The Da Vinci Code Cracks
The latest issue of Solid Ground from Stand to Reason contains some good material on "cracking" Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. You will need Adobe Acrobat reader to view the document.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Friday, April 21, 2006
Blog link: Between two worlds
I came across and interesting link whilst over at the Stand to Reason blog. It's called Between two worlds: A Mix of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and Culture. Make sure to check it out.
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Evolution and morality
Evolutionists would have us believe that man (including morality) evolved. But this is a bit odd isn’t it? Morals seem to be dissolving rather than evolving. Scientists have observed monkeys practicing basic “moral” behaviour and conclude that it is the result of natural selection. But motive and intent are crucial parts of moral conduct so it is quite silly to think that morality can be reduced to observable behaviour.
If evolution were true, virtues like mercy and love would not be acts of “virtue” that were freely chosen. They would be instinctive behaviours that were hard-wired for personal survival (a fact evolutionists readily admit). However, moral values involve chosen traits, not instinctual ones. This is most evident in the fact that we hold people morally responsible for free choices, not innate reactions. No one goes before the law court and argues, “Evolution, genetics and natural selection made me do it. Survival of the fittest and all that good stuff your honour.” If morality could be reduced to a naturalistic mechanism, it wouldn’t be morality anymore.
Darwin’s disciples fail to realize (or admit) that morality is not simply an account of what we do (descriptive), but a system explaining what we ought to do (prescriptive), and therefore evolution can’t explain it. If you are confused about origins, be sure to include Answers in Genesis and True Origin Archive in your research.
If evolution were true, virtues like mercy and love would not be acts of “virtue” that were freely chosen. They would be instinctive behaviours that were hard-wired for personal survival (a fact evolutionists readily admit). However, moral values involve chosen traits, not instinctual ones. This is most evident in the fact that we hold people morally responsible for free choices, not innate reactions. No one goes before the law court and argues, “Evolution, genetics and natural selection made me do it. Survival of the fittest and all that good stuff your honour.” If morality could be reduced to a naturalistic mechanism, it wouldn’t be morality anymore.
Darwin’s disciples fail to realize (or admit) that morality is not simply an account of what we do (descriptive), but a system explaining what we ought to do (prescriptive), and therefore evolution can’t explain it. If you are confused about origins, be sure to include Answers in Genesis and True Origin Archive in your research.
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Atheism's bloody past
It was Laurence Sterne who said, “Whenever a man talks loudly against religion, always suspect that it is not his reason, but his passions which have got the better of his creed.” Atheism is completely illogical and anyone with a basic introduction to philosophy should pick this up. Atheism affirms a negative in the absolute (there is no God), which is an obvious logical contradiction. Bertrand Russell realized (and admitted) this in his later essays and it is the primary reason he switched to agnosticism.
On the opinion that innocent blood has been shed in the name of religion, we should be honest enough to admit that atheism has an equally, if not, bloodier history. Stalin was an avowed atheist. In fact, Lenin (who read Friedrich Nietzsche) specifically selected Stalin because of his hatred of things religious. Hitler, who personally presented a copy of Friedrich Nietzsche’s writings to Benito Mussolini, gave Nietzsche’s theory of the “Superman”, a military interpretation. The “Superman” was an individual who overcame what Nietzsche termed the “slave morality” of traditional values, and lived according to his own morality. The rest as they say, is history. Nietzsche advanced the idea that “God is dead,” or, “traditional morality was no longer relevant in people’s lives”. Nietzsche and countless other ungodly philosophers have heavily impacted the Western mindset, so it is little wonder that we are in this moral quagmire.
If atheism is true then no moral law exists. If morality is espoused, it is merely utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or emotive. The West is being rocked at her knees because we have lost the point of reference for the values which we are desperately trying to hold onto. We think we can survive without adhering to a transcendent moral law. Atheism’s bloody past cries out against the experiment.
On the opinion that innocent blood has been shed in the name of religion, we should be honest enough to admit that atheism has an equally, if not, bloodier history. Stalin was an avowed atheist. In fact, Lenin (who read Friedrich Nietzsche) specifically selected Stalin because of his hatred of things religious. Hitler, who personally presented a copy of Friedrich Nietzsche’s writings to Benito Mussolini, gave Nietzsche’s theory of the “Superman”, a military interpretation. The “Superman” was an individual who overcame what Nietzsche termed the “slave morality” of traditional values, and lived according to his own morality. The rest as they say, is history. Nietzsche advanced the idea that “God is dead,” or, “traditional morality was no longer relevant in people’s lives”. Nietzsche and countless other ungodly philosophers have heavily impacted the Western mindset, so it is little wonder that we are in this moral quagmire.
If atheism is true then no moral law exists. If morality is espoused, it is merely utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or emotive. The West is being rocked at her knees because we have lost the point of reference for the values which we are desperately trying to hold onto. We think we can survive without adhering to a transcendent moral law. Atheism’s bloody past cries out against the experiment.
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
The abolition of sin
Modern society is desperately trying to abolish the concept of sin. With political correctness now on steroids, we dress up sin with high-sounding words. Vices have become virtues and vice versa. Take the Good as New “translation” of the sacred Christian Scriptures. This translation describes itself as women, gay and sinner friendly. The Scripture says, “for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:9). They have changed it to “If you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated.” To avoid offending people in homosexual relationships, references to “husband and wife” are replaced with “partner.”
This “translation” is a bit shocking but not totally surprising. Paul warned young Timothy about this, “For the time will come when people will not put up with healthy doctrine but with itching ears will surround themselves with teachers who cater to their own needs” (2 Timothy 4:3). We can sugar coat sin and psychoanalyze ourselves until the cows come home. But we should also remember the prophet Isaiah’s words: “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)”
This “translation” is a bit shocking but not totally surprising. Paul warned young Timothy about this, “For the time will come when people will not put up with healthy doctrine but with itching ears will surround themselves with teachers who cater to their own needs” (2 Timothy 4:3). We can sugar coat sin and psychoanalyze ourselves until the cows come home. But we should also remember the prophet Isaiah’s words: “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)”
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Monday, March 20, 2006
Blog break
Bible shcool exam preparation has not left me with much time to write. Anyways, you can check out the following apologetic resources from RZIM which look pretty interesting. I'm considering purchasing, most, if not all of them:
CD301 - The Harvard Veritas Forum
CD308 - Engaging Culture With Conversations That Count
CD212 - Is There Meaning in Evil & Suffering?
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Monday, March 06, 2006
The problem with Christianity
Mohandas Gandhi gave a lucid explanation of Christianity’s problems when he said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” This is a common (and legitimate) “beef” many have with the Christian faith. The problem is not Christianity per se, but Christians. When Christians behave badly, we throw serious doubt on the credibility of the gospel and our claims to be “new creatures in Christ Jesus.”
The world is in a sense right to judge Christianity by its fruits. The Lord himself was most severe when he dealt with the religious leaders of his day who should have known better and judgement must begin at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17) if it is to being at all. But the world should be careful in her judging of Christendom. It tends to give unbelievers a false sense of security outside of Christ. One is left to think they can point out a couple of “hypocritical Christians”, make the case that they were “nicer” or “more virtuous” and all will be well. But it won’t be. Ultimately, each of us will be judged individually on our acceptance or rejection of Christ. In the words of Christ, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:17-18)”
To be content to live outside of Christ and point to Christians who behave more like the devil himself is to do a great disservice to your soul. In the parable of the weeds and the field, the weeds and the wheat had to grow together lest the servants pulled out some of the wheat with the weeds. So it is in Christendom, the weeds and the wheat must grow together. But at the end of the age, the Lord will “send his angels to gather from his kingdom everything that causes others to sin and those who practice lawlessness and they will throw them into a blazing furnace.” Literally.
The world is in a sense right to judge Christianity by its fruits. The Lord himself was most severe when he dealt with the religious leaders of his day who should have known better and judgement must begin at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17) if it is to being at all. But the world should be careful in her judging of Christendom. It tends to give unbelievers a false sense of security outside of Christ. One is left to think they can point out a couple of “hypocritical Christians”, make the case that they were “nicer” or “more virtuous” and all will be well. But it won’t be. Ultimately, each of us will be judged individually on our acceptance or rejection of Christ. In the words of Christ, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:17-18)”
To be content to live outside of Christ and point to Christians who behave more like the devil himself is to do a great disservice to your soul. In the parable of the weeds and the field, the weeds and the wheat had to grow together lest the servants pulled out some of the wheat with the weeds. So it is in Christendom, the weeds and the wheat must grow together. But at the end of the age, the Lord will “send his angels to gather from his kingdom everything that causes others to sin and those who practice lawlessness and they will throw them into a blazing furnace.” Literally.
Posted by Adrian Sobers
The missing link
The evolutionist is still looking for “the missing link”, the evolutionary “ancestor” of both human beings and modern apes. One would think they stand a better chance of finding a one-ended stick. Now granted, the evolutionist is not wrong in the search for “the missing link”, simply misguided. Instead of combing the earth for fossils, they should look to Jesus Christ. He is the missing link, the one through whom God reconciled the world to himself. As the apostle Paul put it, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ…” (2 Cor. 5:17-18).
Jesus Christ is the “missing link” and once man links us with him, then the “next stage of evolution” can begin. Only then can man begin the long, arduous process of becoming what he was always intended to be – a new creature in Christ Jesus. Who ever said evolution and Christianity were incompatible?
Jesus Christ is the “missing link” and once man links us with him, then the “next stage of evolution” can begin. Only then can man begin the long, arduous process of becoming what he was always intended to be – a new creature in Christ Jesus. Who ever said evolution and Christianity were incompatible?
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Monday, February 27, 2006
No ordinary man
After Jesus delivered his most quoted sermon (Matthew 5-7), Matthew tells us, “the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matthew 7:28-29). Some say Jesus is just a prophet, a good man, a moral teacher, but not God. Yet, if we pay close attention to his words, it is clear that he is God. The most obvious clue is his claim to forgive sins.
In Mark 2:7, the scribes and the religious teachers asked, “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?” In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes, “Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did.” No ordinary man (in his right mind) can claim to forgive all sins. No ordinary man says, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:23-24). No wonder the people asked, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? (John 6:42)” This is easily answered. Jesus Christ, is no ordinary man.
In Mark 2:7, the scribes and the religious teachers asked, “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?” In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes, “Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did.” No ordinary man (in his right mind) can claim to forgive all sins. No ordinary man says, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:23-24). No wonder the people asked, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? (John 6:42)” This is easily answered. Jesus Christ, is no ordinary man.
Posted by Adrian Sobers
God is just
You have probably heard it said over and over again that, “God is love.” Whilst this is true, I think we have overemphasized this truth at the expense of another, namely, “God is just.” To quote “God is love” ad nauseam might mislead people into thinking they can transgress God’s law, never repent and everything will be alright in the end because, “God is love.” God is love, but it is equally true that God is just. We should therefore be careful not to mistake God’s love for lack of justice. If we, who are evil, exact justice, then how much more a God who is perfectly holy, good and pure?
The writer of Hebrews offers us a sobering reminder that God’s love and grace is not a license to do as we like. To those who trample God’s Son and insult the Spirit of grace, the dictum is this, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31).” Does God love you? Yes. Will He nonchalantly turn a blind eye to the transgression of His law? Absolutely not. Justice will be exacted, not because He is cruel, but because He is love; and perfect love always exacts justice.
The writer of Hebrews offers us a sobering reminder that God’s love and grace is not a license to do as we like. To those who trample God’s Son and insult the Spirit of grace, the dictum is this, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31).” Does God love you? Yes. Will He nonchalantly turn a blind eye to the transgression of His law? Absolutely not. Justice will be exacted, not because He is cruel, but because He is love; and perfect love always exacts justice.
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Problems with Islam
It does not matter if offense is not meant, some will probably be taken. Therefore let me get straight to the point. There are some problems I have with Islam (not Muslims) which I find very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile.
Their prophet is supposed to be the last and final prophet to the entire world. He performed no miracles because he said there was no need for it. Yet the Qur’an is believed to be a miracle by Muslims, but the Qur’an is in Arabic. So unless one knows Arabic, one cannot perceive the miracle. What is even more troubling is the fact that a large number of Muslims in the world do not even speak (or understand) Arabic, so the Qur’an in its original language is not accessible to them. Nevertheless, Muslims have traditionally objected to its translation on the grounds that it is the word of God. Islamic doctrine teaches that the Qur’an is the miracle of Muhammad and neither its composition nor its contents can be imitated. So there are millions of people who cannot perceive this miracle (because they don’t know Arabic) and the English and other translations they will tell you are not accurate. The only accurate translation is the original translation in Arabic. So if the Qur’an is the final and last revelation from God to man, and the only translation considered accurate and pure is in Arabic, pray tell; how on earth will anyone who does not speak Arabic, understand what God revealed?
The Qur’an was written about 6 centuries after Jesus Christ. But remember from the previous point, the original absolute was corrupted. But about 600 years later, we now have the latest and greatest revelation from God which means that B (Qur’an) succeeds A (Gospels, Scripture etc.). So B overrules A because A is corrupt. So if that is the way an absolute is overruled, what is to keep C from coming in 6 centuries from now and overruling B? This is exactly what Joseph Smith did when he founded Mormonism. The previous revelations as found in Christianity and Islam are “corrupt” and he has come out with the last and the greatest revelation and so on. If absolutes keep overruling absolutes without any point of reference and we can keep going on and on ad infinitum (or more like ad nauseam).
They can freely debunk truths we hold about our Lord but you cannot do the same with the names or truths that are precious to them. We can be told in the Qur’an that Jesus never died (which is what is said), we can be told that it is blasphemy to claim that Jesus said he was the Son of God (but that is precisely what he said). In other words, all kinds of concepts that are treasured truths (the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Jesus’ deity) can be denied by Islam. But to even suggest that some treasured Islamic truth might not be true, is “deeply offensive” to Muslims. So, A is given the right to impugn what B is saying but B is not given the privilege of scrutinizing what A is saying. How can there be any dialogue?
Their prophet is supposed to be the last and final prophet to the entire world. He performed no miracles because he said there was no need for it. Yet the Qur’an is believed to be a miracle by Muslims, but the Qur’an is in Arabic. So unless one knows Arabic, one cannot perceive the miracle. What is even more troubling is the fact that a large number of Muslims in the world do not even speak (or understand) Arabic, so the Qur’an in its original language is not accessible to them. Nevertheless, Muslims have traditionally objected to its translation on the grounds that it is the word of God. Islamic doctrine teaches that the Qur’an is the miracle of Muhammad and neither its composition nor its contents can be imitated. So there are millions of people who cannot perceive this miracle (because they don’t know Arabic) and the English and other translations they will tell you are not accurate. The only accurate translation is the original translation in Arabic. So if the Qur’an is the final and last revelation from God to man, and the only translation considered accurate and pure is in Arabic, pray tell; how on earth will anyone who does not speak Arabic, understand what God revealed?
The Qur’an was written about 6 centuries after Jesus Christ. But remember from the previous point, the original absolute was corrupted. But about 600 years later, we now have the latest and greatest revelation from God which means that B (Qur’an) succeeds A (Gospels, Scripture etc.). So B overrules A because A is corrupt. So if that is the way an absolute is overruled, what is to keep C from coming in 6 centuries from now and overruling B? This is exactly what Joseph Smith did when he founded Mormonism. The previous revelations as found in Christianity and Islam are “corrupt” and he has come out with the last and the greatest revelation and so on. If absolutes keep overruling absolutes without any point of reference and we can keep going on and on ad infinitum (or more like ad nauseam).
They can freely debunk truths we hold about our Lord but you cannot do the same with the names or truths that are precious to them. We can be told in the Qur’an that Jesus never died (which is what is said), we can be told that it is blasphemy to claim that Jesus said he was the Son of God (but that is precisely what he said). In other words, all kinds of concepts that are treasured truths (the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Jesus’ deity) can be denied by Islam. But to even suggest that some treasured Islamic truth might not be true, is “deeply offensive” to Muslims. So, A is given the right to impugn what B is saying but B is not given the privilege of scrutinizing what A is saying. How can there be any dialogue?
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Israel still important to God
Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for the complete annihilation of the nation of Israel: “Very soon, this stain of disgrace [Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world.” The ruling party in the Palestinian government, Hamas (official name: the Islamic Resistance Movement), recently reiterated their position which does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. These comments are not totally shocking. Israel’s location was ruled by Muslims for centuries. They intend to regain control and see Israel’s current position in the Middle East as temporary. But despite some men’s efforts to destroy Israel, she still has a very important part to play in God’s redemptive plan and will be protected.
Salvation (of the entire world) “is of the Jews” (John 4:22), which Jesus fulfilled. In Romans 11:25, Paul writes, “that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.” Gentiles refer to every non-Jewish person in the world. Once the Gentiles have “come in”, “Israel will be saved.” Regarding the task of taking the gospel to the world, Jesus made it abundantly clear to his disciples: Jews first, then the Gentiles (Acts 1:8).
The Jews who reject the gospel will be inexcusable. But the Jews’ rejection of Jesus is also part of the plan (I am puzzled at this, but not entirely surprised. It is one of the reasons I believe Christianity, it is not something man could have invented). Concerning the unbelieving Jews, Paul writes, “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy (Romans 11:11).” The salvation of the Gentiles will “provoke Israel to jealousy”. They (Jews) will want what we (Gentiles) have and so “be grafted in again (Romans 11:23).”
The perfect plan, from a perfect God. No wonder Paul wrote, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? (Romans 11:33-34)”
Salvation (of the entire world) “is of the Jews” (John 4:22), which Jesus fulfilled. In Romans 11:25, Paul writes, “that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.” Gentiles refer to every non-Jewish person in the world. Once the Gentiles have “come in”, “Israel will be saved.” Regarding the task of taking the gospel to the world, Jesus made it abundantly clear to his disciples: Jews first, then the Gentiles (Acts 1:8).
The Jews who reject the gospel will be inexcusable. But the Jews’ rejection of Jesus is also part of the plan (I am puzzled at this, but not entirely surprised. It is one of the reasons I believe Christianity, it is not something man could have invented). Concerning the unbelieving Jews, Paul writes, “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy (Romans 11:11).” The salvation of the Gentiles will “provoke Israel to jealousy”. They (Jews) will want what we (Gentiles) have and so “be grafted in again (Romans 11:23).”
The perfect plan, from a perfect God. No wonder Paul wrote, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? (Romans 11:33-34)”
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Thinking about a digital audio player?
I know I am. But as with anything else these days, there is so much choice. Make sure to check out Digital Audio Player Review before dishing out your cash. Of course there is the Apple ipod, you can also get custom colour iPods from Colorware.
You should also check out the Zen Vision M which has been getting rave reviews and seems to be better than the ipod. The X5 also seems to be a pretty good alternative to Apple's ubiquitous offering.
And once you have your MP3 player, make sure to fill it up with some MP3s from:
you get the picture ;)
Posted by Adrian Sobers
More article links
Answering Islams has a series of articles which speak to the following topical issues:
Is Islam Above Criticism?
Are Pictures of Muhammad Really Forbidden In Islam?
Islam and Human Rights
The Spirit of Islam
Posted by Adrian Sobers
The Da Vinci Code resources
There are two types of people in this world. Those who have read The Da Vinci Code and those who haven't. Which category are you in?
Below are some links that "crack" Dan Brown's now infamous novel (the movie is due out later this year).
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Article link: Needed: Mature, Moderate Muslims
Another interesting read on the now infamous cartoon controversy...
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Monday, February 20, 2006
Truly wired from birth?
There is a common misconception that there is a “gay gene” and homosexuals are born (wired) that way from conception. This is utterly false. There is absolutely no scientific evidence which shows that homosexuality is genetic. Concerning genetics and behaviour research, Dr. Joel Gelernter of Yale comments, “it’s hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated.” “...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute” (Science 264:1687 (1994)).”
No one is “wired that way”. Rather, research shows that homosexual behaviour is the result of a multiplicity of factors. It is interesting to note that the people who use that phrase consistently fail to cite any conclusive research to substantiate their claim. Myths abound in the area of unnatural sexual urges and relations. The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality [http://www.narth.com/], is an excellent resource for debunking much of the popular misinformation in this area.
No one is “wired that way”. Rather, research shows that homosexual behaviour is the result of a multiplicity of factors. It is interesting to note that the people who use that phrase consistently fail to cite any conclusive research to substantiate their claim. Myths abound in the area of unnatural sexual urges and relations. The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality [http://www.narth.com/], is an excellent resource for debunking much of the popular misinformation in this area.
Posted by Adrian Sobers
The war for oil theory
It was well said that the first casualty in war is the truth. The war in Iraq has resulted in a blitz from the foreign policy experts who substantiate that saying with their “war for oil” theory. A view which is also shared by the majority of Arabs. A recent public opinion survey showed that 75 percent of Arab respondents believe that the main motives of U.S. policies in the Middle East are “oil, protecting Israel, dominating the region and weakening the Muslim world”.
It was recently reported that the current cost of the war in Iraq for the Bush administration was around ½ billion USD. A figure that is likely to climb to USD$1-2 trillion according to economics professor, Joseph Stiglitz, and Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes. So we are to believe that the Americans are spending hundreds of millions, perhaps trillions in the long run, to gain control of Iraqi oil fields which are not worth anywhere near that amount? Really now.
Depending on which study you believe, we have anywhere between 40-95 years worth of oil left. Therefore, as oil gets more scarce and expensive, alternative energy sources will become more attractive. Since 2001, the Americans have spent close to USD$10 billion on alternative energy sources. The oil age will eventually come to an end. As Sheik Yamani said, “… but not for lack of oil, just like the Stone Age came to an end, but not for lack of stone.” John Hawkins aptly sums up the oil for war theory this way, “It’s really nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan that through parrot-like repetition has managed to impress liberal partisans, people who don’t like Bush, and those who don’t really understand foreign policy.”
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Monday, February 13, 2006
The word of God
Jesus predicted the resilience of God’s word when he said, “Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will remain forever” (Matthew 24:35). The Bible has survived amidst criticism, rationalism, and countless ridicule. Eighteenth century French philosopher Voltaire predicted the demise of the Bible in light of rationalism. Fifty years after he died, his old home in France was used as a storage and distribution center for the Geneva Bible Society.
The Bible has been “banned, burned and bludgeoned with … animosity and scorn.” But why? John Calvin answers: “Whenever people slander God’s word… they show they feel within its power, however unwillingly or reluctantly.” Modern folk have an aversion towards God’s word because, “the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword,… quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). It confronts everything that is evil within us and lays bare our soul before a mighty God. We shun it because Jesus is not politically correct enough and requires too high a standard of us to allow Him to shape modern society.
To think that philosophy or science will eventually render God’s word irrelevant is imprudent. As Isaiah put it, “The grass withers, and the flowers fade, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).
The Bible has been “banned, burned and bludgeoned with … animosity and scorn.” But why? John Calvin answers: “Whenever people slander God’s word… they show they feel within its power, however unwillingly or reluctantly.” Modern folk have an aversion towards God’s word because, “the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword,… quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). It confronts everything that is evil within us and lays bare our soul before a mighty God. We shun it because Jesus is not politically correct enough and requires too high a standard of us to allow Him to shape modern society.
To think that philosophy or science will eventually render God’s word irrelevant is imprudent. As Isaiah put it, “The grass withers, and the flowers fade, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Christianity and pluralism
A king leads several blind men to an elephant and asks them to describe it. The resulting descriptions are conflicting, because each blind man touches a different part of the elephant. The supposed moral is this, each religion only has a portion of the total truth and if we could overlook our disagreements and exclusive claims we would realize we are all “feeling the same elephant.”
But as Lesslie Newbigin in, “The Gospel in a Pluralist Society” points out, “If the king were also blind there would be no story. The story is told by the king and it is the immensely arrogant claim of one who sees the full truth which all the world’s religions are only groping after.”
The tolerance police will no doubt sentence you to sensitivity training if you insist that “your religion” is the only right way. But 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 in an increasingly pluralistic society but we cannot be indifferent to the great commission and the eternal destiny of others. Our exclusive claim is not based on our finite perspective; but on the perspective of the King of Kings who knows everything from alpha to omega. You are free to reject his claim, but please, do not be mistaken about what he claimed: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
But as Lesslie Newbigin in, “The Gospel in a Pluralist Society” points out, “If the king were also blind there would be no story. The story is told by the king and it is the immensely arrogant claim of one who sees the full truth which all the world’s religions are only groping after.”
The tolerance police will no doubt sentence you to sensitivity training if you insist that “your religion” is the only right way. But 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 in an increasingly pluralistic society but we cannot be indifferent to the great commission and the eternal destiny of others. Our exclusive claim is not based on our finite perspective; but on the perspective of the King of Kings who knows everything from alpha to omega. You are free to reject his claim, but please, do not be mistaken about what he claimed: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Posted by Adrian Sobers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
