Skepticism is a powerful tool; it is one of the essential tools of science, in fact Carl Sagan called science a marriage of skepticism and wonder.
The hard thing about skepticism is that in order to be a true skeptic, one must question the validity of all ideas even those which are cherished. Every assertion must be supported by a degree of evidence whether this evidence is forensic, experimental, or observational. accepting an idea or claim at face value without investigating its reliability can cost you money or even a person's life (as in the case of quack medical cures). Now this isn't an essay on why one needs to be skeptical; there are several books which encourage skepticism, or the compatibility between religion and a skeptical worldview. The purpose of this post is to discuss the need for skepticism in one particular social institution: the church.
I consider myself an evangelical Christian, however this does not keep me from saying that credulity runs deep in many Evangelical christian circles. Now this gullibility isn't universal, many Evangelical churches encourage their members to read the bible to compare what the bible says with what the pastor says. Churches like these encourage their congregations to think for themselves deciding what the bible actually says; not what the past claims the bible says. This kind of skepticism is great concerning doctrinal issues which have an affect on a churchgoers daily life such as tithing or prophecy. If a pastor says the the world is going to end next Tuesday, the congregation has no obligation to believe him since Jesus said you will know neither the day nor the hour of my coming (Matthew 24:36) which renders any attempt to make an end times cult foiled. People are also encouraged to ask questions concerning the bible, in many but not all churches, a person in a strongly dispensationalist (believing in the the rapture followed by a seven year tribulation and Christs second coming) church can be an open preterist (the belief that Christ already came somewhere around 70 A.D. and that we are not living in the millennial reign of Christ); they simply cannot be ushers, assistant pastors, deacons etc.
But the problem is that while the church is very skeptical, even intolerant of things which are not considered biblical (channeling crystals, astrology, alien abductions etc.) many evangelicals are very gullible when it comes to things the bible doesn't rule out. This would include instance involving faith-healings, sightings of angels, demonic possession, encounters with Jesus, and witchcraft. Many stories with such elements are rarely checked, and the reason is quite obvious; they are biased towards these events so they tend to be less doubtful of them. I am not denying that I think any of these events happen. I would be more likely to believe a story about a missionary being saved from headhunters by an angel, and would be more inclined to attribute a New Age gurus contact with an ascended master to hallucinations, sleep paralysis, or fabrication. Since I think such events occur and I want them to occur; I wouldn't mind God sending angels to protect me, or Jesus meeting me on the road and since I believe God exists for reasons which are beyond the scope of this article I find an encounter with an angel more plausible then a power Juju. We all have biases and other religious people would react the same way, but we must put our biases aside and question the truth of these tails whether or not they align with our religious beliefs.
Now what am I asking? I am asking Christians to be just a little more skeptical about certain topics, such as things the bible does not rule out. Christians and religious believers in general are known for gullibility, however Christians shouldn't be, the bible tells us to be skeptical (2 Thessalonians 5:21) and to test all things, using reason to attain truth. One area where skepticism would be a great advantage is faith-healing. Being a Christian I do believe in faith-healing and that one day there might be a true faith healer, but most current faith-healers appear to be charlatans taking advantage of the gullible. Most diseases they supposedly cure are psychogenic illnesses or even outright fabrications. Faith healers have gained a reputation for dishonesty in our modern age.
A little skepticism might be as simple as asking the faith healer to heal someone of Down's syndrome or another largely incurable disease; or document how the faith healer's prayers affected the person's illness, noting also how illness was affected by the prayers. Also compare what the faith healer says concerning theology with biblical theology, if he is really sent by God then his words should agree with what the bible teaches. Another important thing is to scrutinize his behavior; assuming Christianity is true, those who are endowed with the holy spirit should act accordingly (showing love, kindness, generosity, self-control, altruism, humility etc.).
Such methods can apply to other topics such as self-proclaimed prophets or those who claim to be the second coming of Christ.
Stories involving encounters with supernatural beings should be treated with the same type of skepticism, here are some guidelines;
--Ask if there were any other witnesses, and if possible try to interview them to hear their side of the story.
--consider alternatives (were they hallucinating, were they mistaken, were they lying)
--make sure all the elements of the story are not contradictory and that all the witnesses give relatively the same story.
Now you may ask why go through all the trouble of investigating such stories? The reason is quite sober; many people live out their lives on the assumption that those stories are true. If they are not true, then the believers in these tails are living a lie; if you are living based off a false premise, you will have a distorted view of reality which could lead you to make bad decisions and even put your life or the lives of others in danger. From both a biblical and from a secular perspective skepticism can save a man's soul.
Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Re-applying the creationist pressuppositionalist argument.
You all know what Creationist say about presuppositions. That we interpret evidence through our presuppositions and its not about the right evidence but the right presupposition.
Well although I disagree with their version of it I do think they make a point. The point being that religion give you a logical framework from which to base your ideas, including your idea in science. I am not saying that we ought to develop our scientific theories from the bible (Although there are Christians who do that), what I am saying is that a Christian looks at everything in the light of Christian Monotheism. Essentially that there is a God that is rational, non capricious, and uncompromising. He act like this in the social world with moral law so it is not too much of an extrapolation to say he acts the same with natural law; God makes uniform laws for nature to run by has given us the ability to use our reason to understand these laws. According to the bible, we are capable of using our reason to understand nature (Job 12:7-8, Romans 1:20) and we are also told to test everything and not listen to everything we are told (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
So in this view Christianity is in conformity with the philosophy of science and is therefore not a worldview that rejects science but promotes science. I would also say that belief in a rational uniform universe stems from belief in a creator. The reason being that order, uniformity, and complexity emerges from an intelligent mind. Now this does not prove the existence of God but it does tell us that Christian Theistic Beliefs can lead to a worldview which allows for science to thrive. Thus Christianity is a viable framework for science.
In the same way Materialism is also a framework in which you base all your ideas. It also makes assumptions which lead to science, in the same way it could be called a logical framework from which to work science just like Christianity.
What I am saying is I believe there is some sense to this argument, although I maintain that creationists take it somewhat far.
Well although I disagree with their version of it I do think they make a point. The point being that religion give you a logical framework from which to base your ideas, including your idea in science. I am not saying that we ought to develop our scientific theories from the bible (Although there are Christians who do that), what I am saying is that a Christian looks at everything in the light of Christian Monotheism. Essentially that there is a God that is rational, non capricious, and uncompromising. He act like this in the social world with moral law so it is not too much of an extrapolation to say he acts the same with natural law; God makes uniform laws for nature to run by has given us the ability to use our reason to understand these laws. According to the bible, we are capable of using our reason to understand nature (Job 12:7-8, Romans 1:20) and we are also told to test everything and not listen to everything we are told (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
So in this view Christianity is in conformity with the philosophy of science and is therefore not a worldview that rejects science but promotes science. I would also say that belief in a rational uniform universe stems from belief in a creator. The reason being that order, uniformity, and complexity emerges from an intelligent mind. Now this does not prove the existence of God but it does tell us that Christian Theistic Beliefs can lead to a worldview which allows for science to thrive. Thus Christianity is a viable framework for science.
In the same way Materialism is also a framework in which you base all your ideas. It also makes assumptions which lead to science, in the same way it could be called a logical framework from which to work science just like Christianity.
What I am saying is I believe there is some sense to this argument, although I maintain that creationists take it somewhat far.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Obey the scriptures; do science and be skeptical!
You already know that I have called myself a Christian skeptic partially based on Thessalonians 5:21. I am looking for more references to being skeptical in the bible so if some of you could help me that would be great (and yes that includes any creationists on this blog). Also I think that the bible gives us incentive for science for example the creation mandate (Genesis 1:28) orders us to subdue the earth and use our available resources to improve humanity. Job 12:7-8 tells us to follow the evidence. So Christians should be skeptical and do science because the bible says so.
Now of course you know what this means, be rational, like the Bereans, test everything and make sure it is true. Even if it turns out the evidence really points towards a 6,000 year old earth follow the evidence to the conclusion, and you will be most likely to find truth.
Good luck.
Now of course you know what this means, be rational, like the Bereans, test everything and make sure it is true. Even if it turns out the evidence really points towards a 6,000 year old earth follow the evidence to the conclusion, and you will be most likely to find truth.
Good luck.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Christianity's fate at the hand of fundamentalists
I recently read a blogpost on the blog Jesus loves Everything; it was posted on October 10, 2005, at the time it was posted I was a space/astronomy creationist geek blissfully unaware of the enormity of the creation/evolution wars. Now even though it is archaic I am going to respond to it. The article claims science is evil and the cause of sexual immorality (now it is probably a parody but I'm board so I am going to refute it). Being a Christian who loves science, lets just see what this guy has to say.
Yes, its because society is obsessed with sex among other things.
Alright, subtracting the other parts what does this guy mean by girls growing breasts at younger ages? Does Nathaniel realize that throughout history girls have begun to sexually mature and menstruate in their early teens?
Science isn't the reason that there is so much immorality in the world. Humans have been given the freedom to use science either for good purposes such as finding ways to end world hunger, care for the environment, and cure cancer. Or to use it for their own selfish ends, it is not science that is the problem it is people that is the problem. And poisoning the food supply? What are you babbling about?
Greeaat!!!! Lets not even try, lets just give up our position as one of the leading scientific nations in the world to become a third world country; famine, disease, and all! Welcome to Redneckistan!!!!! With people like you around, our nation and my religion is in deep trouble. Once we give up our economy is finished, when the next generation comes to take our place we will fall behind the rest of the world because they will not have adequate education. the United States will become just like Saudi Arabia, the scientific backwaters. Also the military will become less advanced with time because there will be no scientists to develop new technologies or sustain old ones; without science, America is doomed.
And how are the two mutually exclusive? Haven't you ever read Genesis, if you have I think you need to review the creation mandate. God also tells us not to be like an ox and lack understanding like you clearly do.
You are pathetic, science is good, and compatible with the bible. You can believe in both, also we only share a common ancestor with apes.
The bible is for sunday school and comparative religion, science is for the science classroom, I believe in both the bible and science and I respect authority. And not every citizen of the United States can work in your stupid superstore (Note: this article may be in fact a parody considering he wants them to work at his store, or he could in fact be describing the church).
If Christians do not embrace science and reason, this is what shall become of us, irrational anti-science, cave-dwelling blockheads. We must not let this happen, God gave us brains for a reason, it is about time we used them and took science back. Nathaniel, the one who wrote the article is causing far more damage to his own religion then he thinks.
I ask you, when you look around our towns and our cities, when you watch tv and
go to movies, what do you see? Pornography! It's everywhere, infesting our
public squares with scantily clad, whore-like Jezebells that tempt our sons and
daughters into sin.
Yes, its because society is obsessed with sex among other things.
IT didn't used to be this way. Our children weren't robbed of their innocence by
slickly (and slimly)produced television shows, music videos, and advertisements
beating down on them as surely as the sun beats down on sunbathers at the beach.
Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson -- they gyrate and flaunt their breasts,
practically throwing them in our faces so that we can't even look away. And this
dilemma -- this tragedy -- is even manifesting itself in our childrens' physical
appearance, as girls are growing breasts and menstruating at younger and younger
ages.
Alright, subtracting the other parts what does this guy mean by girls growing breasts at younger ages? Does Nathaniel realize that throughout history girls have begun to sexually mature and menstruate in their early teens?
What happened? How did we go from a small town country, where we waived to each
other on the street, worshipped together, and didn't have to worry about our
children being led into sin, into this cesspool? I think I've found the answer,
and it lays in our daughters' breasts. Science. It's science that's been
mutating our children, as we pump hormones and chemicals into our cattle and
poison the nation's food supply. And it's science that brought us television and
movies to warp our children's' minds with pornography, science that has created
a veritable bazaar of abortion to feed the Godless' appetite for stem cells. And
it will be science that creates the first cloned human being. Science,
therefore, is evil.
Science isn't the reason that there is so much immorality in the world. Humans have been given the freedom to use science either for good purposes such as finding ways to end world hunger, care for the environment, and cure cancer. Or to use it for their own selfish ends, it is not science that is the problem it is people that is the problem. And poisoning the food supply? What are you babbling about?
So what do we do? Surely this nation can't live without science, doubters will
undoubtedly say. But we can. Look at the state of America's economy today. We've
been outsourcing so many jobs to India and China, why wouldn't it be possible to
give them all of our science jobs. They are heathens and will always be
heathens, so let them be tempted by the sin that will surely follow.
Greeaat!!!! Lets not even try, lets just give up our position as one of the leading scientific nations in the world to become a third world country; famine, disease, and all! Welcome to Redneckistan!!!!! With people like you around, our nation and my religion is in deep trouble. Once we give up our economy is finished, when the next generation comes to take our place we will fall behind the rest of the world because they will not have adequate education. the United States will become just like Saudi Arabia, the scientific backwaters. Also the military will become less advanced with time because there will be no scientists to develop new technologies or sustain old ones; without science, America is doomed.
Instead of biotechnology and computer science, we can focus on Jesus Loves
Everything Superstores, reforming our economy so it's better prepared for the
end times.
And how are the two mutually exclusive? Haven't you ever read Genesis, if you have I think you need to review the creation mandate. God also tells us not to be like an ox and lack understanding like you clearly do.
Then we will no longer need to teach science in schools, thus depriving
our children of the seeds of doubt in the power of our Lord, that He created the
world in six days, and that we did not descend from apes.
You are pathetic, science is good, and compatible with the bible. You can believe in both, also we only share a common ancestor with apes.
Instead of science, our children can be taught the Bible and how to respect
authority; and when they get a little older, we can add instruction on how to be
a better Jesus Loves Everything Superstore Employee, so that when they are ready
to be sent off to work, they will be the best employees the world has ever seen.
The bible is for sunday school and comparative religion, science is for the science classroom, I believe in both the bible and science and I respect authority. And not every citizen of the United States can work in your stupid superstore (Note: this article may be in fact a parody considering he wants them to work at his store, or he could in fact be describing the church).
If Christians do not embrace science and reason, this is what shall become of us, irrational anti-science, cave-dwelling blockheads. We must not let this happen, God gave us brains for a reason, it is about time we used them and took science back. Nathaniel, the one who wrote the article is causing far more damage to his own religion then he thinks.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Both a skeptic and a Christian
I find myself in a very unique position, I am both religious and skeptical. Well obviously I am not a hardcore skeptic however I do disbelieve many things my family and people doesn't necessarily disbelieve, now I am not saying everyone I know takes the idea seriously, many of them don't but I do know people personally who do take these ideas seriously;
Bermuda Triangle paranormal activity
9/11 conspiracy theory
Ghosts
Apollo moon hoax
New World Order Conspiracy
UFOs are of Satan
Astrology.
Members of my family take the Bermuda Triangle, Apollo moon hoax, and of course creationism (the concept not the geographic location) seriously. Their acceptance of Creationism is fine but the fact is that their creationism is Hovindian makes it out on the far fringe of creationism. It appears that I come from a very different school of thought then they do, the school of skepticism, and yet I am a believer in spirituality and the supernatural, so therefore I am not a hardcore skeptic. But I am skeptical enough to get by rationally. I have found at least one person who has a similar situation.
Now you may decide if what it means to be a skeptic and a Christian, if you are one are you;
(a) reasonable
(b) inconsistent
(c) or completely consistent with biblical teachings?
Well I think that I am consistent with the bible, however you may make your own opinions.
Bermuda Triangle paranormal activity
9/11 conspiracy theory
Ghosts
Apollo moon hoax
New World Order Conspiracy
UFOs are of Satan
Astrology.
Members of my family take the Bermuda Triangle, Apollo moon hoax, and of course creationism (the concept not the geographic location) seriously. Their acceptance of Creationism is fine but the fact is that their creationism is Hovindian makes it out on the far fringe of creationism. It appears that I come from a very different school of thought then they do, the school of skepticism, and yet I am a believer in spirituality and the supernatural, so therefore I am not a hardcore skeptic. But I am skeptical enough to get by rationally. I have found at least one person who has a similar situation.
Now you may decide if what it means to be a skeptic and a Christian, if you are one are you;
(a) reasonable
(b) inconsistent
(c) or completely consistent with biblical teachings?
Well I think that I am consistent with the bible, however you may make your own opinions.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The inquisitors are at it again...
I was on the Evolved and Rational blog, and I commented on one of her articles in a discussion with another supposed Christian (he's probably a joke though). Well, he has this to sat about me after I asked what his real name was since he claimed to be scientist at AiG.
Ok, lets grind through this comment point by point;
And yes he actually does write almost everything in all capitals, and being that I am a Christian I should probably beware to, but for different reasons. Christians should probably be aware of this guy (whose user name is creationist). because what he says is so amazingly ridiculous Creationist is most likely making fun of Christians who actually are young earth creationists who support Answers In Genesis
Like anyone who went to my blog doesn't already know that. I let people disagree with me, its fine if they want to have their own views of the creation.
Alright, first of all Evolved Rationalist =/= Shalini Sekhar, and second of all I am not a supporter of evolved rationalist anymore the Kent Hovind (and whats hilarious is that Hovinds last name is not in my computers dictionary) is a supporter of Hugh Ross. I agree with her on certain scientific issues (such as the fact of evolution) but I disagree with almost everything she says in regards to philosophy, God, religion, and even social conduct.
Alright Creationist, stop accusing people of being liars and actually try to discredit what I and ER say about evolution, the age of the earth, and the Big Bang. Or I could just as easily call Creationist a liar since he is either closed to ignoring obvious truth or mocking the Christian faith. Either way I would distance myself from him, and I would suggest other Christians to do the same.
CHRISTIANS BEWARE, Created Rationalist is a Darwinist supporter of the
EXPOSED Shalini Sehkar (Evolved Rationalist LIAR)!!!Beware his heretical,
unGODly lies!!
Ok, lets grind through this comment point by point;
CHRISTIANS BEWARE,
And yes he actually does write almost everything in all capitals, and being that I am a Christian I should probably beware to, but for different reasons. Christians should probably be aware of this guy (whose user name is creationist). because what he says is so amazingly ridiculous Creationist is most likely making fun of Christians who actually are young earth creationists who support Answers In Genesis
Created Rationalist is a Darwinist...
Like anyone who went to my blog doesn't already know that. I let people disagree with me, its fine if they want to have their own views of the creation.
supporter of the EXPOSED Shalini Sekhar (Evolved Rationalist LIAR)!!!
Alright, first of all Evolved Rationalist =/= Shalini Sekhar, and second of all I am not a supporter of evolved rationalist anymore the Kent Hovind (and whats hilarious is that Hovinds last name is not in my computers dictionary) is a supporter of Hugh Ross. I agree with her on certain scientific issues (such as the fact of evolution) but I disagree with almost everything she says in regards to philosophy, God, religion, and even social conduct.
Beware of his heretical unGODLY lies!!
Alright Creationist, stop accusing people of being liars and actually try to discredit what I and ER say about evolution, the age of the earth, and the Big Bang. Or I could just as easily call Creationist a liar since he is either closed to ignoring obvious truth or mocking the Christian faith. Either way I would distance myself from him, and I would suggest other Christians to do the same.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Fears of millions of years unfounded
Most of you are probably thinking "alright enough about outer space, lets get back to creation and evolution."
Well I have been thinking that too don't worry (hope I didn't lose too many of you), I have an unfortunate case of blogger's block, however I did run into a an article on the Answers In Creaton website which discusses the supposed problems with old earth belief. This poses no problem for the young earth creationist, but I am curious how any young earth creationist would respond, so let the games begin.
Note: I rewrote this article, the other one sounded incredibly complacent, to anyone who read it I apologize.
Well I have been thinking that too don't worry (hope I didn't lose too many of you), I have an unfortunate case of blogger's block, however I did run into a an article on the Answers In Creaton website which discusses the supposed problems with old earth belief. This poses no problem for the young earth creationist, but I am curious how any young earth creationist would respond, so let the games begin.
Note: I rewrote this article, the other one sounded incredibly complacent, to anyone who read it I apologize.
Does Christianity permit life on other planets?
This question is rather important to some people and less to others. The opinion varies from denomination to denomination. Conservative non-denominational evangelicals usually tend to think that our planet is the only planet with life in the universe. Answers In Genesis holds this view, of course they go so far as to claim life on other planets is based on "evolutionary" and "humanistic" assumptions (yes they can tell the difference between evolution and Secular Humanism, they simply choose not to I guess). On the other side of the extreme the Roman Catholic Church has embraced the idea of extraterrestrial life, they even go as far to say that space would be a missionfield to spread the gospel to other civilizations.
My personal belief is that there is life on other planets, possibly even intelligent life (which sometimes I wonder if it is yet to arise on this planet). There is nothing unscientific about the idea of life on other planets, the main question when it comes to Christianity is a theological one. These intelligent, humanlike aliens if they exist would have freewill. Thus they would have the ability to sin, and thus they would need Christ to save them. The problem is that Christ only died for humans, unless God has a radically different plan for them or he decided to just let them all burn in hell (which I think is very unlikely) Christ would have to visit each planet and die for each races sins. if we are talking unintelligent (or the other term presapient) life then the problem evaporates. The Pheonix probe which landed on Mars on March 25 is searching for water, and life on Mars (microbial life of course). They have even discovered something which might be ice on the surface. This is no problem for Christians. God simply also created life on Mars. Intelligent life isn't necessarily a problem either.
Now if Christ died for all sapient beings in the universe on earth. This problem would not be as bad. It could be that God created all sapient life in the universe about the same time (note this does necessarily mean special creation). At first they were all perfect, then Satan fell from grace and went about causing thousands if not millions or trillions of races to fall from perfection (although some of them may fallen simply because they made the wrong choice and Satan had nothing to do with it). Some would fall but others would resist temptation and right now would be perfect Utopian societies where there is no death, no suffering, no injustice, and no misery. Then there would be their fallen counterparts which would be much like the human race. Being capable of Godlike feats (such as science, humanitarianism, and contact with the creator of the universe) and at the same time being capable of unspeakable evil (such as genocide, rape, etc.). And when Christ died they now all have chance. It might even be humanities responsibility to bring the gospel to the universe, although I would count on it. No doubt God if he indeed exists has revealed himself to all these races and told them of Christs suffering on the cross. Now if Jesus died for each of them individually there are two options; if he did it simultaneously then it would be virtually no different except every culture would have a depiction of Jesus the savior. If he didn't do it all at once then it seems like it would be almost a cycle that all races go through independently. First they would be born unfallen and without flaws, then if they fall into sin they would be a fallen race. Then Christ would come, die on their planet (or at least one of their planets) then they would be a "semi-redeemed" race which is in the process of being restored. Finally there is a Redeemed race; which is back to prefall perfection being ruled directly by God. This idea seems far to De-Chardinish for my taste. Most likely the other view that Christ died simultaneously for the sins all race had or ever would commit is correct, the reason being that there is no scriptural support for a cyclic pattern in the redemption of sapient beings. There are also Christians who think aliens are really demons, well I don't think so, they would probably be on the same level as us.
At the moment this is not a particularly important question since no life in outer space has been discovered. But it is still interesting to talk about.
My personal belief is that there is life on other planets, possibly even intelligent life (which sometimes I wonder if it is yet to arise on this planet). There is nothing unscientific about the idea of life on other planets, the main question when it comes to Christianity is a theological one. These intelligent, humanlike aliens if they exist would have freewill. Thus they would have the ability to sin, and thus they would need Christ to save them. The problem is that Christ only died for humans, unless God has a radically different plan for them or he decided to just let them all burn in hell (which I think is very unlikely) Christ would have to visit each planet and die for each races sins. if we are talking unintelligent (or the other term presapient) life then the problem evaporates. The Pheonix probe which landed on Mars on March 25 is searching for water, and life on Mars (microbial life of course). They have even discovered something which might be ice on the surface. This is no problem for Christians. God simply also created life on Mars. Intelligent life isn't necessarily a problem either.
Now if Christ died for all sapient beings in the universe on earth. This problem would not be as bad. It could be that God created all sapient life in the universe about the same time (note this does necessarily mean special creation). At first they were all perfect, then Satan fell from grace and went about causing thousands if not millions or trillions of races to fall from perfection (although some of them may fallen simply because they made the wrong choice and Satan had nothing to do with it). Some would fall but others would resist temptation and right now would be perfect Utopian societies where there is no death, no suffering, no injustice, and no misery. Then there would be their fallen counterparts which would be much like the human race. Being capable of Godlike feats (such as science, humanitarianism, and contact with the creator of the universe) and at the same time being capable of unspeakable evil (such as genocide, rape, etc.). And when Christ died they now all have chance. It might even be humanities responsibility to bring the gospel to the universe, although I would count on it. No doubt God if he indeed exists has revealed himself to all these races and told them of Christs suffering on the cross. Now if Jesus died for each of them individually there are two options; if he did it simultaneously then it would be virtually no different except every culture would have a depiction of Jesus the savior. If he didn't do it all at once then it seems like it would be almost a cycle that all races go through independently. First they would be born unfallen and without flaws, then if they fall into sin they would be a fallen race. Then Christ would come, die on their planet (or at least one of their planets) then they would be a "semi-redeemed" race which is in the process of being restored. Finally there is a Redeemed race; which is back to prefall perfection being ruled directly by God. This idea seems far to De-Chardinish for my taste. Most likely the other view that Christ died simultaneously for the sins all race had or ever would commit is correct, the reason being that there is no scriptural support for a cyclic pattern in the redemption of sapient beings. There are also Christians who think aliens are really demons, well I don't think so, they would probably be on the same level as us.
At the moment this is not a particularly important question since no life in outer space has been discovered. But it is still interesting to talk about.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Carl Sagan explains the history of Creation
Carl Sagan (1934-1996), he was an astronomer, SETI activist, Astrobiologist, and a skeptic. In this particular video he does a good job at eloquently describing history of the universe.
Carl Sagan-origins
I disagree with a lot of what he says, being an evangelical Christian I disagree with a major part of his worldview. But there are also things we have in common; we are love astronomy, we both imagined life on other planets, we both believe the Big Bang and we both generally accept most of the same science. But there is one major difference which leads to several other differences.
The difference is my belief in God.
Mr. Sagan saw the universe as the result of chance events and mishaps. He saw mankind as a highly advanced animal. He saw religion has superstition of an age past.
I see it hopefully how many Christians see it. I see the big Bang as original creation ex nihilo where God began creating the universe. I see the universe as the work of a cosmic genius.
And as for evolution, I see it as the cosmic creator's method of creation. And what is Man? From a materialist point of view Man is no more then animal. A highly evolved primate which will soon be capable of interplanetary spaceflight. But according to the Christian theistic evolutionary worldview; Man is more then that, somewhere along the way we went from being like them, the animals; brutish, dimwitted, dominated by instinct. Humanity has in this view been given the earth by its creator to live on and to steward. Humans are distinguished from all life-forms since they are made in God's image. Having sense, reason, intellect, morality, etc.
According to Theistic Evolution Humanity is not simply here because the odds were in our favor but because our existence had been planned from the very beginning. From the Big Bang our lives had been mapped out and our existence plotted. And now 14 billion years later here we are, we are only a dim reflection of the glorious resplendent jewel that is God but we are still in God's image, we were created for a purpose, and that purpose is to be a child and servant of God and to serve and love other humans.
On this planet have been given the opportunity to finish our mission; we can either use our gifts, our God-given reason and moral sense to help others, make the world a better place, improve other people's lives, and what not. Or we can squander it all for the sake of the greed, selfishness, and wickedness of the vulgar side of humanity, it is ultimately up to us.
Carl Sagan-origins
I disagree with a lot of what he says, being an evangelical Christian I disagree with a major part of his worldview. But there are also things we have in common; we are love astronomy, we both imagined life on other planets, we both believe the Big Bang and we both generally accept most of the same science. But there is one major difference which leads to several other differences.
The difference is my belief in God.
Mr. Sagan saw the universe as the result of chance events and mishaps. He saw mankind as a highly advanced animal. He saw religion has superstition of an age past.
I see it hopefully how many Christians see it. I see the big Bang as original creation ex nihilo where God began creating the universe. I see the universe as the work of a cosmic genius.
And as for evolution, I see it as the cosmic creator's method of creation. And what is Man? From a materialist point of view Man is no more then animal. A highly evolved primate which will soon be capable of interplanetary spaceflight. But according to the Christian theistic evolutionary worldview; Man is more then that, somewhere along the way we went from being like them, the animals; brutish, dimwitted, dominated by instinct. Humanity has in this view been given the earth by its creator to live on and to steward. Humans are distinguished from all life-forms since they are made in God's image. Having sense, reason, intellect, morality, etc.
According to Theistic Evolution Humanity is not simply here because the odds were in our favor but because our existence had been planned from the very beginning. From the Big Bang our lives had been mapped out and our existence plotted. And now 14 billion years later here we are, we are only a dim reflection of the glorious resplendent jewel that is God but we are still in God's image, we were created for a purpose, and that purpose is to be a child and servant of God and to serve and love other humans.
On this planet have been given the opportunity to finish our mission; we can either use our gifts, our God-given reason and moral sense to help others, make the world a better place, improve other people's lives, and what not. Or we can squander it all for the sake of the greed, selfishness, and wickedness of the vulgar side of humanity, it is ultimately up to us.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
AAAS on Expelled
Being that I will be out of town for the next week I will close with a comment on what my fellow evolution-supporting Christians think of Ben Stein's Expelled.
It is rather insightful, although some may think of it as old.
It is rather insightful, although some may think of it as old.
Friday, April 25, 2008
"10 questions every intelligent Christian must answer" answered!
One day I was perusing on the Internet and I came across this video. It is titled "ten questions every intelligent Christian must answer."
An interesting video, although I have yet to graduate High School I am still a smart student and decided to take a stab at it.
The video starts out by saying the maker of the video is assuming that the person watching is an intelligent person employed in business, economics, government services, natural sciences etc. The next statement pretty much defines how much this person knows about intelligent Christians, he says;
He made one major false assumption, that thinking Christians avoid thinking about their faith and are encouraged not to question it. I would like to direct this person to 1 Thessalonians 5:21 which in fact tells us to test everything and not take anything in blind faith. Now the person goes on to talk about Amputees. He goes on to point out that 3 out of 4 doctors (or 75% to be exact) believe that God is doing medical miracles on earth everyday. And he also points out that Christians believe in the power of prayers.
Then he asks this question;
Well, the answer to that question is somewhat complex, first of all he assumes that God does not cure amputees, there have been accounts though spurious of God healing people with amputated limbs. Secondly he is assuming that according to Christian theology actually states humans do deserve to have their legs grown back, and lastly he assumes that God is a divine candy machine (insert prayer and a million dollars come out!). God may have other plans for this person. Also if this person is not a Christian and doesn't believe in God then there is no reason for God to heal that person because the person doesn't even believe God can do it and neither does he want it. He states that this is a rationalization but it isn't, it is basic theology.
Also if you don't want anything to do with God and you don't give anything back and when you lose your leg you ask him to generously regrow your leg when you've ignore him all your life do you expect him to give you back your leg?
The next question is asked in the same spirit;
Well Because there is evil in the world, and many people are not Christian and they are not praying to ask God to help them. Also I don't think this person has heard of organizations like World Vision which are trying to feed children and the fact that the Christian Church is earnestly trying to get food, clothing, clean water, and education to them. I don't know but it seems like God is answering the prayers of those who are praying. Also the malnutrition is often because of the poor economies and poor state of many of these countries, it seems to be more our fault then God's.
Now onto the next question;
Um...innocent people? Lets take a quick look at the verses he cites.
Exodus 35:2 says: "Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."
Well first of all notice that in the New Testament Jesus abrogates this law. Also this particular regulation is only for the forty years that the Israelites were in the desert, it is not enforced afterwords.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says: 18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
What kind of rebellion are they talking about? They are obviously not talking about a kindergartner who will not eat his vegetables they are talking about a juvenile delinquent who deserves the death penalty, this is not killing an innocent teenager.
Leviticus 20:13 says: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I am not ready to get into a debate on whether homosexuality is alright, my position is that it isn't right, but that does not particularly matter at this point. These were regulatory laws for Israel to keep social, moral, and economic order. If you were able to break laws and just get a slap on the wrist, more people would do it because the punishment wouldn't be so bad. If that happened there would be a break down in social order.
Also, the gay person is not innocent in this case, he has broken the law.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says: If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Once again the author of this video is assuming the woman is innocent, and second of all these were regulatory laws for Israel to keep order, if a woman had gotten away with a slap on the wrist other women might start to think "Oh she got away with it I could cheat on my husband too." This would cause a moral and social breakdown which would be smart to avoid.
Before he goes on he says "It doesn't make any sense doesn't it? Why would God demand the death of someone over such trivial matters?" I guess I must add that cheating on your spouse is not a "trivial matter," and neither is being a teenaged menace to society, and finally that does not matter Christ has already come now it is the age of grace.
Now to the next question;
Well, first of all, it is not a science textbook so his criticism is flawed from the start. Second of all the bible does say some things which sound scientifically accurate
Isaiah 40:22; implies earth is round because the Hebrew word for circle can be translated "sphere" (so do proverbs 8:27 and Job 26:10). Also in the same verse it implies the universe is expanding, something very few early cultures guessed.
Job 26:7 implies that earth is floating through space.
Jeremiah 33:22 says the stars are too numerous to be numbered exactly contrary to the scientific opinions of the day that there were only a few thousand stars.
Even statements in Genesis 1, such as Genesis 1:11-12 could be read to imply evolution with the statement "Let the earth bring forth" although this interpretation is somewhat unconventional.
Now to examine what he terms "nonsense;"
No the bible does not necessarily say the earth is 6,000 years old and was created in six 24 hour days. The word for day can be used to represent a long period of time and he is leaving out the fact the the date of 6,000 years is made from accumulation of the genealogies assuming there are no gaps.
The bible doesn't necessarily say there was a global flood either, the word used for mountain can mean hill, and the language used in the text can refer to a local region such as the flood plain in which Noah lived.
The story of Jonah getting swallowed by a whale was probably a miracle, there is no reason to discredit the bible on this charge.
Well about Adam being created from dust, its not nearly as ridiculous when you think of dust as coming from the soil and the fact that when an animal or human dies it is decomposed and becomes part of the soil, then the soil is used for nutrients by plants which are eaten by other animals or humans, then this animal gives birth to its offspring by using some of the food it ate. Also we are essentially made of star dust which became earth dust and then life was formed by God which led to us and so we are essentially created from dust. Either way that was probably an allegory of God creating Adam as separate from other humans (i.e. neanderthals).
He goes on to accentuate the fact that they are all nonsense. Well after looking at them closely they are not as nonsensical as they seem. Also a God might write nonsense to give us a moral or lesson, Jesus did this all the time (except they were called parables).
On to the next question;
Well, was he? To me God seems to more tolerate it as a social construct, most societies were built on the backs of slaves back in those days. Its like today we have people with underpaid jobs who can barely support their families but they often form the backbone of the work force, a necessary evil in other words. the Judaeo-Christian God is a God of order and disrupting the backbone of the economy would have caused social disorder.
Also Back in those days slavery was no decided on the basis of your gender or ethnic group it was decided on whether you could pay the bills. Also In Israel slaves would be realised in the year of Jubilee unless they wanted to remain with their masters
Next question;
This is a surprisingly basic question for being in the top ten killer questions to the Christian faith. God does not say he will shield good people from bad things. In fact many times he says the opposite and that Christians will go through trials and tribulations in which they would have to rely on him. he is also assuming that "good people" exist. The only way someone could truly be called a good person is if they were 100% flawless. They were never selfish, never greedy, never told a lie, never had lustful thoughts, was always respectful to his parents, never tried to tears someone down, never hated, was never materialistic. This person would have to be the pinnacle of perfection. This is impossible for a human being to attain on his or her own. This is a straw man argument, it does not threaten the faith at all.
next question;
This statement is misleading at best, there may not be evidence of every single miracle but there is a great amount of evidence that points towards Jesus being whom he claims to be, now to the next question;
This question is absurd, it presupposes the fact that Jesus would appear to you in the first place. It also presupposes that God is like a vending machine that will do whatever you want it to. Jesus does not appear to us because when we ask him that we don't really want him to we are simply taunting him and he asks us not to in Deuteronomy 6:16.
Also he is not going to appear to me unless it is part of his plan to redeem Mankind.
Now to the next question;
I am surprised this person would bring up this centuries old misconception. Obviously the confusion comes from the Roman Catholic belief in Transubstantiation (that the bread would become Jesus' body and the wine his blood). Being protestant I do not believe in Transubstantiation. It is probably symbolic of Jesus being our strength and our hope. He did not really mean he wanted us to drink his blood or eat his body. Its also kind of amusing that even though he doesn't even think satanism is wrong he still thinks it has negative connotations, most critics of Christianity embrace the term satanic as good.
The last three questions are quite easy, now for the last killer question! The grand fanali! The final deathblow to Christianity...
Alright I apologize for the misleading preamble. I will give him credit for asking some pretty challenging questions but this one can be answered by simple logic ; even though they pray for God to guide the marriage, Christian couples still have free will, and God can help but only if they are willing to let him, and let him guide through their marriage. Unfortunately this does not at all challenge the question of the existence of God.
After looking at these ten questions I must say they have failed to defeat Christianity, or the idea of the existence of a loving God.
If have a response please post it in the comments and God bless.
An interesting video, although I have yet to graduate High School I am still a smart student and decided to take a stab at it.
The video starts out by saying the maker of the video is assuming that the person watching is an intelligent person employed in business, economics, government services, natural sciences etc. The next statement pretty much defines how much this person knows about intelligent Christians, he says;
"I would like to talk to about a rather interesting question, have you ever
thought about using your college education to think about your faith?"
He made one major false assumption, that thinking Christians avoid thinking about their faith and are encouraged not to question it. I would like to direct this person to 1 Thessalonians 5:21 which in fact tells us to test everything and not take anything in blind faith. Now the person goes on to talk about Amputees. He goes on to point out that 3 out of 4 doctors (or 75% to be exact) believe that God is doing medical miracles on earth everyday. And he also points out that Christians believe in the power of prayers.
Then he asks this question;
Why won't God heal Amputees?
Well, the answer to that question is somewhat complex, first of all he assumes that God does not cure amputees, there have been accounts though spurious of God healing people with amputated limbs. Secondly he is assuming that according to Christian theology actually states humans do deserve to have their legs grown back, and lastly he assumes that God is a divine candy machine (insert prayer and a million dollars come out!). God may have other plans for this person. Also if this person is not a Christian and doesn't believe in God then there is no reason for God to heal that person because the person doesn't even believe God can do it and neither does he want it. He states that this is a rationalization but it isn't, it is basic theology.
Also if you don't want anything to do with God and you don't give anything back and when you lose your leg you ask him to generously regrow your leg when you've ignore him all your life do you expect him to give you back your leg?
The next question is asked in the same spirit;
Why are there so many starving people in our world?
Well Because there is evil in the world, and many people are not Christian and they are not praying to ask God to help them. Also I don't think this person has heard of organizations like World Vision which are trying to feed children and the fact that the Christian Church is earnestly trying to get food, clothing, clean water, and education to them. I don't know but it seems like God is answering the prayers of those who are praying. Also the malnutrition is often because of the poor economies and poor state of many of these countries, it seems to be more our fault then God's.
Now onto the next question;
Why does God demand the deaths of so many innocent people in the bible
Um...innocent people? Lets take a quick look at the verses he cites.
Exodus 35:2 says: "Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."
Well first of all notice that in the New Testament Jesus abrogates this law. Also this particular regulation is only for the forty years that the Israelites were in the desert, it is not enforced afterwords.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says: 18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
What kind of rebellion are they talking about? They are obviously not talking about a kindergartner who will not eat his vegetables they are talking about a juvenile delinquent who deserves the death penalty, this is not killing an innocent teenager.
Leviticus 20:13 says: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I am not ready to get into a debate on whether homosexuality is alright, my position is that it isn't right, but that does not particularly matter at this point. These were regulatory laws for Israel to keep social, moral, and economic order. If you were able to break laws and just get a slap on the wrist, more people would do it because the punishment wouldn't be so bad. If that happened there would be a break down in social order.
Also, the gay person is not innocent in this case, he has broken the law.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says: If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Once again the author of this video is assuming the woman is innocent, and second of all these were regulatory laws for Israel to keep order, if a woman had gotten away with a slap on the wrist other women might start to think "Oh she got away with it I could cheat on my husband too." This would cause a moral and social breakdown which would be smart to avoid.
Before he goes on he says "It doesn't make any sense doesn't it? Why would God demand the death of someone over such trivial matters?" I guess I must add that cheating on your spouse is not a "trivial matter," and neither is being a teenaged menace to society, and finally that does not matter Christ has already come now it is the age of grace.
Now to the next question;
Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense
Well, first of all, it is not a science textbook so his criticism is flawed from the start. Second of all the bible does say some things which sound scientifically accurate
Isaiah 40:22; implies earth is round because the Hebrew word for circle can be translated "sphere" (so do proverbs 8:27 and Job 26:10). Also in the same verse it implies the universe is expanding, something very few early cultures guessed.
Job 26:7 implies that earth is floating through space.
Jeremiah 33:22 says the stars are too numerous to be numbered exactly contrary to the scientific opinions of the day that there were only a few thousand stars.
Even statements in Genesis 1, such as Genesis 1:11-12 could be read to imply evolution with the statement "Let the earth bring forth" although this interpretation is somewhat unconventional.
Now to examine what he terms "nonsense;"
No the bible does not necessarily say the earth is 6,000 years old and was created in six 24 hour days. The word for day can be used to represent a long period of time and he is leaving out the fact the the date of 6,000 years is made from accumulation of the genealogies assuming there are no gaps.
The bible doesn't necessarily say there was a global flood either, the word used for mountain can mean hill, and the language used in the text can refer to a local region such as the flood plain in which Noah lived.
The story of Jonah getting swallowed by a whale was probably a miracle, there is no reason to discredit the bible on this charge.
Well about Adam being created from dust, its not nearly as ridiculous when you think of dust as coming from the soil and the fact that when an animal or human dies it is decomposed and becomes part of the soil, then the soil is used for nutrients by plants which are eaten by other animals or humans, then this animal gives birth to its offspring by using some of the food it ate. Also we are essentially made of star dust which became earth dust and then life was formed by God which led to us and so we are essentially created from dust. Either way that was probably an allegory of God creating Adam as separate from other humans (i.e. neanderthals).
He goes on to accentuate the fact that they are all nonsense. Well after looking at them closely they are not as nonsensical as they seem. Also a God might write nonsense to give us a moral or lesson, Jesus did this all the time (except they were called parables).
On to the next question;
Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?
Well, was he? To me God seems to more tolerate it as a social construct, most societies were built on the backs of slaves back in those days. Its like today we have people with underpaid jobs who can barely support their families but they often form the backbone of the work force, a necessary evil in other words. the Judaeo-Christian God is a God of order and disrupting the backbone of the economy would have caused social disorder.
Also Back in those days slavery was no decided on the basis of your gender or ethnic group it was decided on whether you could pay the bills. Also In Israel slaves would be realised in the year of Jubilee unless they wanted to remain with their masters
Next question;
Why do bad things happen to good people?
This is a surprisingly basic question for being in the top ten killer questions to the Christian faith. God does not say he will shield good people from bad things. In fact many times he says the opposite and that Christians will go through trials and tribulations in which they would have to rely on him. he is also assuming that "good people" exist. The only way someone could truly be called a good person is if they were 100% flawless. They were never selfish, never greedy, never told a lie, never had lustful thoughts, was always respectful to his parents, never tried to tears someone down, never hated, was never materialistic. This person would have to be the pinnacle of perfection. This is impossible for a human being to attain on his or her own. This is a straw man argument, it does not threaten the faith at all.
next question;
Why don't Jesus' miracles give any evidence
This statement is misleading at best, there may not be evidence of every single miracle but there is a great amount of evidence that points towards Jesus being whom he claims to be, now to the next question;
How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?
This question is absurd, it presupposes the fact that Jesus would appear to you in the first place. It also presupposes that God is like a vending machine that will do whatever you want it to. Jesus does not appear to us because when we ask him that we don't really want him to we are simply taunting him and he asks us not to in Deuteronomy 6:16.
Also he is not going to appear to me unless it is part of his plan to redeem Mankind.
Now to the next question;
Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
I am surprised this person would bring up this centuries old misconception. Obviously the confusion comes from the Roman Catholic belief in Transubstantiation (that the bread would become Jesus' body and the wine his blood). Being protestant I do not believe in Transubstantiation. It is probably symbolic of Jesus being our strength and our hope. He did not really mean he wanted us to drink his blood or eat his body. Its also kind of amusing that even though he doesn't even think satanism is wrong he still thinks it has negative connotations, most critics of Christianity embrace the term satanic as good.
The last three questions are quite easy, now for the last killer question! The grand fanali! The final deathblow to Christianity...
Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
Alright I apologize for the misleading preamble. I will give him credit for asking some pretty challenging questions but this one can be answered by simple logic ; even though they pray for God to guide the marriage, Christian couples still have free will, and God can help but only if they are willing to let him, and let him guide through their marriage. Unfortunately this does not at all challenge the question of the existence of God.
After looking at these ten questions I must say they have failed to defeat Christianity, or the idea of the existence of a loving God.
If have a response please post it in the comments and God bless.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Restated statement of faith
For some reason I thought my beliefs were well understood. I am an evangelical Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the bible and still accepts the current scientific theories on the origin of the universe ans the diversity of life. I thought it was well understood that I was a Christian Apologist. Well after reviewing this comment on my last post I realize that I was gravely mistaken; the parts which are sadly misconstrued I will put in bold.
Sigh....I don't know How this person thinks that I think all Christians are ignorant,
this is what I said;
Where did I even use the word Christian except at the end where I said I didn't think Christians or Intelligent Design advocates should support the movie expelled? I said many creationists misunderstand it, this does not mean most are ignorant, only some. Also I definitely do not think all Christians are ignorant, I have no idea how this person got that. I definitely don't think that my coreligionists are all ignorant yokels. Unless this person equates belief in young earth creationism with Christianity and evolution with Atheism.
Really I don't care what a Christian decides to believe about creation. If you decide you want to believe that the earth was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago and you are secure in your faith then go ahead. But there are also many Christians myself including who are not satisfied with young earth creationism and would rather believe God used mainly natural processes to get us here. Now both sides have a tendency to attack each other on this subject. But when my position is attacked I will defend it. There are a lot of people who believe in God and the bible because they know secular science and the bible are reconcilable. Saying it can't be can hurt their faith in God and the bible. And I will fight against anyone who is a potential threat to my brothers and sisters of faith. I believe you should review what Jesus said about those who led others astray with their teachings. Also if a young earth creationist, atheistic evolutionist, theistic evolutionist or anyone says something I know to be wrong about the natural world or the bible I will correct them, as Jesus said, the truth will set you free.
I will end this by telling you exactly what I believe;
--That Jesus Christ lived, literally died on the cross for all mankind and literally rose again on the third day.
--That Jesus is God incarnate, and the creator of the universe
--That the universe and all life was ultimately created by God
--and that Christians rather then indulging themselves in petty conflicts should work to make a better place according to the Creation Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and spread the gospel as well and clearly as possible according to the Great Commission (Mark 16:15).
I hope no one will misinterpret that...
The problem with Christians is the same problem with any other group of people,
it is made up of people and people will always make mistakes. People posting on
youtube should take extra care that they are presenting the truth. Obviously
there is a lot of ignorance out there but not all Christians or all YE
Creationists are ignorant. Many of are trying to understand the points of common
agreement and the points of disagreement.Created Rationalist could you create a
post stating what you do believe? I am curious to see how much we agree on. I
believe we will have more in common than in opposition.
Sigh....I don't know How this person thinks that I think all Christians are ignorant,
this is what I said;
You may remember my statement about Ben Stein being unknowledgeable about
evolution and the nature of science what I said here has been replaced with these bold letters to tell you I should not have said that, here are some
unfortunate examples;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678The
first video Ben Stein butchers the term evolution (or Darwinism). Now although
Darwinism is an actual
concept, it is not the theory of evolution itself, merely the underlying
philosophical concept which Natural Selection is associated with. He like many
creationists seems to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, this is not true
considering that there are evolutionists who do not believe in abiogenesis (such
as advocates of Panspermia
and some theistic evolutionists). And since he calls evolution "lightning
striking a mud puddle he obviously doesn't know what evolution or abiogenesis
are."In the second video Ben Stein seems to be mistaking evolution (or
"Darwinism" as he calls it) for the secular theory on the origin of every
concept known to science (life, gravitation, etc.) and thus stretches across
every field of science (biology, astronomy, physics). In actuality evolution is
only an attempt to explain the diversity of life and how organisms change over
time, and how genes drift through populations. I don't think Christians or anyone
associated with the Intelligent Design movement should support Stein, he
unfortunately is also rather dishonest in his tactics.
Where did I even use the word Christian except at the end where I said I didn't think Christians or Intelligent Design advocates should support the movie expelled? I said many creationists misunderstand it, this does not mean most are ignorant, only some. Also I definitely do not think all Christians are ignorant, I have no idea how this person got that. I definitely don't think that my coreligionists are all ignorant yokels. Unless this person equates belief in young earth creationism with Christianity and evolution with Atheism.
Really I don't care what a Christian decides to believe about creation. If you decide you want to believe that the earth was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago and you are secure in your faith then go ahead. But there are also many Christians myself including who are not satisfied with young earth creationism and would rather believe God used mainly natural processes to get us here. Now both sides have a tendency to attack each other on this subject. But when my position is attacked I will defend it. There are a lot of people who believe in God and the bible because they know secular science and the bible are reconcilable. Saying it can't be can hurt their faith in God and the bible. And I will fight against anyone who is a potential threat to my brothers and sisters of faith. I believe you should review what Jesus said about those who led others astray with their teachings. Also if a young earth creationist, atheistic evolutionist, theistic evolutionist or anyone says something I know to be wrong about the natural world or the bible I will correct them, as Jesus said, the truth will set you free.
I will end this by telling you exactly what I believe;
--That Jesus Christ lived, literally died on the cross for all mankind and literally rose again on the third day.
--That Jesus is God incarnate, and the creator of the universe
--That the universe and all life was ultimately created by God
--and that Christians rather then indulging themselves in petty conflicts should work to make a better place according to the Creation Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and spread the gospel as well and clearly as possible according to the Great Commission (Mark 16:15).
I hope no one will misinterpret that...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Re-posted: The New Answers Book's attack on Christianity
I posted this earlier then deleted it because I thought it was too harsh towards Young Earth Creationists (the predominant demographic of the people I know). It doesn't have anything that will get me suspended but still my blog is in its infancy and I can't risk having too many people mad at me. I am going to post it again because it needs to be posted (also tell me whether or not it is too harsh);
Yes, as odd as it may sound I have to defend my Christian beliefs from AiG
creationists. Young earth creationists, although they have good intentions, no
one other then atheists have done a better job then them in tearing some
people's faith in the bible to pieces and building up a few others then them.The
entire third chapter of the New Answers book (which I will be critiquing) is
devoted to attacking theistic evolution; the authors of the book start out
talking about the scopes
monkey trial and how William Jennings Brian the defender of creationism was
an old earth creationist, so therefore his attempt to defend creationism was
forfeit. They don't seem to wonder that it might have been because William
Jennings Brian was wrong about evolution that he did such a lousy job defending
creationism.There next move is somewhat unnerving. They say they will be taking
quotes from what atheists said about theistic evolutionists to show theistic
evolution is wrong! Oh good grief! Using that logic we might as well say
Christians were wrong in reinterpreting the bible when scientists said earth
went around the sun. They end the paragraph by saying that reinterpreting the
bible gives you leeway to reinterpret anything you want to in the bible. This
must be addressed, this is only true if you are invalidly reinterpreting the
bible. Reinterpreting the Genesis 1 to mean God created the universe over six
ages is valid; fifteen hundred years before geologists found earth was 4.6
billion years old or biologists found evolution was true many of the church
fathers believed that because of II
Peter 3:8 the days in Genesis were a thousand years long. The next part is
their attack on the scriptural validity of theistic evolution, but unfortunately
they are all operating of at least a few misconceptions.In the next part they
begin quoting the anti-creationist Thomas Huxley;--first of all, why are these
supposed creationists quoting an atheistic evolutionist? He was trying to
destroy belief in the bible in the first place. They surely wouldn't quote an
atheist denouncing the Christian acceptance of heliocentrism as rejecting
scripture would they?--And second of all this is what he said in his quote
(taken from his essay "Lights of the Church and Science");"I am fairly at a
loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology
must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures.
The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with
Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests
upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no
evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them.
If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were
not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ were not written by God’s hand on the
stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the
Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the
Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of
apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of
the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which
is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers
of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted
flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of
Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?"What he said is absolutely true the
bible is worthless if there is no historical or scientific merit behind it and
thank goodness Huxley is wrong and the bible does have factual merit. Other then
that this quote is meaningless because it presupposes Christians who believe in
an old earth and evolution deny the Bibles historical and scientific merit.In
the next paragraph they say he was out to destroy Christianity and vigorously
attacked the old earth position, so one would wonder why these young earth
creationists would use this to stand for anything. The next statement is perhaps
the weakest point in the entire chapter. They give a verse Matthew
19:4-5 where Jesus is talking about marriage. And says in the beginning God
made them male and female. This is interesting but the verse could be
interpreted to mean the beginning of mankind. Despite upholding the doctrine of
marriage, it means nothing to creation.Over the next few paragraphs they go on
quoting and talking about Thomas Huxley praising his passionate dislike of those
who tried to reinterpret the bible to fit with the current scientific thinking.
If the authors of the New Answers book think this is making them look good I
don't know what to say. Who cares what an atheistic evolutionist thinks about
Christians. How about we do the same thing with the doctrine of geocentrism.The
next section of the chapter doesn't get much better, they start out with a quote
from Charles Hodge
saying that the church has had to reinterpret the bible once before to fit with
modern science. Unfortunately young earth creationists may have to learn the
same lesson the 17th century Catholic church had to learn. I would suggest these
young earth creationists to look at proverbs
3:5 and get some humility.Anyway they move on to the argument that the bible
teaches "no death before sin," unfortunately their scriptural support is rather
weak, Genesis
3:29 which they use to support death being caused by the fall; there is just
one problem Genesis 3 only has 24 verses, the verse doesn't even exist! This is
either a typo or outright deception, (lets assume its a typo). Romans
5:12 and 8:18-22
can be interpreted to imply that the death came to Man by Man; (I'll admit
Romans 5:12 is one of their stronger points but it still does not prove it). Genesis 1:31 does not contradict the mechanisms of natural selection or the natural
processes and if you think about it, creation is "very good" with a stable
ecosystem, inhabitable environment; everything just right for humans. God
sanctions the weekly slaughtering of animals and as any anti-christian animal
rights activist will tell you, God does not consider animal death evil. This
does not at all affect the idea of a loving God.Next they bring up a quote by a
liberal Christian, episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, Spong makes an
interesting point by saying theistic evolution demands an imperfect creation.
But this is simply not true. We live in very good time to exist. The ice age is
over, all the giant carnivores are extinct, the climate is temperate (if we
lived back in the days of Pangaea over 80% of the planet would be an enormous
desert and the rest an ocean). The creation may not be perfect in the same way
as God himself but it is still very good time for humans to live in. God is no
longer guiding the natural processes even if he is still involved in them one
way or another, God has gotten us here, there is no reason to go further. Now it
is up to us to decide whether or not we will enjoy God's creation and tend to it
as he asked, or squander it and waste because of our greed.They close that part
of the chapter by saying that theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary
creationists) need to come to grips that the God they worship is not the true
God. But I don't think they realize the discrepancies between the God of a young
earth and the God of the bible either. Essentially the God of a young earth
would punish mankind by submitting innocent animals to being killed even though
they were innocent, and this is the loving God that gave his life so I could be
forgiven? We must be living in different universes.They end the chapter by
saying two things;--That once people start doubting the bible, (a.k.a. the young
earth interpretation of the bible) they begin to relegate the bible to a book of
suggestions.--And that we are relying on fallible human opinion when we trust
science only.To the first one, that is up to the person, strong Christians did
not reject the bible when they found geocentrism was false. I think Christians
should do fine as long as they do not extrapolate beyond that to say the entire
bible and Genesis is not true, which is simply not the case. There re lots of
archaeological and other scientific discoveries that point to the bible being
true.NOTE: I don't know why its making that weird structure, I can't correct it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
