Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Article link: Relativism Self-Destructs

The demon of our age, relativism, was addressed by a letter writer in today's edition of the Daily Nation. The writer correctly points out that, "When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves." That is why relativism, a direct result of post-modernism, is manifestly false (and that is being charitable folks).

Gregory Koukl, of Stand to Reason, has a good article which speaks to this. You are bound to come across a relativist, sooner rather than later. It is therefore useful to recognize it for what it is, a logical fallacy. Read more here...

Another good resource is the May/June 2005 issue of Solid Ground, which contains A Premier on Moral Relativism. You *might* have to register as an ambassador on Stand to Reason to access the link though.

Life links: resources for abortion research

Abortion Facts

American Collegians for life

LifeNews.com

Life Training Institute

Ohio Right to Life

Self-Evident Truth

The Moral Question of Abortion

Thursday, December 22, 2005

In the rotation

Currently listening to:

The Incredible Walk

The Faith

Purified

Day by Day

The Cross Movement is amazing. Secular hip-hop has nothing on these guys.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Site in the spotlight: Stand to Reason

I find Stand to Reason to be an invaluable resource. If you want to know more about them, check out their Vision page which outlines their, mission, values et cetera.

You can also listen to their weekly radio broadcasts offline in MP3 format, which is a real bonus since I live in Barbados and we don't get that station. I've downloaded all of the shows and it is great (even though I've only listened to one at the time of writing).

You will need to register as an Ambassador to download the radio shows. Each file is about 19-20MB in size and runs for about 2 hours or so. If you live in Barbados and want to save yourself the downloading, e-mail me, with "STR Radio" in the suject line. Of course you will need an MP3 player to listen to the files on your computer. You can use Windows Media Player, JetAudio, Winamp or Real Player. It is even better if you have a hard-drive based MP3 player like the iPod, Creative Zen or the iAUDIO X5.

There are great resources available to train Christian Ambassadors such as Ambassador's Basic Ciricculum, available on CD or cassette. Commentaries are available on the main page in areas such as: Apologetics, Science, Philosophy, Christianity & Culture and Theology.

I hope that God continues to bless and strengethen everyone who works for, prays for and supports Stand to Reason. As the Good Book says, "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." (Galatians 6:9)

Christ on: the way to the Father (God)

"Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. " (John 14:6, emphasis mine)

The Scripture paints the picture pretty clearly. Nothing more to say really now, is there?

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Does the Bible teach reincarnation?

There is an opinion, which says that Jesus, and by extension the Bible, supports reincarnation. Proponents of this view cite Matthew 17:1-13 and conclude that that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah. This is a very poor understanding of that portion of scripture. Reincarnation can mean two things. It can be defined as follows: in some systems of belief, a person or animal in whose body somebody’s soul is born again after he, she, or it has died, or, it can mean a reappearance of something in a new form. In religious thought, reincarnation takes on the former definition, not the latter. In other words, for reincarnation to occur, someone or something, has to die first.

If someone has to die before their soul is transmigrated to another person or animal or whatever, then Matthew 17:1-13 cannot be taken as a Biblical example of reincarnation. The reason is this. Elijah did not die. In 2 Kings 2:11 it says, “And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” Now if Elijah did not die but was taken up by a whirlwind into heaven, pray tell, how could he have been reincarnated? There would have been no soul to transmigrate.

On the opinion that Jesus taught reincarnation we turn to Hebrews. The theme of Hebrews is the supremacy of Christ. Christ is depicted as supreme to Moses, Angels, the Prophets and so on. In Hebrews 9:27 it says, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” That leaves no room whatsoever for the false teaching of reincarnation in Christendom. Others may still subscribe to reincarnation, but they do so at their own peril. For the verse concludes, “but after this the judgement.” This is no laughing matter ladies and gentlemen. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Hebrews 10:31)

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Focus on the Nation of Islam

Wikipedia has a pretty informative entry on the Nation of Islam. They are basically racist organization. As someone who used to listen to a lot of rap, especially the Wu-Tang Clan (who subscribed to this system of thought, when I listened to them) I know what I am talking about. They believe that the black man is God or ALLAH (Arm Leg Leg Arm Head). They also believe that all white people are devils and the white race was produced thousands of years ago in a failed laboratory experiment by an evil wizard named Yacub (I hope those who preach "religious tolerance" also tolerate that "theology"). Really now.

Monday, December 05, 2005

Quotable quotes: Prayer

“No one is a firmer believer in the power of prayer than the devil; not that he practices it, but he suffers from it” – Guy H. King

“The less I pray, the harder it gets; the more I pray, the better it goes” – Martin Luther

“It has been well said that almost the only scoffers at prayer are those who never tried it enough” – Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions

“Seven days without prayer makes one weak” – Allen E. Bartlet

“I feel it is far better to begin with God, to see His face first, to get my soul near Him before it is near another. In general it is best to have at least one hour alone with God before engaging in anything else” – E. M. Bounds

“If we rely on the Holy Spirit, we shall find that our prayers become more and more inarticulate; and when they are inarticulate, reverence grows deeper and deeper” – Oswald Chambers

“In Gethsemane the holiest of all petitioners prayed three times that a certain cup might pass from Him. It did not. After that the idea that prayer is recommended as a sort of infallible gimmick may be dismissed” – C. S. Lewis

“We impoverish God in our minds when we say there must be answers to our prayers on the material plane; the biggest answers to our prayers are in the realm of the unseen” – Oswald Chambers

“I would rather stand against the canons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous” – Thomas Lye

“Man is the only creature which rises in bowing, for he finds elevation in his subjection to his Maker” – Anon.

“God’s silences are His answers. If we only take as answers those that are visible to our senses, we are in a very elementary condition of grace” – Oswald Chambers

Adapted from : The Book of Positive Quotations, compiled and arranged by John Cook

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

On the lighter side

Google has recently released an updated version of their Google Earth software. It’s quite fascinating. You can zoom in to near ground level from Six Men’s to Oistins. Not to worry, you can’t see actual people (yet). Maybe these satellite images are straight from Illuminati headquarters. You remember the Illuminati don’t you? The secret reptilian group of alien shape-shifters who secretly run the world. At least that is what David Icke and his beloved band of followers would have us believe. Mind you, this the same David Icke who claimed to be the “son of the godhead.” Really now. It is certainly too late to come to the public with such drivel. Typical of us men to write such nonsense. I wasn’t convinced at first, but maybe it’s true that, “Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.”

Monday, November 21, 2005

Straight thinking about religion

We enshrine education as a mini-god in our society, but the harsh reality is, we place more emphasis on “getting a piece of paper”, than on intelligent thought and critical thinking. This also applies to how we think about religion in our pluralistic society. All religions, despite some similarities, have irreconcilable differences that cannot be swept under the carpet by any thinking man or woman. The material world cannot be an illusion, as taught in Hinduism and Theosophy, and not an illusion, as taught in Christianity and Judaism, at the same time. Reincarnation and Hebrews 9:27 cannot be both true at the same time. At bare minimum, one of us must be wrong. For the sake of analyzing the argument, it could be that we are all wrong. But one thing that we can never say is that we are all right.

Beliefs may be all equally valid in the sense that they are consciously held by sincere people, but they cannot be equally true in light of irreconcilable differences. Acknowledging that fact is called facing reality, not intolerance. Many “learned” folk insist that one must never insist that “your religion” is the only way. But the very phrase “my religion” is absurd. As G.K. Chesterton put it: “I won’t call Christianity my religion, because I didn’t make it up. God and humanity made it, and it made me.” Christians can respect the concept of religious freedom but we cannot be indifferent to the great commission and the eternal destiny of others. In light of that fact, I want to urge, beg and plead with earnest truth seekers to note Jesus’ words in John 18:37, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

Article link: Straight thinking about tolerance

One is bound to hear, til one is sick of it, that we must "tolerate" all faiths (whilst ignoring the fact that they all have contradictory claims) and we must not tell anyone they are wrong. Apologetics.com has a good article on this sticky issue of tolerance in a pluralistic society, read more at the source...

Being made perfect through suffering

“The Son of God suffered unto the death, not that men might not suffer, but that their sufferings might be like His” – George Macdonald [Unspoken Sermons, First Series]

It would be amiss to say that Christianity is a bed of roses. The Lord told His disciples, “In the world ye shall have tribulation” (John 16:33, emphasis mine). The Greek translation for tribulation is thlipsis, which can be taken, literally or figuratively, to mean: affliction, anguish, burden, persecution or trouble. Jesus’ message is clear: If you belong to me, you will have trouble in this world. The purpose of this article is to show that tribulation, pain, heartache – call it what you wish – is both necessary and beneficial to the Christian and non-Christian alike. Pain is in fact, one of God’s chief tools in conforming us to the likeness of Jesus. “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” (Hebrews 2:10, emphasis mine)

Every child of God will have some trial or another; but every man who has a trial is not necessarily a child of God (we are all God’s creation, not children; see John 8:44). Afflictions are no proof of sonship, but sonship always ensures affliction. With regards to human pain (generally), we note the following. Pain shatters the illusion that we can continue in an unrepentant state of rebellion, declaring, “All serene!” Until such a man finds evil unmistakably present in his existence, in the form of pain, he will remain blind. Once pain has roused him, he knows that he is in some way or the other “up against” something much more real than himself. He therefore either rebels or makes some attempt at an adjustment, which, if pursued, will lead him to religion. No doubt many of you in the aftermath of natural disasters have heard the ungodly cry: “What sort of God would allow this? What have these “innocent” people ever done?” In this case, pain may lead to final and unrepented rebellion. But it is the only opportunity the ungodly have to begin the process of reconciliation. As C.S. Lewis says, “It removes the veil; it plants the flag of truth within the fortress of a rebel soul.”

The second operation of pain, is that it removes the idea that what we have, is itself, “ours” and enough for us. As someone put it, “We regard God as an airman regards his parachute; it’s there for emergencies but he hopes he’ll never have to use it.” God, who has made us, knows what we are and that our happiness lies in, not outside of, Him. Yet we will not seek Him as long as He leaves us any other resort where it [happiness] can even remotely be looked for. While what we call “our own life” remains agreeable we will not surrender it to Him. What then can God do in our interests but make “our own life” less than agreeable to us. In this age where “no one is wrong”, God’s method here might seem cruel to us. We are baffled as misfortune falls upon “good, decent, hard-working” folk.

How can I say, with sufficient tenderness, what now needs to be said. Our illusion of self-sufficiency must, for our sake, be absolutely shattered. And by trouble, persecution, pain on earth, by the crude fear of eternal flames, God shatters it. This of course seems repugnant to the modern mind. But the modern mind, is, quite frankly; not too bright in divine matters (Isaiah 55:8). Modern people who would like the God of the Bible to be purely ethical, do not know what they ask. If man had to come to God from his own motives, who could be saved? This illusion of self-sufficiency is often at its strongest in the some very “decent”, “kind” and “good” people. On such people, therefore; misfortune must fall. There is an inherent danger in self-sufficiency: why ask for your daily bread, when you own the bakery? This explains why Jesus regards the vices of the feckless and dissipated so much more leniently than the vices that lead to worldly success. The feckless are dissipated are in no danger of finding their present life so satisfactory that they cannot turn to God. The proud, the avaricious, those who are so full of themselves that there is no room for Christ, are in that danger.

Consider the following illustration from Lewis. “I am progressing along the path of life in my ordinary contentedly fallen and godless condition, absorbed in a merry meeting with my friends for the morrow or a bit of work that tickles my vanity today, a holiday or a new book, when suddenly a stab of abdominal pain that threatens serious disease, or a headline in the newspapers that threaten us all with destruction, sends this whole pack of cards tumbling down. At first I am overwhelmed, and all my little happiness look like broken toys. Then, slowly and reluctantly, bit by bit, I try to bring myself into the frame of mind that I should be in at all times. I remind myself that all these toys were never intended to possess my heart, that my true good is in another world and my only real treasure is Christ. But the moment that threat it withdrawn, my whole nature leaps back to the toys: I am even anxious, God forgive me, to banish from my mind the only thing that supported me under the threat because it is now associated with the misery of those few days. Therefore the terrible necessity of tribulation is only too clear. And that is why tribulations cannot cease until God either sees us remade or sees that our remaking is now hopeless.”

One of the unalterable laws of nature and grace is this – all things that are of any value must endure fire. Have you ever seen a precious thing which did not have a trial? Consider jewels. The diamond must be cut (and hard cutting that poor diamond has). If it were capable of feeling pain, nothing would be more “fretted and worried about”, than a diamond. Gold must be tried. It cannot be used as it is dug up from the mine, or in grains as it is found in the rivers. It must pass through the crucible and have the dross taken away. Silver too must be tried. Be sure of this – everything that is precious must be tried. It stands to reason therefore, that God would test (not tempt) His (precious) children.

Most of us are familiar with Abraham’s “trial” in Genesis 22. This raises the obvious question: “If God is omniscient. He must have known what Abraham would do, without any experiment; why then this needless torture?” But as St. Augustine points out (De Civitate Dei xvi, xxxii) whatever God knew; Abraham at any rate did not know that his obedience could endure such a command until the event taught him: and the obedience which he did not know that he would choose, he cannot be said to have chosen. The reality of Abraham’s obedience was the act itself; and what God knew in knowing that Abraham “would obey” was Abraham’s actual obedience on that mountain top at that moment. To say that God “need not have tried the experiment” is to say that because God knows, the thing known by God need not exist. This is of course, utterly out of court.

In the same way Abraham learned obedience though this “trial”, so too Christ. For it is written, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;” (Hebrews 5:8, emphasis mine) If you are looking for God’s people, try the furnace (Isaiah 48:10). Remember Noah? There we find a man who was laughed at, considered a fool, a simpleton even! Building a ship upon dry land indeed! Christian, stand firm in the furnace of slander and laughter. History reveals that all of God’s great servants were tried in the furnace: Noah, Abraham, Jacob. All tried and tested. Therefore we should, “count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” (James 1:2-4, emphasis mine)

We are sent to proclaim “peace on earth, and good-will towards men”, yet we must expect tribulation and ill-will from men. This is the lot of Christ’s disciples. It is through the pain, and heartache of this world that we are made perfect in God’s sight. It is only if we suffer for, and with Christ, that we shall reign with Him.

Jesus on true worship

Jesus’ discourse with the woman from Sychar attests to the fact that God must be worshipped in spirit and truth. “You don’t know what you’re worshiping. We know what we’re worshiping, for salvation comes from the Jews. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:22,24)

Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” (Exodus 20:3-5, emphasis mine)

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Don't "debt the malls" this Christmas

“Once again, we come to the Holiday Season, a deeply religious time that each of us observes, in his own way, by going to the mall of his choice” – Unknown

Liz Pulliam Weston wrote an interesting article titled, “5 lessons the rich can teach us.” Some things really stood out in my mind. Whilst the rich do borrow money, it is primarily for mortgages and other real estate related purchases or investments. When it comes to cars, they don’t waste money – period. Although they can splash the cash, they typically opt for cheaper purchases. Of course it goes without saying that those who collect vehicles like the Maybach Type 62, which start at $375,000 “us dollars”, are the exception to the rule. The most noticeable difference is that the rich are much more charitable – they give away a lot of their income – up to 50% or more. 90% in some instances.

The vast majority of us are not “filthy” rich. With Christmas around the corner and all that goes with it; it would therefore be wise to remind ourselves of simple ways we can keep out of the snare of debt. First off, we need to learn the difference between saving and spending. Far too many people have “saved” their way into financial bondage. If an item normally costs $100 and is now on sale for “only” $50; how much money do we save? Nothing. Not $50. We don’t save one red cent. We spend $50 (which we didn’t even intend to spend in the first place). We have to be especially careful with credit cards. They tend to create the illusion that we are not really spending any money (of course this misconception is quickly shattered when the bill arrives). Studies have shown, that people who use credit cards more – even if they pay off the full balance monthly and incur no interest – spend more than if they only use cash. If credit cards are proving to be problematic, as one writer put it, “perform plastic surgery” on them.

We could go on and on, but miss the point. Debt is a sign of a deeper and more spiritual problem (lack of discipline, greed and so on). So, “take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth” (Luke 12:15). Not sky-splitting like the second coming, but it’s good to be reminded of the simpler things ever so often. Don’t “debt the malls, spending bills with folly” this Christmas now. Happy holidays.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

The human element

There is nothing wrong with “the thing” in and of itself. It is the human element. The human element uses (or pursues) “the thing” for either the wrong reasons or in excess. The same money that can be used to produce illegal drugs, can be used to fund medical research for deadly diseases. It isn’t the money, it is the human element – things are morally neutral, people are not. How do you “fight” HIV/AIDS, drugs et cetera? We are missing the mark. If we are going to “wage a war” against anything, it should be ourselves. The Bible teaches that we need a circumcision of the heart and not the flesh. Do not think for one moment, it is mere coincidence that these words come before Jesus’ monumental interview with Nicodemus: “But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.” (John 2:24-25) According to Jeremiah 17:9, what “was in man” is not pleasant at all. Hence Jesus’ dictum in John 3:7, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” Don’t keep missing the mark and forget the human element.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Sabbath keeping

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Romans 14:5)

This will be short.

There is a writer who ever so often goes on and on about keeping the Sabbath. Today he has laid down a challenge for readers to "prove Sunday is the Sabbath". Get a life already.

Christian Answers Network has a good article on this issue. Then there's this site, which has some out-dated graphics, but the content is worth sifting through.

But as I said, this will be short. I'm done.

The reality of hell

“The safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts” – C. S. Lewis

To deny hell is to deny the teachings of Jesus. Hell must be discussed. It has to be. It is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked. God’s goodness is challenged and Christianity is portrayed as being barbarous. The first thing we must get absolutely clear is this: God wants all men to be saved. Carefully read Ezekiel 33:11 and 1 Timothy 2:4. Keep those verses in mind as you read, or else this discussion will be pointless. This doctrine is attacked on many fronts but let us examine at the strongest one: the idea of hell as positive retributive punishment inflicted by God. Aquinas said of suffering what Aristotle said of shame. The thing is not good in and of itself, but it might have goodness in certain situations. If the eternal happiness of man lies in his self-surrender, then no one can make him surrender but himself. He can be helped towards surrender, but he may refuse. Christianity would love to declare: “Everyone will be saved!” But our reason retorts, “with or without their will?” If “without their will”, then free-will amounts to an illusion and we line up with the false philosophy of determinism. If “with their will”, then what about those who unashamedly refuse to repent of their sins? The proud, the scorners, “lovers of themselves rather than lovers of God.”

If God is truly good, we are told, He must forgive an unrepentant sinner who has no intention whatsoever of surrendering to Jesus. What arises here is a confusion between condoning and forgiving. People are really asking God to condone (not forgive) this behaviour. To condone in this situation would amount to calling evil good. A contradiction of terms. That is not of God. If forgiveness is to be complete, it must be offered and accepted. Therefore, the unrepentant who admits no guilt cannot be forgiven.

God is love, but Hebrews 10:31 is also equally true. There is a fine line between justice and mercy. Therefore, it would be wise if we heeded Jesus’ words, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) You can recover from many poor decisions in this life; this is isn’t one of them (Hebrews 9:27). Call them scare tactics if you wish. He meant what He said. Only two options. Heaven or hell.

When all is said and done, all of the objections raised concerning this unpleasant doctrine boils down to a question itself: “What more do you want Jesus to do?” To blot out all of our past sins and reconcile man to God, no strings attached? He has already done that on Calvary. “To forgive them?” Some refuse to be forgiven. “Leave them alone then?” That is exactly what He does. He leaves them alone, because as Traherne writes in Centuries of Meditation II, 30: “Love can forbear, and Love can forgive … but Love can never be reconciled to an unlovely object … He can never therefore be reconciled to your sin, because sin itself is incapable of being altered; but He may be reconciled to your person, because that may be restored.” As unpleasant as hell and the images it portrays in Scripture might be, remember this: the same Jesus who taught, “Do unto others…” also warned us of the sufferings of hell. “If it were not so, I would have told you.” (John 14:2)

Thursday, November 10, 2005

The age of the earth: thousands or billions?

There are some things that are so obvious that we do not need expert confirmation. Case in point are the results of a recent study released by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The study revealed that the number of sexual scenes on television has nearly doubled since 1998. Hello? I think we could have figured that one out for ourselves. Now what might be a bit more puzzling is the idea of the age of the earth. No doubt many of you would have watched documentaries where the narrator talks about the age of the earth in billions of years (and with such surety). Of course that is utter balderdash. This has been confirmed by the results of the Radioisotopes and the age of the earth (RATE) project which were recently presented. The RATE project has carefully investigated the method of radioisotope dating (the method that allegedly shows rocks to be millions or billions of years old, a timescale that is crucial if evolutionary theory is to be true). The creation account in Genesis indicates a much younger earth and this fact has now been confirmed. The RATE research draws on some of the best minds in science. The researchers have their Ph. D. in the areas of physics, geology, atmospheric science and geophysics to name a few. They have uncovered powerful scientific evidence which supports a young earth and explains the radioisotope data within a biblical timescale. I would urge interested readers to avail themselves to the material at the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society.

Eyes on Him

The Christian will no doubt find themselves under more scrutiny than other people as they hustle about their daily business. We are under orders not to judge, but the Lord’s dictum in Matthew 7:20 is clear, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” If we say one thing but do another, then those who listen to us are justified in saying to us, “Physician, heal thyself” (Luke 4:23). We cry, “All serene!”, but out works testify against us and our conversion might be largely imaginary. Now the unbeliever should be warned that finger pointing at such hypocrisy is a very weak case. It is no use thinking to yourself – I will stand before the Lord and say, “Look, John Doe called himself a Christian but he was a hypocrite.” Do not be fooled. For now, the “wheat” and the “tares” will grow together, until the harvest. Until the harvest, some will profess but not possess the faith. Spurgeon aptly described these frauds: “I remember one who was very saintly in his talk. I will call him John Fairspeech. Oh, how cunningly he could act the hypocrite, getting among our young men and leading them into all manner of sin and iniquity; yet he would call to see me and have a half hour of spiritual conversation!” Some use the title of Christian yet they bring the utmost shame to the name of Christ. Therefore, fix your eyes solely on Jesus, not man.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Thousands... not billions

No doubt many of you would have heard "scientists" talking about the age of the earth and various species in billions of years. Well, Answers in Genesis has a great resource that thoroughly shatters this falsity. Read more about it here...

More information about the RATE project can be found at:


Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Embryonic stem cell research - is it ethical?

I would like to raise some concerns surrounding the ethics concerning embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Are you against Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR)? I say no, IF… if it doesn’t kill an innocent human being. We certainly should explore all scientific avenues that might provide cures and we need to care deeply for the sick, not just in word but also in action. Yet the facts of science are stubborn: embryonic stem cell research always kills a human being in the embryonic stage when researchers remove the stem cells. We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing the embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body. The entire moral question surrounding ESCR essentially boils down to this: are the embryos human? If the embryo is a human, killing her to benefit someone in the “here-and-now” is a serious moral wrong.

As in the case of abortion, let’s be careful of the language used in ESCR, since we must be clear about what ESCR actually does. Before abortion was legalized in America, a pro-choice advocate instructed nurses in a prominent medical journal, “Through public conditioning, use of language, concepts and laws, the idea of abortion can be separated from the idea of killing.” Regarding ESCR, there has been a consorted attempt to do the same thing – to separate ESCR from killing. Some say the blastocyst (an embryo at an early stage of development) is morally different from the other stages of human development. Here’s the picture some paint: in the first case you do not have a human being but in subsequent stages you do. Proponents of ESCR will say that it (blastula) is not a human being; it is “just an embryo”. Excuse me? “An embryo”? Think about it ladies and gentlemen, there is no such thing as “an embryo” in the abstract. Embryo is a stage of an organism, not a type of organism (big difference). To say “an embryo” doesn’t tell us what kind of thing it is. It could be a young squirrel, fish, or a human. The terms embryo and blastocyst only describe the earliest stages of development. They give us no information about the thing that is being developed.

ESCR proponents often appeal to emotion and it’s seriously flawed. American Senator Tom Harkin argues, “the embryos in question are no bigger than the period at the end of a sentence. They do not have the capacity to become a human being. It is morally wrong to oppose funding.” Mary Tyler Moore, who suffers from juvenile diabetes, shares a similar view, “The embryos that are being discussed, according to science, bear as much resemblance to a human being as a gold fish. We’re dealing with flesh and blood people now who feel and deal with real debilitation right now are our obligation is to those who are here.”

The point? “The embryo doesn’t look like us, therefore it’s not one of us”. But the issue is not what a human being in the embryonic stage looks like. The issue is this: it’s a human being. Don’t all human beings have intrinsic value and shouldn’t all human beings be treated equally? As Scott Klusendorf [www.str.org] points out in, “Harvesting the Unborn: The Ethics of Embryo Stem Cell Research”, this logic violates the very principle that once made political liberalism great: the concern for the oppressed, weak and defenseless. Proponents of ESCR believe that human beings at the embryonic stage do not deserve the protection of law. But can we really exclude the embryo from the moral community of human beings simply because of size, level of development or place of residence (womb, house or Petri dish)? Whatever happened to “Do unto others?”

Monday, November 07, 2005

Vices have become virtues

It does not need to be restated for the umpteenth time that something is desperately wrong with our society. But should we expect anything different? We glorify every vice imaginable and ridicule every virtue. Vices have become virtues and vice versa. “Entertainers” who name themselves after spare change and “roll with a unit” named after the seventh letter of the alphabet are glorified. Sin is flowing like a river because all manner of evil masquerades under the guise of high-sounding empty words (“political correctness”). We should soberly remember the judgement pronounced for this type of behaviour – “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). We shouldn’t bow down because we are afraid we will be consumed by the flames of popular opinion. If the majority of people do or believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Charles Spurgeon book excerpt

“The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise” (Proverbs 11:30)

These are some of my favourite excerpts from “The Soul Winner” by Charles Spurgeon:

Suppose it were well known that, if men were only clever, God would use them, no matter what their character and conduct might be. Suppose it were understood that you could get on as well in the word of God by chicanery and untruthfulness as by honest and uprightness. What person in the world, with any right feeling, would not be ashamed of such a state of affairs? But, beloved, it is not so.


He delights especially in humility among His followers. It is an awful sight to see a proud Christian. There are few things that can give the devil more joy than this sight, whenever he takes his walks abroad. He delights in a proud Christian, and he says to himself, “Here are all the preparations for a great fall before long.” Some pastors show their pride by their style in the pulpit. You can never forget the way in which they announced their text, “It is I: be not afraid” (John 6:20). Others manifest it in their attire, in the vanity of their dress, or in their talk, in which they continually magnify others’ deficiencies and amplify their own excellencies.


The third thing in a message that is likely to win souls to Christ is that it must be instructive. If people are to be saved by a message, it must contain at least some measure of knowledge. There must be light as well as fire. Some preachers are all light and no fire, and others are all fire and no light. What we need is both light and fire. I do not judge those men who are all fire and fury, but I wish they had a little more knowledge of what they talk about, and I think it would be well if they did not begin to preach quite so soon that they hardly understand themselves. It is a fine thing to stand up in the street and cry out, “Believe! Believe! Believe!” Yes, my dear soul, but what are we to believe? What is all this noise about?


First, we must work at our preaching. You are not distrustful of the use of preaching, are you? I hope you do not weary of it, though you certainly sometimes must weary in it. Cobbler, stick to your trade; preacher stick to your preaching.



You who have a delicacy and refinement may have to be shocked into the power to benefit the coarse and ignorant. You who are wise and educated may have to be made fools of, so that you may win fools to Jesus. Fools need saving, and many of them will not be saved except by means that men of culture cannot admire.


We ought not to regard the Christian church as a luxurious hotel where each Christian may dwell at his own ease in his own inn, but as barracks in which soldiers are drilled and trained for war. We should not regard the Christian church as an association for mutual admiration and comfort, but as an army with banners, marching to the fray to achieve victories for Christ, to storm the strongholds of the foe, and to add province after province to the Redeemer’s kingdom.


I have known several like a young man whom I will call Charley Clever, who were uncommonly clever young fellows at anything and everything, very clever at counterfeiting religion when they took up with it. They prayed very fluently. They tried to preach and did it very well. Whatever they did, they did it with ease. It was as easy to them as kissing their hand … Do not be in a hurry to take such people into the church. They have no humiliation on account of sin, no brokenness of heart, no sense of divine grace. They cry, “All serene!” and away they go; but you will find that they will never repay you for your labour and trouble. They will be able to use the language of God’s people as well as the best of His saints. They will even talk of their doubts and fears and will work up a deep experience in five minutes. They are a little too clever and are likely to do much harm when they get into the church, so keep them out, if you possibly can … I remember one who was very saintly in his talk. I will call him John Fairspeech. Oh, how cunningly he could act the hypocrite, getting among our young men and leading them into all manner of sin and iniquity; yet he would call to see me and have a half hour of spiritual conversation! An abominable wretch, he was living in open sin at the very time that he was seeking to come to the Lord’s table, joining our societies, and anxious to be a leading man in every good work. Keep your watchful eye open, friends! … They will come to you with money in their hands, like Peter’s fish with the silver in its mouth, and they will be so helpful in the work. They speak so softly and are such perfect gentlemen! Yes, I believe Judas was a man exactly of that kind, very clever at deceiving those around him. We must guard that we do not get any of these into the church; we must try to keep them out by any means.

Great soul-winners never have been fools. A person whom God qualifies to win souls could probably do anything else that Providence might allot him. Take Martin Luther, for instance. The man was not only fit to work a Reformation, but he could have ruled a nation or commanded an army! Think of Whitfield. His thundering eloquence, which stirred all England, was not associated with weak judgement or an absence of brain power; the man was a master orator. If he had applied himself to commerce, he would have become a leading merchant. If he had been a politician, he would have commanded the listeners amid admiring senates. He who wins souls is usually a man who could have done anything else if God had called him to it.


There is a way, too, of winning souls by laying hands upon heads, only the elbows of the aforesaid hands must be encased in sheer linen. Then the machinery acts, and grace is conferred by blessed fingers! I do not understand the mysterious science. But at this I need not wonder, for the profession of saving souls by such juggling can be carried out only by certain favoured persons who have received apostolic succession directly from Judas Iscariot. This confirmation, when men pretend that it confers grace, is an infamous piece of juggling. The whole thing is an abomination. Just to think that, in this century; there are men who preach salvation by sacraments, and salvation by themselves – indeed! Why, it is surely too late in the day to come to us with this drivel! Let us hope that these practices are anachronistic and out-of-date.


Now, a true soul-winner often has to come into close quarters with the devil within men. He has to struggle with their prejudices, their love of sin, their unbelief, their pride, and then, all of a sudden, grapple with their despair. At one moment he strives with their self-righteousness, at the next moment with their unbelief in God. Ten thousand arts are used to prevent the soul-winner from being conqueror in the encounter. But if God has sent him, he will never renounce his hold on the soul he seeks until he has given a throw to the power of sin and won another soul for Christ.

Further, let me commend you, dear friends, the art of buttonholing acquaintances and relatives. If you cannot preach to a hundred, preach to one. Get with the person alone and, in love, quietly and prayerfully talk to him. “One!” you exclaim. Well, is one not enough? I know your ambition, young man. You want to preach to thousands. Be content, and begin with one. Your Master was not ashamed to sit at the well and preach to one. When He had finished His message, He had really done good work to the whole city of Sychar, for that one woman became a missionary to her friends.


Jesus Christ did not come into the world for any of these things. He came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). He has sent His church on the same errand. She is a traitor to the Master who sent her if she is so beguiled by the beauties of taste and art as to forget that to “preach Christ, and Him crucified” (see 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2) is the only object for which she exists among the sons of men. The business of the church is the salvation of souls.

Monday, October 31, 2005

Article link: Reflections on Hinduism

There was a write up in the local papers about Diwali, which got me to thinking about Hinduism. You might find the Reflections on Hinduism article at Stand to Reason, of some interest.

Towards a republic

“But suppose you are preaching from a text that says nothing about Christ? … Then I will go over hedge and ditch until I get to Him” – Anonymous

Ancient Greek thought has shaped much of our thinking and the area of politics is no exception. Much of the confusion surrounding the concept of republicanism can be traced to the writings of Plato and Aristotle. In “The Republic”, Plato’s ideal republic consisted of three distinct groups: a commercial class formed by those dominated by their appetites; a spirited class, administrators and soldiers, responsible for the execution of the laws; and the guardians or philosopher-kings, who would be the lawmakers. Because Plato entrusted the guardians with the responsibility for maintaining a harmonious state, republicanism is often associated with goals established by a small segment of the community presumed to have a special insight into what constitutes the common good.

In “Politics”, Aristotle provided another republican concept, one that is prevalent in most of the Western world. Aristotle categorized governments on the basis of who rules: the one, the few, or the many. Most relevant to republicanism in the West, is Aristotle’s distinction between democracy: the perverted form of rule by the many, and its opposite “polity”, the good form. He believed that democracies were bound to experience turbulence and instability because the poor, who he assumed would be the majority in democracies, would seek an economic and social equality that would stifle individual initiative and enterprise. In contrast, “polity”, with a middle class capable of justly adjudicating conflicts between the rich and poor, would allow for rule by the many without the problems and chaos associated with democratic regimes.

Fast forward to the Russian Revolutions of 1917 when a new chapter in the history of republicanism was beginning. The development of the Soviet Union into a one-party totalitarian state once again demonstrated that republic and democracy are not necessarily synonymous. This became even more obvious after World War II, when all the republics of Eastern Europe were similarly fashioned after the Soviet Union’s model of one-party “people’s republics”.

Of the new republics that have come into being since World War II, most have displayed an unmistakable trend away from democratic ideals and instead assumed the nature of oligarchies, single-party states, or military dictatorships (pick your poison). In the last quarter of the 20th century, about three-fourths of the nations in the world deemed themselves republics, yet very few could be described as democracies.

Around 605 B.C. marks a very important part of human history. It was around this time that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah and it was the start of a period of four successive dominant world empires: the Babylon empire, followed by the Medo-Persian empire, followed by the Grecian empire and of course the Roman empire. The Bible (specifically the book of Daniel) is clear that there would have been four such empires, followed by a final one built on the last empire (a revived Roman empire). Now unless you have been under a rock, it should be obvious that she is in the process of being (re)built. Once she is up and running, the second coming is inevitable. So take heed of the Lord’s words: “So keep on watching, because you don’t know on what day your Lord is coming. So you, too, must be ready, because at an hour you are not expecting him the Son of Man will come.” (Matthew 24:42, 44)

Scientific theory and theology

Science and religion are often portrayed as being at odds with each other. I take the view to the contrary. Take for example the apparent contradiction concerning how light is described in quantum theory, as outlined by Russell Stannard, emeritus professor of physics at Open University. In answering what is light, some experiments point to light being a wave, others to it being a stream of particles. Light is sometimes described as a wave, because it behaves like a wave in many situations. Quantum theory also describes light as a particle. Scientists revealed this aspect of light behavior in several experiments performed during the early 20th century. In one experiment, physicists discovered an interaction between light and particles in a metal. But how can light be a spread-out wave and, at the same time, be a small localized particle? Similar apparent contradictions have arisen when studies are made to determine the “stuff” of which matter is comprised. These experiments point to both the wave and particle aspects of matter.

The apparent contradiction of the Christian trinitarian concept is this: How can God be fully God – omnipresent and omnipotent – and fully man (in the person of Jesus) – limited by time and space in Palestine – at the same time? We put aside the infantile objection: “but the word trinity doesn’t appear in the Bible”, for now. These apparent contradictions in particle physics and Christian theology bring home what ancient theologians and philosophers knew long ago. Science can tell us nothing about the world in and of itself. It cannot answer the question of form or quiddity, which is: what is the essence of … ? For example, we cannot know what light is (its essence). We can simply know that light is (it exists), by observing how it interacts in our environment.

In the same way, God can only be known through His interactions with us: nature, the Word, Jesus in Palestine et cetera. That He is (existence) – is knowable. However, what He is (essence) is absolutely unknowable Therefore, whatever it is we are talking about – God, light or matter – we cannot know what they are (essence). We can acknowledge however, that they exist and talk about how they interact with us in the universe and our lives. As a postscript, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Jerry Bergman for his help with the scientific aspect of this article.

General ramblings about nothing in particular

Right now I’m reading Jeremiah who I feel a sense of commonality with.

For some strange reason “cultured” people feel it is inappropriate to tell someone they are wrong. We have gone from the sublime to the asinine. If little Johnny gets up in class and says “1+1=91”, we must “appreciate little Johnny’s diverse views, the fresh thinking and approach he brings to mathematics and not tell him he is wrong”. What a bunch of twits (my political tact often tends towards 0). So if no one is “wrong”, how can we call sinners to repentance? There is always some high-sounding empty term to dress up all manner of sin and evil. No wonder this world is so messed up.

Take the part in Jeremiah where the Lord talks about idol worship, “For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee. But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.” (Jeremiah 10:3-8)

“But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities” = not politically correct by todays standards. I love the Old Testament!

Spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in the 21st century is bound to have you branded as “a hater of mankind”. Christians are expected to sit back and watch people slip gently into hell. Do not call sinners to repentance, can’t “offend” modern folk now. The Pharisees are the first to quote you “do as you would be done by” and “judge not lest you be judged”. They conveniently forget that the Lord also said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19-20).

Even the enemies of the cross respect Jesus as a “great moral teacher”. So if there were other ways to God, why would He give The Great Commission? Why would He not say, “Go into the nations and whatever they believe, tell them God bless and carry on.” The fact is, He didn’t. The fact is Jesus is the only way to God. If you advocate religious pluralism you are forced to admit that you are also saying Jesus basically didn’t know what He was talking about and His work on the cross was all for naught. Blasphemy I say! So what about Islam, Hinduism, Rastafarianism, Zoroastrianism and all the other “isms”? They are all wrong. Does this mean we “hate” the adherents of these belief systems? No. Although this is exactly the picture of Christians that some extremely simple-minded people try to paint. Why? Simple,

The world hates disciples. Read what the Lord said:

“If the world hates you, you should realize that it hated me before you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. But because you do not belong to the world and I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you. Remember the word that I spoke to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. They will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have any sin. But now they have no excuse for their sin. The person who hates me also hates my Father. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have any sin. But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.” (John 15:18-24)

Take two: Why the silence?

Now that an advocate of the theocratic rule has unashamedly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” (spoken like a true terrorist indeed), we await the analysis from the local foreign policy experts. These experts would have us believe that they could have struck a deal with despotic rulers like Stalin and Saddam over a cup of afternoon tea. Is it a coincidence that this brazen statement has followed quickly on the heels of the recent furor over their nuclear program? Unfortunately, western intellectuals often become naive in the process of rearing the lofty edifices of their minds. The fact is, we have an ideology on our hands which will be satisfied with nothing less than the annihilation of Israel. The deafening silence from certain parts of the globe on “the statement” can attest to this. Ironically, or tragically, we westerners will as usual be content to focus our attention on demonizing the American and British Zionist forces for their “immoral wars”. In light of the psalmist’s words that, “He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Psalm 121:4), what we should be asking is, “why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing?” (Psalm 2:1).

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Article link: How did different "races" arise (from Noah’s family)?

Read the answer at Answers in Genesis

Article link: Rastafarianism, A brief Christian critique

C.S. Lewis warned about trying to reason with people who are "always shifting their ground". Members of this movement are a prime example of what Lewis was talking about.

For example, a local writer who as far as I can tell is a Rastafari, made the following comment, "Even worse – as history can attest – these groups are quite prepared, if conversion fails, to persecute, conquer and, if necessary, burn at the stake and kill those who do not share their beliefs. The Old Testament is replete with commands to slaughter all the people of another faith – all in the name of God."

Yet, on another day, they will use the Old Testament to (a) justify the smoking of weed or (b) trace the lineage of Haile Selassie to "prove" he was a seed out of the line of David.

I find this a bit odd. On one hand we demonize The Bible, then when opportunity knocks, we gladly quote it and reference it to suit our agenda. The article is pretty informative and I agree with its conclusion, "Rastafarianism is a web whose strands are not easily broken or escaped."

Read the full article here...

Beyond time and into eternity

“We cannot all argue, but we can all pray; we cannot all be leaders, but we can all be pleaders; we cannot all be mighty in rhetoric, but we can all be prevalent in prayer” – Charles Haddon Spurgeon

One of the difficulties people have concerning prayer, is trying to understand how God handles the petitions of several of believers, at the same time. What is at the root of this difficulty is the idea that God has to somehow fit millions of requests into one moment of time. Now it is certain that God is not in time but inhabits eternity. To be in time means to change and God does not change, for He is in every way immutable and inhabits eternity (the state of timelessness, with no beginning or end). This is confirmed in the Scriptures: “For I am the LORD, I change not (Malachi 3:6) and “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever”(Hebrews 13:8).

The following illustration from C.S. Lewis gives an idea of what God’s timelessness is like: Suppose I am writing a novel. I write, “Mary laid down her work; next moment came a knock at the door!” For Mary who has to live in this imaginary time of my story there is no interval between putting down the work and hearing the knock. But I, who am Mary’s maker, do not live in that imaginary time at all. Between writing the first half of the sentence and the second, I might sit down for three hours and think steadily about Mary. I could think about Mary as if she were the only character in the book for as long as I pleased, and the hours I spent in doing so would not appear in Mary’s time (the time inside the story) at all.

I agree with Lewis that this is not a perfect example, but it does give us a glimpse into eternity. God is not hurried along in the time-stream of this universe any more than the author of a book is hurried along in the imaginary time-stream in a novel. God has infinite attention to give to each one of us. He listens to, cares for, and answers each of us individually. When He died on the cross, He died for each of us individually as if we were the only person in existence who needed to be reconciled with Him. If that is not reason enough to love Him, I don’t know what is.

On sexual morality

Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it; the Christian rule is: Either marriage (to one member of the opposite sex) with complete faithfulness, or else total abstinence. Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, in its current state, has gone wrong. My argument is based on the latter being true. The biological purpose of sex is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body. Now if we ate as much as we wanted and whenever we wanted, most of us will eat too much; but not terribly too much. We may eat enough for two or three, but not enough for twenty. On the other hand, if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt inclined, and if each act produced a baby, he could easily populate a small community. This appetite is overly in excess of its function.

Modern people are always saying “sex is nothing to be ashamed of”. If they mean there is nothing wrong with the fact that humans reproduce in a certain way that gives pleasure; then they are right. Christianity says the same thing. It is not the thing nor the pleasure. However, if they mean the state to which our sexual instinct has now gotten into is “nothing to be ashamed of”, they are very wrong. There is nothing to be ashamed off in enjoying your food. There would be something very wrong if half the world made food the main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food, dribbling and smacking their lips.

At the individual level we are not totally to blame. Poster after poster, movie after movie, song after song are released in unison with the intended purpose of keeping our sexual instincts in this state. The purpose of course is to make money. After all, someone with an addiction has very little sales resistance. Having inflamed these desires, we are then led to believe that any attempt to resist them is abnormal. Asinine fatuity, is what we should attribute to such a claim. Any reasonable person has a set of principles by which they choose to reject some desires and permit others. Some do this on Christian principles, another, based on another set of principles. The real conflict is not between Christianity and “natural desires”, but between Christianity and the other worldly principles in control of “natural desires”. The mandate from God isn’t meant to cramp our style, it is for our own good. He knows best. “He that formed the eye, shall he not see (Psalms 94:9), “or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?” (Isaiah 29:16)

Monday, October 24, 2005

Response by Answering Islam to "one-sided" charges

I referenced the Answering Islam website in two of my previous articles and it [the site] was charged with being “one-sided”. Below is their response:

Is www.answering-islam.org "one sided"? Let me answer it this way. Those of us who contribute to the site have a deep love for Muslims and long for Them to know the peace and assurance of salvation that we enjoy as believers In Christ Jesus. My wife and I have spent most of the past 24 years in a country where 99% of our neighbors are Muslims. We love and genuinely care about and our neighbors--both for their well-being in this world and for their eternal destiny in the life to come. It is this same love for Muslims that drives www.answering-islam.org .

Those of us who contribute to the site seek to present the truth in a fair and balanced way. We answer all emails which come to us. We link to scores of Muslim sites. We seek to present solid arguments and evidence in response to the attacks which Islam levels against the Bible and its Good News message, and then let folks chose for themselves what they will believe. For some samples of our answers, see our email dialogs section.

From time to time we receive messages from Muslims who complain that we are being deceptive because of the name of our website. They feel that the name Answering-Islam gives the impression that we are an Islamic site; that we are leading Muslims astray by feeding them anti-islamic material while pretending to be Muslim. Perhaps there are some who think that any phrase that includes the word "Islam" is automatically Islamic. Of course, anyone who understands the English language reasonably well knows that "Answering Islam" is synonymous with "Countering Islam", "Refuting Islam", or "Exposing Islam." They all mean similar things, except that the phrase "Answering Islam" is a more friendly and most polite version. We prefer the friendlier version.

We want a respectful dialog and factual discussion with Muslims. We want to give answers to their questions and responses to the attacks they raise against the Christian Faith. Just as "Answering Atheism" is understood as a presentation of arguments to help atheists understand why it is rational to reject Atheism and accept the Genesis account of God and creation, so “Answering Islam” exists to help Muslims understand why it makes good sense to embrace the unalterable, age-old message of the Scriptures of the very prophets they claim to honor.

Preparing the mind for action

“He [Christ] wants a child’s heart but a grown-up’s head” – C.S. Lewis

The mind is like a muscle. If it is not exercised regularly and strenuously, it loses some of its capacities and strength. If we are to be of any help to this present generation we must, amongst other things, change our reading habits and fast. If I am correct in my interpretation of certain views which have been expressed in the press, it seems that people no longer base their decisions on a careful use of abstract reasoning in assessing pertinent issues. Nor are they as capable of doing so compared to earlier generations.

In earlier generations thought was primarily communicated by writing and abstract ideas, not images. Nowadays, people are basically passive in terms of receiving ideas. We are continuously fed images, video et cetera via the television. People therefore tend to regard paragraphs, blurbs, thirty-second sound bites and pretty pictures as more important than numerous words on a page minus the pictures or abstract thoughts. With the ubiquitousness of gadgets like silent leashes (cellular phones), people now have very short attention spans and are not able to stay with an idea as it is being carefully developed.

In 1941, Harvard sociologist Pitirim A. Sorokin wrote a book called, “The Crisis of Our Age.” In it, he claimed that cultures come in two major types: sensate and ideational. In a sensate culture, people believe in only the reality of the physical universe which can be experienced with the senses. By contrast, the ideational culture embraces the sensory world but also accepts the notion that an immaterial world – consisting of God, the soul and so on – can be known. Sorokin claimed that a sensate culture will eventually disintegrate because it lacks the intellectual resources necessary to sustain both a public and private life conducive to human flourishing. This is exactly what is happening to modern society. Drop Everything And Read is an excellent step towards correcting this disintegration. No movement – political, religious, social or otherwise – can survive without an active reader base. It will become marginalized and easily led. For the love of God and for the love of country – Drop Everything And Read. “For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.” (Proverbs 8:11)

The victim mentality

I would like to share my thoughts on the: “I am a victim. The world owes me something because my ancestors were slaves” mentality. I’ll start with the obvious. This mentality has it’s philosophical roots in Marxism, which for the most part explains its errancy. The basic premise is that society is divided into two categories – “victims” and “oppressors”. The oppressors are always wrong and the victims are always right. The goal of political activity (and everything regarded as political) is to disempower the oppressors and to empower the victims (so that the victims can jolly well get on with some oppressing of their own).

However, in the all the furor, rules that were formerly absolute, such as freedom of thought and expression, are discarded whenever the victims’ interests so demand. If an oppressor says something that offends a designated victim, they are immediately sentenced to sensitivity training. Of course the victims may abuse the oppressors all they like.

This mentality is supposedly based on a passion for “tolerance” and “dialogue” but the passion only lasts until the victims have enough power to turn on the oppressors. This is of course self-contradictory. The designated “victims” are in fact victimized, but in another sense. The effect of this mentality is to keep the victims in a state of dependency so they can be manipulated by demagogues.

People who are festering with resentment for real and imagined grievances can be easily persuaded that their welfare depends on following the demagogues and extortionists who promise to wrest concessions from the oppressors (reparations, for example). The real question we should be asking is: “How can we help the “victims” to understand that the manipulators who endeavour to keep them in a state of sullen resentment are their worst enemies?” It is impossible to perpetually see oneself as a victim and amount to anything in this life. So as you think in your heart, so shall it be (Proverbs 23:7).

God's revelation through nature

British pastor John Scott was asked to reflect on fifty years of ministry and give advice to a new generation of Christian leaders. This is part of what he said, “My main exhortation would be this: Don’t neglect your critical faculties. Remember that God is a rational God, who has made us in His own image. God invites and expects us to explore His double revelation, in nature and Scripture …” The Old Testament clearly teaches that God reveals Himself through nature. Isaiah 28:23-29 and Proverbs 6:6 are but a few examples. Most importantly, from Jesus’ sermons and parabolic teachings, it is evident that He was a keen observer of nature. Over and over again we read, “the kingdom of God is like…” then Jesus “likens the kingdom” to an aspect of nature: the sowing of seeds (Mark 4:31), the pearl (Matthew 13:45), the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31) and so on. When Paul penned Romans 1:19-20, with the Spirit of the living God and not with ink, he showed the fruit of observing God’s creation.

You cannot want it anymore straightforward than: cause and effect. God is not an effect, therefore He has no cause. Yet, even though God exceeds all senses, some of His effects (one of which is nature), are sensible. The origin of our knowledge from senses hold even when what is known exceeds the senses. Therefore, God can be known through His sensible effects (like nature), even though the essence (quiddity) of God, is in every way beyond our senses. This principle is present in both the Old and New Testament. Most importantly, Jesus taught it. That a 1930s Nobel prize winner advocated a view to the contrary is inconsequential.

Why I write

This quotation by Leo C. Rosten pretty much sums up why writers write: “A writer writes not because he is educated but because he is driven by the need to communicate. Behind the need to communicate is the need to share. Behind the need to share is the need to be understood. The writer wants to be understood much more than he wants to be respected or praised or even loved. And that perhaps, is what makes him different from others.”

I write to serve a name, not to make one for myself. I write because it is written, “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:27-28).

And concerning originality, I share C.S. Lewis’ views on this when he said, “Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.”

Saturday, October 08, 2005

On social morality

Sometime back a writer expressed their frustration and suggested that one of the local newspapers should “get off their moral high horse”. After all, why all this chatter about morality, values et cetera when there are roads to be fixed, an economy to drive forward. In other words, let’s deal with “real issues”. But who drives the economy, fixes roads and deals with other problems in society? People do. And unless people are changed drastically from the inside, we are merely wasting time with “real issues”. If you check human history, I am sure you will find that when we work towards the proverbial state of utopia by merely humanistic means, it does not work; period. In almost every case greed, envy, malice and hatred somehow surface and we are back at square one.

Yet even though morality is important, it still misses the mark. For a society content with its own “niceness” and looking no further, will eventually become a morally degenerate society. Mere improvement in behaviour does not result in redemption, but redemption always improves people to a level we cannot possibly imagine. God became man to turn us into His sons. He did not come to produce better men but to produce men of a new kind. Of course the local arm of the intelligentsia will object with the usual, “no place for a theocracy”, “narrow minded bigots” et cetera. We will hold symposium A, discussion B and workshop C. Everyone seems to know what is wrong, yet no one is solving the problem. The truth is, we are reaping exactly what we have sown and will continue to do so unless we get Jesus’ message. In the words of Spurgeon that message is, “Every generation needs regeneration”.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Paying the price for success

“Nothing worthwhile comes easily. Half effort does not produce half results. It produces no results. Work, continuous work and hard work, is the only way to accomplish results that last” – Hamilton Holt

From cradle to the grave we are exhorted to succeed at work, school, play and all that good stuff. Yet there seems to be this unwritten rule that applies to our generation. It goes something like this: Be all you can be. Excel at every worthwhile endeavour. But whatever you do; do not ever reach a level of success that would remind me of what I could become if I worked harder, applied myself even more et cetera. I think this is why there are so many successful people, sports teams, companies and countries that some people just “love to hate”. But, this is just a hypothesis from casual observation. There couldn’t possibly be any truth to it, could there?

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Why Muslims become Christians

The following is a link to the testimonies section at Answering Islam. I referenced this site in an article and some have claimed that it is one sided. However, the people who have made comments to that effect have, consciously or unconsciously, chosen not to read the testimonies.

Jesus causes sparks to fly

Eyes light up when we talk about God as this impersonal force out there with no feelings, an abstract concept to whom we are not accountable. But as soon as you mention Jesus, the temperature drops and the pupils start to dilate. With Jesus, there is no middle ground, “He that is not with me is against me …” (Matthew 12:30). If the claims Jesus made to be God are not true, then He cannot be a great moral teacher. He would be a liar. You must make your choice.

As nice as Gandhi’s statement sounds, it is still false. Error does not become truth, because it was stated by someone we consider to be a great moral teacher. But I suppose conventional thinking says that we all simply nod, smile at each other and go home none the wiser. How can the teachings of the great moral teachers, concerning the soul, contradict each other? Christ said that there is no hope for anyone apart from salvation through Him (John 14:6). All the others say, “Rubbish, all roads lead to Rome.” Someone has to be lying, who is it?

Of course any answer will sidestep Jesus’ truth claim in John 14:6, and we will get the usual discourse on the intolerant Christian bigots. Deep down, secular liberals know that all religions cannot be right. In fact they believe that none are right, but that is another story. Faced with this fact, we are left with three options: ignore the contradictions, combine all the views or distinguish right from wrong. The number of rival conceptions of God and philosophies on the marketplace seemingly tends towards infinity, so most people just choose option one or two. God forbid we have to think for ourselves.

Monday, October 03, 2005

The most precious piece of real estate

Do you not find it even remotely eerie that Palestine, where God walked amongst us in the person of Jesus, is consistently at the fore of world affairs? From west to east: the coastal plain, the hills and mountains of Galilee, Samaria, and Judea; the valley of the Jordan River; and the eastern plateau – always in the news. Not to mention that the Gaza Strip, the most controversial 146 square miles on earth, just happens to be near the crossroads of Asia, Africa and Europe. This is the perfect place to start spreading the gospel to the world, fulfilling the promise God gave to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, “and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you”. Jesus Christ and His message, represents the best that the world was ever blessed with. Feed yourself on soft soap and wishful thinking by calling it coincidence, if you wish. All right thinking people know, it is Divine Providence.

First things first

“The ‘historical’ Jesus then, however dangerous He may seem to be to us at some particular point, is always to be encouraged” – The Screwtape Letters

In discussions about Jesus people often miss the whole point. Some only debate the historical Jesus. Others, obsessed with race to the point of crassness, only focus on His colour. Whilst all of these discussions have their place, the most important advice about Jesus was given by His earthly mother: “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” (John 2:5). And what did he “saith unto” us? “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!” (Matthew 4:17). That is what must be obeyed, that is what is most important to Jesus. He has nothing more to say to us, as far as I can tell, unless we first repent. When you get to know Him for who He really is, all of the other things like His historicity and race, become secondary. They fade away, like a distant memory. No more infantile discourses, for you’ve met the real man. Do you know the man of whom I speak? If not, you need to take care of first things first. You can do so right now, if you wish.

Why the silence?

The ink seems to have dried up from the pens of the writers who took great pleasure in demonizing the American and British administrations vis-à-vis the “immoral” war in Iraq. These writers would have us believe that they could have struck a deal with the likes of Ho Chi Minh, Stalin and Saddam over a cup of afternoon tea. But what about Iran and their defiance surrounding their nuclear ambitions? Why the silence? Contrary to what the modern incarnation of Averroës would have us believe; the problems in Muslim countries are not the result of the imperialistic, western Zionist forces. If western nations completely severed ties with these countries, especially the major faces of political Islam today – Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan – it would not end there. The fact is, we have an ideology on our hands which will not be satisfied until Israel, along with the Jewish people, are wiped completely off the map. Of course some “moderate” leaders in the Middle East, vehemently deny this. Yet their denials are phrased in such a way as to pacify the western leaders, whilst simultaneously, not offending the terrorists. Ironically, western democratic leaders could learn something from the theocratic public relations machinery in the Middle East that automatically kicks in after attacks in the west. We seem to have forgotten that the communists sometimes followed a policy of peaceful coexistence when it seemed convenient? Whilst they seem to have forgotten the words of David: “He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Psalm 121:4).

Monday, September 26, 2005

Trying to find God

People often talk about “finding God” as though it is God who is lost. On the contrary. Jesus said, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). This illustration might help. If you are studying an inanimate object, you have to go to the object as the initiative lies fully on your side. If you are studying a wild animal in its natural environment, it will not come to you, but it can run away from you. A bit of the initiative lies on the animal’s side. Now, a step further. If you want to get to know a person, you will not get to know them if they are determined not to let you. You first have to win their trust and so on. In this relationship, initiative is equally divided. When it comes to “finding” God, the initiative lies fully on His side. If He does not reveal Himself, nothing you do will enable you to “find” Him. Luckily, He has revealed Himself to us. Not only in the Bible, but in all of creation. As Martin Luther said, “God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees, and flowers, and clouds, and stars”.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Evolution and irreducible complexity

In “On the Origin of Species” Darwin admitted that the problem of irreducible complexity would stand as a refutation of his theory. He wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”. Molecular biology has done just that – shattered his theory. The problem of irreducible complexity is a logical argument about how wholes are constructed from parts. An aggregate structure, like a pile of rocks, can be built up gradually by simply adding one rock at a time. However, an organized structure like a computer processor, is built according to a preexisting plan. Each interlocking piece is structured to contribute to the functioning of the whole. If there is any piece missing, the whole cannot work. The question then is whether living structures are aggregates or organized wholes. This is what science says: Not only on the level of body systems, but also within each tiny cell, living structures are incredibly complex organized wholes. Structures like the tiny string-like flagellum attached like a tail to some bacteria require dozens of precisely tailored, intricately interacting parts, which could not emerge by gradual process, otherwise it would not work. Instead the coordinated parts must somehow appear on the scene all at the same time, combined and coordinated in the right patterns, for the molecular machine to function at all. Biologist David DeRosier in, The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellar Motor, [Cell 93, April 3 1988] wrote, “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human”. Irreducible complexity also exists in the blood clotting system as well as vision. The most reasonable explanation therefore is that the pieces were put together according to a preexisting blueprint, by an intelligent designer. Despite the fact that the evidence points towards an intelligent designer, Darwin’s disciples continue to vehemently defend evolution. One such disciple, Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin says that he is a materialist not because of the facts, but in spite of them. He goes on to insist, “we cannot allow a divine foot in the door”. Huston Smith was therefore right when he said, “Darwinism is supported more by atheistic philosophical assumptions than by scientific evidence”.

Reaction to Mr. Stahl’s article from tueorigins.org

Mr. Stahl is certainly adept at smoke and mirrors. His prose is packed with the same ignorance, half-truths and outright falsehoods that typically litter the landscape of evolutionary “thought” -- the same boilerplate "answers" readily trotted out for the standard dog and pony show. His ignorance of the empirical evidence supporting the “created kinds” paradigm doesn't quite entitle him to claim “no evidence” exists. His treatment of ID and irreducible complexity as one and the same betrays yet another layer of ignorance; his use of the obsolete 98-99% figure in chimp-human DNA similarity betrays another... ...the list could go on and on... But I regret that I currently haven't the time to answer such hooey in detail (not that a “newspaper” that would blithely print Mr. Stahl's claims would also publish a fact-based rebuttal).

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Answers in Genesis

I totally agree with Spurgeon when he wrote, “A witty answer is often a very proper thing; at the same time, a gracious answer is better. Try to say to yourself: It does not, after all, matter whether that man proves me to be a fool or not, for I know that already I am content to be thought a fool for Christ’s sake, and not to care about my reputation. I have to bear witness to what I know, and by the help of God I will do so right boldly.” And this is what I know. For the theory of evolution to be true, abiogenesis has to be a fact. Yet, no evolutionist can answer the question: How did life come from non-life? Any answer generally goes like this: We know it is impossible, but we have to start somewhere. So let us start with an impossibility and see where it leads. Recent developments in the areas of molecular biology and genetics confirm what is arguably the most fundamental law of biology: “omni cellules e cellules” [all cells come from other cells]. Life can only come from life. The truth about origins, like any other truth, always rises above falsehood as oil above water. Readers might want to avail themselves to the material at Answers in Genesis. As always, the table is open to come to the One who said, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (John 11:25-26).

Monday, September 12, 2005

Using natural disasters to further an agenda

It is repugnant how some of the most unlearned men use pain and suffering to further their agendas. The atheistic murmurer continues to pen empty words in an effort to detract people from God. Another plays the race card as expected. Maybe the reason a certain black rapper “rolls with a unit” named after the seventh letter of the alphabet and refers to himself as spare change is because of the imperialistic white record owners. But not the time to discuss such matters. Now is as good a time as any to look to Jesus Christ who said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls” (Matthew 11:28-29). Interestingly enough, the atheistic murmurer’s jest would not be valid if the human beings who lost their lives were not valuable. If human beings did not have this unique value in creation, there would be no tragedy. So the real question the atheist must ask themselves is: Where do human beings derive this special value that differs from a material object? That value comes from God who created them in His image; not from matter and a long series of chances. The divine mind trumps matter. A bit of advice from the third heaven: carefully reconsider the continual mocking of God in the public square. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7). They say you should speak the truth; but leave immediately. On that note, I’m out.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

On faith and reason

In contemporary western thought, belief in God is considered irrational and infantile, primarily for two reasons: lack of evidence and evidence contrary to God’s nature. This evidentialist objection of the enlightenment period is rooted in a theory of knowledge known as Classical Foundationalism. Classical Foundationalists take a pyramid, or a house, as metaphors for their conception of knowledge or rationality. A secure house or pyramid must have secure foundations sufficient to carry the weight of the subsequent floors properly attached to that foundation. They argue that a belief in God is neither self-evident nor evident to the senses. Such a belief is therefore irrational and theism hinges on the success of rational argument. However, in a view called Reformed Epistemology, it is argued that the belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. There is a limit to the things that human beings can prove. If we were required to prove everything there would be an infinite regress of proving. Belief in God is more like the belief in a person than the belief in a scientific hypothesis. Beliefs are therefore innocent until proven guilty, rather than guilty until proven innocent.

Contrary to popular opinion, faith and reason are not polar opposites. Faith is a trust in what we first have reason to believe is true. In this way, faith is seen to be built upon reason. Of course at this point someone will probably quote me Hebrews 11:1. However, Matthew Henry in his commentary on that verse says, “Faith is the firm assent of the soul to the divine revelation and every part of it, and sets to its seal that God is true.” But divine revelation is achieved through the contemplative life, which involves the intellect or mind. Therefore, faith is built upon reason. One should therefore have good reasons for believing Christianity before dedicating one’s life to it. In turn, the Christian should have solid evidence that their understanding of a biblical passage is correct before applying it. But having said all that, some things have to be believed to be seen. Make what you will of it.

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Did man evolve from the chimpanzee?

It was recently reported that the chimpanzee has 98-99% identical Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) when compared to humans. Researchers now claim that the total percentage difference between man and the chimpanzee is only 4%. Darwin’s disciples will continue to use percentages because it obscures the real difference between humans and chimpanzees. This allows them to hold firm to their evolutionary hypothesis. All life on earth uses two molecules, DNA and Ribonucleic acid (RNA), as blueprints for reproduction. Both DNA and RNA consists of a chain of chemical compounds called nucleotides. These chains are arranged like a ladder that has been twisted into the shape of a winding staircase, called a double helix. The sequence of these nucleotide bases makes up an organism’s genetic code. Genetically speaking, that “tiny” percentage difference translates to approximately 40 to 45 million bases that are present in humans but absent from the chimpanzee.

In Genesis 1:25 we read, “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” There was no sharing of common ancestry between the species because everything was created “after their kind”. The recent report is even more problematic because of claims made by evolutionists themselves. They tell us that most evolutionary change is due to random genetic drift, which means that change occurs without natural selection in operation. So without natural selection to explain away everything, how do we explain a 40-45 million difference in the nucleotide bases between humans and chimps? The theory of evolution is a joke and we have not even touched the problem of irreducible complexity yet. A lot of what passes for science these days is nothing more than naturalistic philosophy repackaged. The truth about the origin of life is in the book of Genesis.

Monday, September 05, 2005

The greatest Comforter

For those serious about apologetics remember this:

"Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets." (Luke 6:21-23)

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." (Galatians 6:7-9)

"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." (John 16:33)

Blessed be His hold name...