higher form of thinking. Yet logic must already be in place before any “logical” thinking is even possible. In fact, it is because of the laws of logic that we can know that relativism cannot be true, that it is in fact self-contradictory. For example, relativism tells us that there is no truth, yet the relativist expects us to believe that that statement IS true.
An atheist sceptic will tell you that, “There are only two kinds of truths - those that are true by definition and those that are true by empirical confirmation.”
However, this statement is neither true by definition NOR is it provable by empirical confirmation. The sceptic’s statement is not merely false, it is also incoherent.
An atheist sceptic will tell you that,
1) Natural law is by definition a description of a regular occurrence
2) A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence
3) The evidence for the regular is ALWAYS greater than that for the rare
4) A wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence
5) Therefore a wise man should never believe in miracles
With about ten seconds of thought you will see that obviously the evidence for the regular is NOT always greater than for the rare. For example, how about the origin of the universe? That’s just about as rare as an event gets. How about another rare event - life arising from non life. It happened only once but again, I think most would agree that we have a fair bit of evidence running around that it did take place. In fact, virtually every event in history has taken place only once (the first time) and yet we know that it did in fact happen.
The sceptic’s third point must be considered false. In fact the atheist sceptic’s entire argument is false. Any arguments against miracles must fail because they are based on false philosophical assumptions rather than observational evidence.
Science is most definitely NOT the only reliable means of discovering truth.
I gathered that it was a teenager saying this so perhaps we should cut her some slack but still, it’s a comment that is certainly not rare on atheist blogs. What this young atheist is talking about is positivism. Those who have devolved into scientism actually believe this.
PROBLEM: Why would we believe that science or the scientific method of inquiry is the only reliable means of discovering truth when that idea itself can’t be proven scientifically?
Some atheists will tell you that logic is just a higher form of thinking. Yet logic must already be in place before any “logical” thinking is even possible. In fact, it is because of the laws of logic that we can know that relativism cannot be true, that it is in fact self-contradictory. For example, relativism tells us that there is no truth, yet the relativist expects us to believe that that statement IS true.
An atheist sceptic will tell you that, “There are only two kinds of truths - those that are true by definition and those that are true by empirical confirmation.”
However, this statement is neither true by definition NOR is it provable by empirical confirmation. The sceptic’s statement is not merely false, it is also incoherent.
An atheist sceptic will tell you that,
1) Natural law is by definition a description of a regular occurrence
2) A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence
3) The evidence for the regular is ALWAYS greater than that for the rare
4) A wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence
5) Therefore a wise man should never believe in miracles
With about ten seconds of thought you will see that obviously the evidence for the regular is NOT always greater than for the rare. For example, how about the origin of the universe? That’s just about as rare as an event gets. How about another rare event - life arising from non life. It happened only once but again, I think most would agree that we have a fair bit of evidence running around that it did take place. In fact, virtually every event in history has taken place only once (the first time) and yet we know that it did in fact happen.
The sceptic’s third point must be considered false. In fact the atheist sceptic’s entire argument is false. Any arguments against miracles must fail because they are based on false philosophical assumptions rather than observational evidence.
Science is most definitely NOT the only reliable means of discovering truth.
Agnostic Christians?
Oswald Chambers defines and agnostic as someone who recognises that there is more than s/he knows and if s/he is ever to know more, it must be by some sort of revelation.
Every one of us living today, whether we have ever thought deeply or not, has faced this problem: If God is love, why does He allow so much suffering and violence and heartache in this world? This is not a passing perplexity but a real puzzle. The puzzle forces us to either deny the facts or confess we simply don’t have all the information. We can also grasp one of two irrational options. First, We can deny that God exists or two, We can pretend that the world really isn’t that bad of a place. If we enjoy reality however, we are forced to admit that things do not look as they should if God is the kind of God that we expect Him to be.
The only possible conclusion that honest observers can reach is that something is terribly wrong, fundamentally wrong with the world and with us. On the other side of the coin, we must also admit that with either a telescope or a microscope both the macro or micro universes are appallingly beyond our comprehension. Unless you are a spiritually blinded atheist you must admit that we are in way over our heads. No one is able to comprehend the madness and chaos into which we are born. No one can, in all honesty believe that s/he has to answer to putting this madness right.
A secular agnostic says, “There is more to know but I’ll ignore it until either I’m forced to deal with it by some external event or someone gives me the answer. Until then I’ll hum a song.”
An atheist says, “We know as much as we can and until I discover more, I’ll simply deny that there is any more to life than what we already know.
A Christian is an avowed agnostic intellectually; h/his attitude is, “I have reached the limit of my knowledge, and I humbly accept the revelation of God given by Jesus Christ.”
Every one of us living today, whether we have ever thought deeply or not, has faced this problem: If God is love, why does He allow so much suffering and violence and heartache in this world? This is not a passing perplexity but a real puzzle. The puzzle forces us to either deny the facts or confess we simply don’t have all the information. We can also grasp one of two irrational options. First, We can deny that God exists or two, We can pretend that the world really isn’t that bad of a place. If we enjoy reality however, we are forced to admit that things do not look as they should if God is the kind of God that we expect Him to be.
The only possible conclusion that honest observers can reach is that something is terribly wrong, fundamentally wrong with the world and with us. On the other side of the coin, we must also admit that with either a telescope or a microscope both the macro or micro universes are appallingly beyond our comprehension. Unless you are a spiritually blinded atheist you must admit that we are in way over our heads. No one is able to comprehend the madness and chaos into which we are born. No one can, in all honesty believe that s/he has to answer to putting this madness right.
A secular agnostic says, “There is more to know but I’ll ignore it until either I’m forced to deal with it by some external event or someone gives me the answer. Until then I’ll hum a song.”
An atheist says, “We know as much as we can and until I discover more, I’ll simply deny that there is any more to life than what we already know.
A Christian is an avowed agnostic intellectually; h/his attitude is, “I have reached the limit of my knowledge, and I humbly accept the revelation of God given by Jesus Christ.”
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Faith = Evidence
I was thinking about atheists and how they say that we Christians believe because of faith. Atheists define faith as "believing something in the absence of any evidence.’
Atheists think that is our only basis for concluding that Jesus is truly Creator, Lord and Saviour.
Well, that may be what atheists think but I don't know of any Christians who think that way. In fact, down through the ages, it's never been what any Christian has believed. In fact, Christianity is the only religion to be based on rationality and history.
“God is supremely rational, and the human being is also rational, being created in the image and likeness of God. Hence religion, which is the expression of the deep relationship between God and human kind cannot be but rational.” Johannes Kepler, “What if the Bible had never been written.”
“Now I define faith as the power of continuing to believe what we once honestly thought to be true until cogent reasons for honestly changing our minds are brought before us.” C. S. Lewis, “The Seeing Eye”
“Belief, in the Christian sense, seems to be to be assent to a proposition which we think so overwhelmingly probable that there is a psychological exclusion of doubt though not a logical exclusion of dispute.” C. S. Lewis, “Obstinacy of Belief”
“Faith is a trust in what we have reason to believe is true. Understood in this way we see that faith is built on reason. We should have good reasons for thinking that Christianity is true before we dedicate ourselves completely to it.” J. P. Mooreland
“Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love what is true. Justin Martyr, “The first Apology.”
“Philosophy is a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. So also here I call him truly learned who brings everything to bear on the truth, so that from geometry and music and grammar and philosophy itself, culling what is useful, he guards the faith against assault. ”Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata”
“Creation itself reveals Him who created it, and the work made is suggestive of Him who made it, and the world manifests Him that arranged it.” Irenaeous of Lyon, “Barr 13"
“We must first be instructed by reason and then we share understand the sacred and mystical teachings.” Basil of Caesarea “Christianity and Classical Culture”
“Faith is what gives fullness to our reasoning,” Gregory of Nazianzus
“Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as God, the maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason, nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason.” Stark, “For the Glory of God.”
“Heaven forbid that we should believe in such as way as not accept or seek reasons since we could not even believe if we did not possess rational souls. But they are much deceived, who think that we believe in Christ without any proofs concerning Christ.” Augustine, “Concerning Faith In Things Not Seen”
“I believe in order to understand.” Anselm
“While faith comes first in time, knowledge comes first in importance. Faith and reason do not conflict but instead compliment each other.” St Anselm, “Credo, ut inttigam”
“It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God, besides the philosophical sciences investigated by human reason.” Anselm, “Summa Theologica”
“The principles of any science are either themselves self-evident or reducible to the knowledge of a higher science. Individual facts establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation has come down to us. Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about the articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but to the weakness of the human intellect.” Thomas Aquinas
“The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith for faith presupposes natural knowledge” Thomas Aquinas
“Reason distinguished man from true brutes, and was that by which man judges between good and evil.” John Calvin. Chapter in the Institutes of the Christian Religion called, “Rational Proofs to Establish the Belief of the Scripture.”
“I have always thought that two questions, that of God and that of the soul, are chief among those that ought to be demonstrated by the aid of philosophy rather than that of theology. These two are first proven to him by way of reason. Now you sir, desire to learn the principles of the teaching of the Lord of heaven. I shall therefore state them plainly for you, and any explanation will be based solely on reason.” Rene Descartes, “To the Dean of Doctors” University of Paris.
“Faith can never convince us of anything that contradicts our knowledge. It still belongs to reason to judge of the truth of it’s being a revelation.” John Locke
“Thought constitutes the greatness of man.” Blaise Pascal “Section 12 “Proofs of Jesus.””
“Unreasonable and absurd ways of life are truly an offence to God.” William Law, “Love God With All Your Mind.”
“Ignorance is the mother not of devotion but of heresy.” Cotton Mather
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen." Hebrews 11:1
Atheists think that is our only basis for concluding that Jesus is truly Creator, Lord and Saviour.
Well, that may be what atheists think but I don't know of any Christians who think that way. In fact, down through the ages, it's never been what any Christian has believed. In fact, Christianity is the only religion to be based on rationality and history.
“God is supremely rational, and the human being is also rational, being created in the image and likeness of God. Hence religion, which is the expression of the deep relationship between God and human kind cannot be but rational.” Johannes Kepler, “What if the Bible had never been written.”
“Now I define faith as the power of continuing to believe what we once honestly thought to be true until cogent reasons for honestly changing our minds are brought before us.” C. S. Lewis, “The Seeing Eye”
“Belief, in the Christian sense, seems to be to be assent to a proposition which we think so overwhelmingly probable that there is a psychological exclusion of doubt though not a logical exclusion of dispute.” C. S. Lewis, “Obstinacy of Belief”
“Faith is a trust in what we have reason to believe is true. Understood in this way we see that faith is built on reason. We should have good reasons for thinking that Christianity is true before we dedicate ourselves completely to it.” J. P. Mooreland
“Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love what is true. Justin Martyr, “The first Apology.”
“Philosophy is a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. So also here I call him truly learned who brings everything to bear on the truth, so that from geometry and music and grammar and philosophy itself, culling what is useful, he guards the faith against assault. ”Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata”
“Creation itself reveals Him who created it, and the work made is suggestive of Him who made it, and the world manifests Him that arranged it.” Irenaeous of Lyon, “Barr 13"
“We must first be instructed by reason and then we share understand the sacred and mystical teachings.” Basil of Caesarea “Christianity and Classical Culture”
“Faith is what gives fullness to our reasoning,” Gregory of Nazianzus
“Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as God, the maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason, nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason.” Stark, “For the Glory of God.”
“Heaven forbid that we should believe in such as way as not accept or seek reasons since we could not even believe if we did not possess rational souls. But they are much deceived, who think that we believe in Christ without any proofs concerning Christ.” Augustine, “Concerning Faith In Things Not Seen”
“I believe in order to understand.” Anselm
“While faith comes first in time, knowledge comes first in importance. Faith and reason do not conflict but instead compliment each other.” St Anselm, “Credo, ut inttigam”
“It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God, besides the philosophical sciences investigated by human reason.” Anselm, “Summa Theologica”
“The principles of any science are either themselves self-evident or reducible to the knowledge of a higher science. Individual facts establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation has come down to us. Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about the articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but to the weakness of the human intellect.” Thomas Aquinas
“The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith for faith presupposes natural knowledge” Thomas Aquinas
“Reason distinguished man from true brutes, and was that by which man judges between good and evil.” John Calvin. Chapter in the Institutes of the Christian Religion called, “Rational Proofs to Establish the Belief of the Scripture.”
“I have always thought that two questions, that of God and that of the soul, are chief among those that ought to be demonstrated by the aid of philosophy rather than that of theology. These two are first proven to him by way of reason. Now you sir, desire to learn the principles of the teaching of the Lord of heaven. I shall therefore state them plainly for you, and any explanation will be based solely on reason.” Rene Descartes, “To the Dean of Doctors” University of Paris.
“Faith can never convince us of anything that contradicts our knowledge. It still belongs to reason to judge of the truth of it’s being a revelation.” John Locke
“Thought constitutes the greatness of man.” Blaise Pascal “Section 12 “Proofs of Jesus.””
“Unreasonable and absurd ways of life are truly an offence to God.” William Law, “Love God With All Your Mind.”
“Ignorance is the mother not of devotion but of heresy.” Cotton Mather
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen." Hebrews 11:1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)