5 Comments
Published by Jeff
on Friday, September 07, 2007 at 4:05 PM. 
The whole Evolution vs Intelligent Design issue has got me on edge. The non-intelligent design folks are in the "if you don't see it my way, you MUST take the radical opposite of my view" camp. They accuse the other side of wanting to teach the Bible in science classes at public schools. It is the classic straw man argument and it grows weary.
The whole Evolution vs Intelligent Design issue has got me on edge. The non-intelligent design folks are in the "if you don't see it my way, you MUST take the radical opposite of my view" camp. They accuse the other side of wanting to teach the Bible in science classes at public schools. It is the classic straw man argument and it grows weary.Here is the debate: The Evolutionists believe that man evolved from lower animals over millions of years. Ultimately, we are the ancestors of wet rocks. The extremists on this side think that it should be taught as fact in our schools - period.
The intelligent design folks say that the world and life is too complex for it to unfold by chance, so logic demands that there is/was an intelligent designer. The extremists want the Genesis account being taught in school.
If one cuts off the extremists on both ends, the mainstream view is still pretty extreme in the pro-evolution camp. Here is why:
Conventional thinking believes that there is no place in the "science" classroom for intelligent design. As a matter of fact, there is no room for bringing up the problems in science that Evolution has. They don't want the students to be confused into thinking that Evolution is anything but fact, despite some evidence to the contrary.
Basically, the mainstream intelligent design people want is the leeway to talk about the problems in Evolution and "mention" that there is an alternate theory of "Intelligent Design" in which some people adhere. They are not interested in advancing a particular religious ideology, just a small portion of the class to state this view. How is that destructive?
My view:
Science should be about discovering the truth. However, the scientific method procludes the possibility of certain truths even before the investigation gets started.
This method looks only for naturalistic reasons and causes which makes sense to a degree. After all, one can't follow scientific rules or laws to explain the system of things if one can merely chalk it all up to magic or God. However, scientists go as far as to discount anything that is not naturalistic, they run incredibly dangerous to doing the thing they claim to despise - creating myth.
For instance, no one as of yet can scientifically prove the existance of God. However, no one can prove that God does not exist, either. It follows then, that if God does exist and is responsible for ANYTHING, then science missed it from jump. Each day that passes with science chasing the white rabbit farther down the path, is one more day farther from the truth. If science is truly interested in the truth, they should leave this door open. Science could get so far away from truth that even intelligent people could believe that we came from wet rocks and those rocks came from nothing.
0 Comments
Published by Jeff
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 8:55 AM.
Previously, I explored the reliability of Scripture in regard as Truth. I came at it from a secular, legal angle. Would there be enough evidence in court for a jury to deem it true? My answer was yes and outlined why. It can be read or reviewed with my post "Jesus the Key."
Previously, I explored the reliability of Scripture in regard as Truth. I came at it from a secular, legal angle. Would there be enough evidence in court for a jury to deem it true? My answer was yes and outlined why. It can be read or reviewed with my post "Jesus the Key."I came across a story today that gives the other side of how convincing the the New Testament, particularly the Gospel Accounts, ring as true. This account illustrates how the Gospels stand by themselves. I found it interesting:
___________________________________________________________________
Dr. E. V. Rieu was a classical scholar and translator for many years. He rendered Homer into very modern English for the Penguin Classics. Rieu was 60 years old and a lifelong agnostic when the same firm invited him to translate the Gospels. His son remarked: "It will be interesting to see what Father makes of the four Gospels. It will be even more interesting to see what the four Gospels make of Father."
The answer was soon forthcoming. A year later, Rieu, convinced and converted, joined the Church of England. In an interview with J. B. Phillips, Rieu confessed that he had undertaken the task of translation because of an "intense desire to satisfy himself as to the authenticity and spiritual content of the Gospels."
He was determined to approach the documents as if they were newly discovered Greek manuscripts. "Did you not get the feeling," asked Canon Phillips, "that the whole material was extraordinarily alive?" The classical scholar agreed. "I got the deepest feeling," he replied. "My work changed me. I came to the conclusion that these words bear the seal of the Son of Man and God." (from a daily devotion, originally from J. B. Phillips, The Ring of Truth. quoted by R. Kent Hughes in 1001Great Stories and Quotes.)
Labels: apologetics, debate, impressions
4 Comments
Published by Jeff
on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 9:30 AM.
In my recent post, "Written on their Hearts" which can be found below, I discussed how evidence of God can be found in the most unlikely of places. In making that point, I have undoubtedly invited criticism of myself even to the point where I may not believe the Bible is God's Word. This indictment comes from Danny Kaye. For those of you who read this blog, Danny Kaye also has other issues with my so-called Christianity. In "A Question of Blogging," he came down on me for keeping my blog thoughts away from my wife. After that post, I thought that he was a Christian brother just concerned about a mistake I may be making in my walk. I welcomed his comments and thoughts to help me stay accountable.
After this post, however, I am coming to the realization that there may be more than this from Danny Kaye. It almost seems that he can't wait to see the splinter in my eye in order to call me on it. I still will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I do see the possibility that he may have some kind of "moral police" mentality. At any rate, I STILL welcome his comments. They still will help me think about my life and keep me accountable. As a matter of fact, I actually enjoy the engagement and would not reject off hand the idea of partnering with him on a Christian debate blog if this one hasn't morphed into that already.
I never dreamed that Danny Kaye or anyone would have a problem with my post. Instead of concentrating on my point, which he DID recognize, it seemed that he was just waiting to pounce by taking liberties with his assumptions.
Now for his charges and my response:
"First, let me say that I love concerts. I love music. I love crowds. I love a cold beer (especially after an ultimate frisbee game). I love entertainment in a big way! But...I have to ask this question before I start: Do you believe the Bible? (No, seriously.) . . . I mean, do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that it is the Standard and Ruler on which we should base our lives? The answer to that question will determine whether or not my comments will be heard without a "filter", or if my comment will fall flat."
Ironically, the post before this controversial one concluded with me pointing to the Bible as Truth and the Word of God. This means that either I am being charged with being a hypocrite, or not understanding what the concept of the Word of God means. I admit to being a hypocrite. I admitted that on this blog before. We ALL are. However, I don't believe I was hypoctical with my views of the concert. I do believe that the Bible is "the Standard and Ruler" on which I should base my life. However, the last sentence in Danny Kaye's quote is illigitimate. He sets up an exlcusive conditon which there is no room for any other possibility. Frankly, I don't see how he can claim that authority. Even if he does, I don't recognize it because I see a vast number of possibilities.
"But the part I have difficulty with is the part about not being offended by the sinfulness you saw there. I have to say that this one definately does NOT stack up well against the Scriptures.I am reminded of the Tower of Babel. Here was a bunch of folks who were sinning up a storm (the act of attempting to reach heaven without the help of God). The Lord found their activities offensive, even though they were unified."
I don't disagree with this. The people about the Tower of Babel were bypassing God to try to reach heaven. God was offended and TOOK ACTION AGAINST THEM. This is important. It was GOD that was offended and took action. This judgement was and is reserved for God. Who am I? What power do I have to affect those concert goers. The only instruction I know from Scripture is to love them; not condemn them.
"I am reminded of a passage in 2 Cor. 6:14-16 which says, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?"
From reading your post I would guess that you fellowshipped, harmonized and agreed pretty well with the crowd."
I have no problem with the 2 Cor. verses. Can you guess which part of his quote that I DID have a problem with? When I originally read his feedback, I was forced to go back and re-read my post. Here is what I found:
"In my church, the worship is led by a band that plays upbeat, even rock music. Looking around the auditorium, many people (mostly teenagers) were swaying, raising their hands, worshipping. I am a little more demure about my worship . . ."
The clue here that was easily missed was that even though it is common place at my church to do these kind of activities, I do not "get into" it in that way. It isn't my personality. However, somehow I AM that kind of person at a rock concert. It isn't true and there is nothing I wrote that would reasonably assume that I am.
"In unison, they sang, jumped, pumped their arms toward the objects of their affection. It was more than the throng admiring the music or the musicianship. The multitude was enraptured and was caught in unified worship.
I was in awe. Not that I have never witnessed this phenomenon before, but I never truly SAW it before. It confirms what my Christian spirit and the Scriptures have always taught me. God writes instructions on the hearts of mankind. He programs us."
Here, from the same post that Danny Kaye ASSUMES that I am WITH THE CROWD, I am in a role of witnessing it. I didn't write WE sang, jumped, etc., I wrote THEY. I truthfully do not know why he assumed the worse of me. He just did.
"I dunno, mate. I compare your admiration of their unity to seeing a couple involved in adultery and thinking, WOW!!! Look how much they love one another!"
I didn't admire the crowd; I admired God, His Word, the confirmation that this action was programmed by God, but perverted by this fallen world. There is a bigger picture there than drunken concert goers. There is something there that screams, "No matter how perverted or depraved the activity, the influence of God is still there. His fingerprints are everywhere. It is a shame that it gets perverted, but it has to be there for it to BE perverted. That is what I was in awe of.
"Look, I can avoid joining in on the profanity. I can avoid joining in on the drunkeness. And perhaps you are more pure and not so easily dragged into sin than I am, but if a naked woman (or many naked women) was flaunted in front of me, I imagine it would take me all of about .01 seconds to start lusting after what I saw."
That's a shame. I am not trying to be disrespectful, but Danny Kaye and I are different in this area. I am just not turned on by drunken women exposing their breasts in this fashion. I don't even think there was a lot of lusting in the crowd. There was more laughter than lip licking. And before DK jumps to more evil-seeking conclusions about me, I wasn't laughing either. Truthfully, I was just indifferent at this point of the concert (the very end).
"I am sure you are familiar with Galatians 5:19ff. But in case you are not, I'll post it:"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." Dude! You experienced at least 5 or 6 of the things in this list alone at that concert!"
Again, I have no problem with the Word, just a problem with his assumptions. What did I experience (as opposed to witness)? Sexual immorality? Nope, I didn't even have my hands in my pockets. Impurity? Nope, showered and shaved before I left and I didn't then or do now use profanity. Debauchery? Nope, may have witnessed it, but I was pretty much a wall flower. Idolotry? Double no, I was worshipping God at the time. Witchraft? Please. Hatred? No. Discord? No, but I would have had I stood up an condemned the crowd. Jealousy? Hardly. Fits of Rage? No, but Danny Kaye may have had one had he been there (tongue in cheek). Selfish Ambition? Not hardly. Dissensions? See "Discord" above. Factions and Envy? No and no. Drunkeness? Nope, I had one overpriced Diet Pepsi. I have never been drunk in my life. Orgies? Ah . . . . no. I can't find one thing that I EXPERIENCED on that list.
"I guess I am a terrible Christian. Because I would have had to high-tail it outta there. I would not have been able to stay and see the wonders of God in that crowd. I gotta hand it to you, Jeff. You must be a VERY strong Christian."
Thank you, but don't worry. We are all terrible Christians. That is why we have a God of Grace and Mercy.
Let me give a little more background. I don't really like Motley Crue. As a matter of fact, if not for the song, "Home Sweet Home", I think I would dislike ALL of their music. However, a friend won two tickets to this concert, kind of likes '80's bands, and asked me to go with him so he wouldn't have to go alone. I agreed.
I didn't know what I was getting into, but I praised God that I got that little message from Him from going. That, in of itself, confirmed to me that God was not unhappy that I was there. Maybe some people like Danny Kaye can't handle that situation. I agree with his statement: "I would not have been able to stay and see the wonders of God in that crowd." He wouldn't and God would probably not have bothered to try to get him to see it. That doesn't make Danny Kaye wrong or inferior, just different. I think it is a gift to be able to see the Biblical God in all places. I thank God for that gift.
I am not going to judge people. That is up to God. If someone comes up to me and askes me what my opinion of an activity is, I would tell them. However, I won't judge them. Some people have to go through a lot of things to find God and the life that He wants them to live. I do not have the authority to prescribe that life. There is a Christian principle taught in AA that states that no one should deprive another of their suffering. There is a reason for that principle.
As I stated in the original post, "These people, the band and crowd alike, are on their paths - living out what they think is written on their hearts." Some day they will find God (if they hadn't already). Hopefully, it will be on this side of their last breaths.
In my recent post, "Written on their Hearts" which can be found below, I discussed how evidence of God can be found in the most unlikely of places. In making that point, I have undoubtedly invited criticism of myself even to the point where I may not believe the Bible is God's Word. This indictment comes from Danny Kaye. For those of you who read this blog, Danny Kaye also has other issues with my so-called Christianity. In "A Question of Blogging," he came down on me for keeping my blog thoughts away from my wife. After that post, I thought that he was a Christian brother just concerned about a mistake I may be making in my walk. I welcomed his comments and thoughts to help me stay accountable.After this post, however, I am coming to the realization that there may be more than this from Danny Kaye. It almost seems that he can't wait to see the splinter in my eye in order to call me on it. I still will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I do see the possibility that he may have some kind of "moral police" mentality. At any rate, I STILL welcome his comments. They still will help me think about my life and keep me accountable. As a matter of fact, I actually enjoy the engagement and would not reject off hand the idea of partnering with him on a Christian debate blog if this one hasn't morphed into that already.
I never dreamed that Danny Kaye or anyone would have a problem with my post. Instead of concentrating on my point, which he DID recognize, it seemed that he was just waiting to pounce by taking liberties with his assumptions.
Now for his charges and my response:
"First, let me say that I love concerts. I love music. I love crowds. I love a cold beer (especially after an ultimate frisbee game). I love entertainment in a big way! But...I have to ask this question before I start: Do you believe the Bible? (No, seriously.) . . . I mean, do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that it is the Standard and Ruler on which we should base our lives? The answer to that question will determine whether or not my comments will be heard without a "filter", or if my comment will fall flat."
Ironically, the post before this controversial one concluded with me pointing to the Bible as Truth and the Word of God. This means that either I am being charged with being a hypocrite, or not understanding what the concept of the Word of God means. I admit to being a hypocrite. I admitted that on this blog before. We ALL are. However, I don't believe I was hypoctical with my views of the concert. I do believe that the Bible is "the Standard and Ruler" on which I should base my life. However, the last sentence in Danny Kaye's quote is illigitimate. He sets up an exlcusive conditon which there is no room for any other possibility. Frankly, I don't see how he can claim that authority. Even if he does, I don't recognize it because I see a vast number of possibilities.
"But the part I have difficulty with is the part about not being offended by the sinfulness you saw there. I have to say that this one definately does NOT stack up well against the Scriptures.I am reminded of the Tower of Babel. Here was a bunch of folks who were sinning up a storm (the act of attempting to reach heaven without the help of God). The Lord found their activities offensive, even though they were unified."
I don't disagree with this. The people about the Tower of Babel were bypassing God to try to reach heaven. God was offended and TOOK ACTION AGAINST THEM. This is important. It was GOD that was offended and took action. This judgement was and is reserved for God. Who am I? What power do I have to affect those concert goers. The only instruction I know from Scripture is to love them; not condemn them.
"I am reminded of a passage in 2 Cor. 6:14-16 which says, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?"
From reading your post I would guess that you fellowshipped, harmonized and agreed pretty well with the crowd."
I have no problem with the 2 Cor. verses. Can you guess which part of his quote that I DID have a problem with? When I originally read his feedback, I was forced to go back and re-read my post. Here is what I found:
"In my church, the worship is led by a band that plays upbeat, even rock music. Looking around the auditorium, many people (mostly teenagers) were swaying, raising their hands, worshipping. I am a little more demure about my worship . . ."
The clue here that was easily missed was that even though it is common place at my church to do these kind of activities, I do not "get into" it in that way. It isn't my personality. However, somehow I AM that kind of person at a rock concert. It isn't true and there is nothing I wrote that would reasonably assume that I am.
"In unison, they sang, jumped, pumped their arms toward the objects of their affection. It was more than the throng admiring the music or the musicianship. The multitude was enraptured and was caught in unified worship.
I was in awe. Not that I have never witnessed this phenomenon before, but I never truly SAW it before. It confirms what my Christian spirit and the Scriptures have always taught me. God writes instructions on the hearts of mankind. He programs us."
Here, from the same post that Danny Kaye ASSUMES that I am WITH THE CROWD, I am in a role of witnessing it. I didn't write WE sang, jumped, etc., I wrote THEY. I truthfully do not know why he assumed the worse of me. He just did.
"I dunno, mate. I compare your admiration of their unity to seeing a couple involved in adultery and thinking, WOW!!! Look how much they love one another!"
I didn't admire the crowd; I admired God, His Word, the confirmation that this action was programmed by God, but perverted by this fallen world. There is a bigger picture there than drunken concert goers. There is something there that screams, "No matter how perverted or depraved the activity, the influence of God is still there. His fingerprints are everywhere. It is a shame that it gets perverted, but it has to be there for it to BE perverted. That is what I was in awe of.
"Look, I can avoid joining in on the profanity. I can avoid joining in on the drunkeness. And perhaps you are more pure and not so easily dragged into sin than I am, but if a naked woman (or many naked women) was flaunted in front of me, I imagine it would take me all of about .01 seconds to start lusting after what I saw."
That's a shame. I am not trying to be disrespectful, but Danny Kaye and I are different in this area. I am just not turned on by drunken women exposing their breasts in this fashion. I don't even think there was a lot of lusting in the crowd. There was more laughter than lip licking. And before DK jumps to more evil-seeking conclusions about me, I wasn't laughing either. Truthfully, I was just indifferent at this point of the concert (the very end).
"I am sure you are familiar with Galatians 5:19ff. But in case you are not, I'll post it:"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." Dude! You experienced at least 5 or 6 of the things in this list alone at that concert!"
Again, I have no problem with the Word, just a problem with his assumptions. What did I experience (as opposed to witness)? Sexual immorality? Nope, I didn't even have my hands in my pockets. Impurity? Nope, showered and shaved before I left and I didn't then or do now use profanity. Debauchery? Nope, may have witnessed it, but I was pretty much a wall flower. Idolotry? Double no, I was worshipping God at the time. Witchraft? Please. Hatred? No. Discord? No, but I would have had I stood up an condemned the crowd. Jealousy? Hardly. Fits of Rage? No, but Danny Kaye may have had one had he been there (tongue in cheek). Selfish Ambition? Not hardly. Dissensions? See "Discord" above. Factions and Envy? No and no. Drunkeness? Nope, I had one overpriced Diet Pepsi. I have never been drunk in my life. Orgies? Ah . . . . no. I can't find one thing that I EXPERIENCED on that list.
"I guess I am a terrible Christian. Because I would have had to high-tail it outta there. I would not have been able to stay and see the wonders of God in that crowd. I gotta hand it to you, Jeff. You must be a VERY strong Christian."
Thank you, but don't worry. We are all terrible Christians. That is why we have a God of Grace and Mercy.
Let me give a little more background. I don't really like Motley Crue. As a matter of fact, if not for the song, "Home Sweet Home", I think I would dislike ALL of their music. However, a friend won two tickets to this concert, kind of likes '80's bands, and asked me to go with him so he wouldn't have to go alone. I agreed.
I didn't know what I was getting into, but I praised God that I got that little message from Him from going. That, in of itself, confirmed to me that God was not unhappy that I was there. Maybe some people like Danny Kaye can't handle that situation. I agree with his statement: "I would not have been able to stay and see the wonders of God in that crowd." He wouldn't and God would probably not have bothered to try to get him to see it. That doesn't make Danny Kaye wrong or inferior, just different. I think it is a gift to be able to see the Biblical God in all places. I thank God for that gift.
I am not going to judge people. That is up to God. If someone comes up to me and askes me what my opinion of an activity is, I would tell them. However, I won't judge them. Some people have to go through a lot of things to find God and the life that He wants them to live. I do not have the authority to prescribe that life. There is a Christian principle taught in AA that states that no one should deprive another of their suffering. There is a reason for that principle.
As I stated in the original post, "These people, the band and crowd alike, are on their paths - living out what they think is written on their hearts." Some day they will find God (if they hadn't already). Hopefully, it will be on this side of their last breaths.
Labels: blog, christian living, debate, finding God, grace
