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).

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)

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.”

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”.

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?

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.

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).

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”.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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...

We believe on the basis of historical evidence

“We preach Jesus Christ to those who want Him, and we also preach Him to those who do not want Him: we keep on preaching Christ until we make them feel that they do want Him and cannot do without Him” – Charles Spurgeon

The vast majority of what the average person believes is believed on the basis of historical evidence. For example, how do we know Aristotle wrote the Poetics? We cannot prove it by abstract reasoning; neither were we there. The first manuscript was available some 1,300 years after he had lived. Therefore, we have to believe that Aristotle wrote the words in Poetics solely on the basis of the historical evidence, that is, the ancient manuscripts. Any man who says he does not believe anything solely on the basis of historical evidence would have to be content to know nothing for the rest of his life. F. F. Bruce wrote, “There is no body of ancient literature in the world that enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament”. In your last submission you asked for enlightenment. Well, here it is, from God Himself: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). Unless you become “poor in spirit” and humble yourself before Christ, you will forever be trapped in the darkness, gleaning little comfort if any, from the works of Hume, Kant et al. All of which the Lord warns you, are boys’ philosophies. But of course, your opinion is more worthy of belief than God’s Word. That I’m afraid, is the main problem with the disciples of the pagan philosophers. They are so full of themselves, there is no room for Christ.

Are Christians 'nice' people?

If Christianity is true, then why are not all Christians obviously ‘nicer’ than non-Christians? The Pharisees still ask, as they always have, “Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” (Matthew 9:11). To which the Lord promptly answers, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick” (Matthew 9:12). The difference between the non-Christian and Christian is this: the Christian has the Christ-life in them, the non-Christian does not. A Christian is not a person who never goes wrong. Rather, it is a person who because of the Christ-life inside them, is able to repent and pick themself up after each stumble. That is why the Christian is in a different position from a self-righteous prig who tries to be ‘nice’ on their own steam. The world hopes that by being ‘nice’ they can somehow please God, if they believe in Him, or win the accolades of men, if they do not. The Christian however thinks that any niceness they exhibit comes from the Christ-life inside them. The world must realize that God is not impressed by any humanistic efforts to be a ‘nice’ person. He will make you good however, through the Christ-life working in you, because He loves you. One writer said, “Do God or do good”. I’m afraid the two are not mutually exclusive. This is why it is written, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6). What we call ‘nice’ is still ‘filthy rags’ in His sight. Our finite minds cannot possibly conceive how holy, pure and perfect God is. Christ therefore calls the world to repentance, not to be ‘nice people’ (Matthew 4:17). Being ‘nice’, as noble a virtue as it may seem, is secondary. Of primary importance is this, “Ye must be born again” (John 3:7). After that, and not a moment sooner, everything else falls into place.

Experience true joy

“Money never stays with me. It would burn me if it did. I throw it out of my hands as soon as possible, lest it should find its way into my heart” – John Wesley

There are few things in this world that compare to the joy of giving. I can therefore do the reader no better favour than to recommend that you read the book, Money Possessions and Eternity by Randy Alcorn. It will change your life forever. One of the greatest pieces of advice I have come across on the topic of finances is from John Wesley who said, “Make as much as your can, save as much as your can, and give as much as your can”. The best part of that advice is to “give as much as you can.” Do you care to experience true joy? Experience the joy in giving. Of course, it goes without saying that you give to legitimate causes, preferably a cause that is much bigger than yourself. Should you develop a habit of giving consistently, you will very quickly realize that it is much harder to give money away responsibly, than it is to make it in the first place. I think one of the main reasons Bill Gates is consistently the richest man in the world is because of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Of course we can’t all give at that level, indeed we might not all be able to give financially. But we all have at least one talent and 24 hours in a day, why not start there?

Light the lamp

“Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house” (Matthew 5:15)

To what then shall we compare the preaching of the Gospel to the lost. It is like a man who was sleeping comfortably in darkness and the light suddenly floods the room. The man, who was comfortable in the darkness, is upset at the bright light which completely removed the darkness. He begs for the light to be turned off. The lost are spiritually dead and that is why the light will be left on. Sooner or later, they will realize: it is time to get up. “And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth” (John 11:43).

Lying: Islam's moral dilema

Does Islam permit lying?

Lying in Islam

Know Islam

To tell you the truth. This is the reason I have a problem believing anything a Muslim apologist says. No wonder it is written, "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32) .

A response to Mr. Suleiman Bulbulia

I read with great amusement the tantrum thrown by a local Muslim apologist which appeared in the Daily Nation recently. Sadly, there were no shades of Averroes. The truth is Mr. Bulbulia, you were not amused at the article I referenced. You were upset at the section Why they Converted. Especially the part where it reads, “For some of these brothers and sisters it is important that the area where they live now, or where they originally come from, is not too closely identified to ensure either their own safety or that of their families.” If readers are confused at that statement, a quick visit to both www.persecution.net and the persecution section at Christianity Today, will open your eyes. That Mr. Bulbulia, is the world I live in. But the question still remains unanswered: How can you regard Jesus as a great teacher whilst, in the same breath, claim that the central message of His teaching, “Ye must be born again”, is not true? Jesus reminds you, don’t shoot the messenger now: “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (John 3:7). He asks that you note two things. One, the word “Ye” is plural in the original Greek, which means it applies to all men and women. Two, the word “must” is a very strong word and does not imply an option. I really see no way around this except to believe that Jesus is wrong; which immediately negates the claim that “He is a great teacher”. This places you squarely in the “religious intolerant” camp (previously thought to be monopolized by Christendom). Let me make it abundantly clear, I do not have a beef with Muslim people. Ever so often, I still fondly remember searching the streets of England with my friend from Malaysia who insisted that we must find a Halal meat shop to shop at for the farewell barbeque for our group. However, I do have a beef with your philosophy. A philosophy that would have us believe that all of the problems in Muslim countries are the direct result of "the occupation of the Western imperialist Zionist forces". Funny enough, I wonder if this response would be published in the “dailies” in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Praise the Lord for democracies where we can respond. Apparently, certain people do not want us to Know Islam. A bit of an appeaser perhaps?

Praise the Lord for small mercies...

It was just announded that Michael Finley is signing with the San Antonio Spurs.

Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

So now that means that,

Duncan
Ginobili
Parker
Finley
Van Exel
Bowen
Barry
and Horry

are all on one team.

This shoult make our (yes I said our) title defense more interesting. Although the new look Kings and Rockets look good too. Can't wait for the 2005-2006 NBA season to start.

Go Spurs Go! Sweet news...

Book excerpt: The Screwtape Letters with Screwtape proposes a toast

My dear Wormwood,

So you ‘have great hopes that the patient’s religious phase is dying away’, have you? I always thought the Training College had gone to pieces since they put old Slubglob at the head of it, and now I am sure. Has no one ever told you about the law of Undulation?

Humans are amphibians – half spirit and half animal, (The Enemy’s determination to produce such a revolting hybrid was one of the things that determined Our Father to withdraw his support from Him.) As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time. This means that while their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are in continual change, for to be in time means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy, therefore is undulation – the repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks. If you had watched your patient carefully you would have seen this undulation in every department of his life – his interest in work, his affection for his friends, his physical appetites, all go up and down. As long as he lives on earth periods of emotional and bodily richness and liveliness will alternate with periods of numbness and poverty. The dryness and dullness through which your patient is now going are not, as you fondly suppose, your workmanship; they are merely a natural phenomenon which will do us no good unless you make good use if it.

To decide what the best use of it is, you must ask what use the Enemy wants to make of it, and then do the opposite. Now it may surprise you to learn that in His efforts to get permanent possession of a soul, He relies on the troughs even more than on the peaks; some of His special favourites have gone through longer and deeper troughs than anyone else. The reason is this. To us a human is primarily food; our aim is the absorption of its will into ours, the increase of our own area of selfhood at its expense. But the obedience which the Enemy demands of men is quite a different thing. One must face the fact that all the talk about His love for men, and His service being perfectly freedom, is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself – creatures whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself: the Enemy wants a world full of beings united to Him but still distinct.

Buy this book as part of the 6 by Lewis box set here...

I'm tired...

Physically, mentally and spiritually. Yet I place my hope in Jesus Christ, and Him crucified because the Apostle Paul wrote, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed” (2 Corinthians 4:8-9).

“Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).

The Holy Scriptures are so powerful. They cannot be broken and the very words in them spoken by Jesus can cleanse us. Blessed be His Holy name. Come even now Lord Jesus, come…

Weed is the "wisdom" plant?

According to the article at Wikipedia on Rastafarianism, “Haile Selassie visited Jamaica on April 21, 1966. Somewhere between one and two hundred thousand Rastafarians from all over Jamaica descended on Kingston airport having heard that the man whom they considered to be God was coming to visit them. They waited at the airport smoking lots of cannabis and playing drums.” How can you demonize the same book from which you find a “confirmation” of the man you believe to be God-incarnate. Perhaps this is where the problem lies, “they waited at the airport smoking lots of cannabis.” Of course, since “Babylon system is a fraud” (never mind we buy and sell from within the same system), they will consider it [weed], illegal. The article goes on, “They are not surprised that it is illegal, seeing it as a powerful substance that opens people’s minds to the truth – something the Babylon system, they reason, clearly does not want. They contrast their herb to liquor, which they feel makes people stupid, and is not a part of African culture.”

But it is reported that some of the negative side effects of weed are, “paranoia, dry mouth, respiratory problems and nervousness/racing heart. Other effects may be negative or inconvenient in certain settings or situations including reduced ability to concentrate, impaired memory, tiredness, and confusion.” Paranoia? Reduced ability to concentrate? I rest my case.

Let the truth be told

“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39)

Permit me to respond to the question posed by Mr. David Gittens: “What is the truth?” I can’t help but wonder though. Is this the same David Gittens, who wrote earlier exhorting the public to “look to the more germane words of Jesus” on the matter of homosexuality? Then the same David Gittens, I’m assuming, returns to the public square to convince us that, “the words placed in Jesus’ mouth, as given in the Gospels, are a work of imagination and invention by those who had an agenda”. So, on one hand we are to believe His words are “the work of imagination and invention”, yet, we must still look to these same “imaginary” words on a crucial matter pertaining to human sexuality? Perhaps the fictional work, namely The Da Vinci Code, has clouded your thinking.

Now Satan knows full well that the Holy Scripture requires little thought to be perverted, but to set the record straight, requires much prayer, thought and detailed explanation. Therefore, since space will never permit in this forum, I will refer you to three articles to help with you with your conundrum. First, visit www.bible.com/bible/Bstudy.html and read the article, “How To Study the Bible: Principles of Interpretation.” Then, visit www.apologetics.com, search for and read the article, “Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable”. And finally, visit www.xenos.org, search for and read the article, “The Problem of Apparent Chronological Contradictions in the Synoptics.” Should you bother to read these articles, keep the following in mind: Matthew was written for the Jews, Mark was written for the Romans, Luke was written for the gentiles and John was written for believers. To what then shall we compare the kingdom of heaven to? “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it” (Matthew 13:45-46). Life, a fascinating subject indeed.

Coming next: A response to Mr. David Gittens

"The devil ... the prowde spirite ... cannot endure to be mocked" - Thomas More [quotation from The Screwtape Letters]

A letter from Mr. David Gittens recently appeared in the Daily Nation, who sides with S. Victor Evelyn. Is this the same David Gittens who was at a Bible study class sometime back and wrote a detailed explanation of one of Jesus' parable? The same David Gittens who earlier hinted that we should look to the more germane words of Jesus on the matter of homosexuality? Pray tell, how can one suggest to look to Jesus' words and then months later claim that they are the figment of men's imagination? What a twit. But as they say "Only a boy named David..." Of course though, Christians must sit back, like the pious sheep we are though to be, and take the assault on the Holy Scriptures. I think not. And that is why I write.

The Church's catch-22

The 21st century church finds herself in a pretty pickle. Let me explain. Let us say: A, B, C, D and E represent all immorality and sin. If the church speaks out on A and B alone the world cries, “Why are they only speaking about A and B. They are so hypocritical. What about C, D and E?” Ok, fine. The church now speaks out about A, B, C, D and E. The tune quickly changes to, “They think that they are better than everybody else. Don’t listen to the vocal minority!” Yet, if the church “speaks out about nothing” (if one could do such a thing), you will eventually hear: “The church has lost touch with the people. They need to get out in the highways and the by-ways.” Now if eternal matters were not at stake, this would be amusing. But as it stands, it is not. Jesus explains why the world does not listen: “The one who belongs to God listens to the words of God. The reason you do not listen is because you do not belong to God” (John 8:47). The one whose Spirit rests heavily upon me is truthful, and what I have heard from Him I declare to the world. A word to the wise. And we are wise readers now, aren’t we?

Racism reloaded: reparations for slavery

Reparations for slavery, has to be the biggest piece of hogwash, save evolution. Reparations are usually done on the basis of some sort of justice. I am astounded by the “justice” that says: black person A is wronged by white person B, therefore hundreds of years later, white person C has to give money to black person D. Whilst we are at it, let us totally ignore the fact that some blacks were involved in the trading their “fellow” blacks. Listen, the individuals who have harmed and who were harmed are long dead: get over it. After receiving reparations, what next? Do we then agitate for the legalization of weed so we can all “light up de chalice”? Perhaps though I’ve been brain-washed by seeing too many pictures of “the white Jesus” (whoever that is).

The ‘hate crime’ of the 21st century: spreading the gospel

Whilst “religious tolerance” might look noble on paper, when the rubber meets the road, the wheels come tumbling off. Case in point is the article titled, African Crossroads: Spirituality vs. Religion, which appeared in the press recently. The author puts on the hat of “religious tolerance” whilst simultaneously demonizing The Bible and the Christian faith. The author writes, “The Old Testament is replete with commands to slaughter all the people of another faith – all in the name of God.” This particular attack on Christendom has become almost nauseating. Visit http://www.comereason.org/, search for, and read the article, Is the God of the Old Testament Different From the God of the New? Readers can draw their own conclusions. The author goes on, “God Him/Her Self has not yet appeared to us face to face to confirm whose opinion is right!” This is a lie, for God has appeared to us in the form of Jesus Christ. In John 8:58 we read, “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” “I am” was the most divine name of God in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14). The Greek pronoun for “I” is translated “ego”. The Greek verb for “am” is translated “eimi.” “Eimi” means to be, to exist eternally or to have timeless being. So taken together, “ego eimi” would mean “I exist eternally” or “I have a timeless being”. One of the greatest Greek scholars, Dr. A.T. Robertson, said this about John 8:58, “after translating it [I am], Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God.” So Dr. Tafari, the Lord Jesus asks, “but whom say ye that I am?” (Matthew 16:15).

Proponents of “religious tolerance”, by default, imply that Jesus and by extension Christianity is lying. This in turn makes them intolerant of the Christian faith, nullifying their “religious tolerance”. The Lord Jesus sends the author this message, “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Isaiah 1:18). But of course since “as wool” implies white, the Bible promotes Euro-centric domination over the black man, right? Exactly the kind of reasoning we’d expect from someone who considers Emile Durkheim a “great sociologist”. The same Emile Durkheim, who argued that fundamental categories of space, time, number and causality were social in origin. Please explain how time and space can be social in origin? Come now, let us reason together saith the Lord.

Do interest rates perpetuate global poverty?

“God opposes usury and greed, yet no one realizes this because it is not simple murder and robbery. Rather, usury is a more diverse, insatiable murder and robbery" – Martin Luther

Haven’t you ever wondered how modern economies have gotten into this position? I think we would only be wasting time debating which “ism”: socialism, capitalism, collectivism et cetera, is best. Capitalism – like it or lump it – is here to stay. But having said that, was it wise to have ignored the advice given to us by the ancient philosophers and spiritual leaders? What do Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Aquinas, and Moses have in common? They all forbade the lending of money at interest, usury , as they called it. Of course, this lending of money at interest rates, is the foundation of our modern economic system. We call it a good investment. John Calvin defended interest charges, helping to set up the development of capitalism in northern Europe. But after looking at the Quarterly External Debt Database, developed jointly by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), I can’t help but wonder. For those interested in definitions, external debt is defined by the IMF as, “the outstanding amount of those actual current, and not contingent, liabilities that require payment(s) of principal and/or interest by the debtor at some point(s) in the future and that are owed to nonresidents by residents of an economy” (whatever that means).

Visit the database and check the Gross External Debt Position of the G8: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States of America and Russia. Now if seven of the world’s leading industrialized nations and Russia owe so much money. What hope is there for a place like Indonesia, where the total external debt represents 80% of their national income? Does having a juggernaut for an economy, automatically mean incurring an exorbitant level of debt? What developing country can repay such debt and still fund educational, health or other important social programmes? Maybe Anup Shah, the author at global issues does have a point. Or, maybe we should have listened to Aristotle, Moses and the Christian leaders of the Middle Ages. But, as I alluded to earlier, I write as a layman in economic matters, just asking questions. What do the trained economists make of all this?

Talk is cheap

Someone commented that we have become a “nation of talkers” and I quite agree. This though should come as no surprise because of the following. One, the cost of living in Barbados is extremely high. Two, word on the street is: talk is cheap. Therefore, it stands to reason that we are bound to become a, “nation of talkers”. Is there anything else we can afford to become?

Reason is not a god

German philosopher Immanuel Kant challenged us in his 1784 essay, “What is Enlightenment?”, with, Sapere Aude! [Dare to know!]. He wrote, “have the courage to use your own intelligence! Is therefore the motto of the enlightenment”. He goes on, “The public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men.” Unfortunately, this erroneous view of reason has trickled down from the enlightenment period. A period where men were convinced that they were emerging from centuries of darkness and ignorance into a new age enlightened by reason, science, and a respect for humanity. People whose minds are still trapped in this era, consciously or unconsciously, mislead the public into thinking that reason and logic alone are the primary sources of knowledge and truth. Reason and logic are glorified as mini-gods to whom we must look to in order to solve the problems of mankind. If your mind is still trapped in the 18th century: please wake up. In the context of discovering Truth, reason is not something that can enlighten; it is something we do: big difference. This is the more reasonable view: It is only because God lends us the tiniest drop of his reasoning powers that we are able to think at all. Similarly, it is only because He loves us infinitely, that we are able to love others. God is the ultimate principle, not reason, therefore we should look to Him for enlightenment. We should look to the one who said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is true enlightenment. You would only, I think, be deceiving yourself, if you believe otherwise.

Athiesm is too simple

“The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn” – Martin Luther

God’s non-existence cannot be proven outright. To state that God does not exist, would require one to possess infinite knowledge, which is impossible. If someone does in fact possess infinite knowledge, let them come forth and show it. It stands to reason therefore, that what we call atheism is, strictly speaking, a retreat to agnosticism, whose basic tenet of faith is this: no one can really know whether or not God exists. A more reasonable position for humans with finite minds. Since atheism cannot support its own presuppositions, it hides this deficiency by shifting the burden of proof, choosing instead to attack religious doctrines. Perhaps though, this is so the scripture could be fulfilled, “…but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:21). The problem with atheism and agnosticism is not lack of evidence. The problem is the willful suppression of that evidence. For the apostle writes in Romans 1:20, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”. C.S. Lewis succinctly summarized atheism when he said, “Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.” I would encourage atheistic thinkers to visit http://www.apologetics.com, download and read carefully, a free copy of the book titled, Faith with reason: Why Christianity is true, by Joseph R. Farinaccio.

Towards a theocracy?

Contrary to what some would have us believe, Christendom is not interested in setting up a theocracy. Jesus made it abundantly clear in John 18:36, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here.” Christianity, not to be confused with Christianity-and-water (the watered down Gospel) is most interested in the souls of men and women, not world domination. The liberal left seems to think, “Run for the hills, the religious right is making a power grab”, when Christian ideas are expressed in the public square. Rest assured, we do not want a theocracy. A fair and just society will do.

All "Bible contradictions" are lies

I side with Charles Spurgeon who said, “I would far father have a person be an earnest, intense opposer of the Gospel than to have him be careless and indifferent.” The “challenge” put forward by a recent writer is common amongst those who set out to destroy Christianity. They put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack. To the writer who issued the “challenge”, the Lord Jesus sends you this message, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36). The writer asked persons to read Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20. Then conveniently adds, also Acts 1:3-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. If we are speaking chronologically we cannot skip mindlessly from the Gospels and Acts to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Unless of course, we are lying by omission. If we read the events as they occurred from Matthew 28 to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, omitting nothing, the correct sequence is this: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20-21. Then Acts 1-14, James, Acts 15-16, Galatians 1-6, Acts 17-18:18, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Acts 18:19-19:41, then 1 Corinthians 1-16. By omitting John 21, then citing Acts 1:3-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, out of their chronological context, it seems as though Paul is contradicting the Gospels with respect to the appearances after the resurrection. Interested persons should read the correct sequence, then draw their own conclusions. The Scriptures cannot be broken, which also means, no fault can be found with them. This is according to Jesus in John 10:35. Therefore, unless we are implying that Jesus is a liar, the Bible is infallible. I would invite persons to read, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A harmony of the resurrection accounts”. A bit of advice to the writer, keep your money. Next time, research and try to think, before putting “pen to paper”.

The contemplation of Christ

Most people are familiar with the famous statement, Cogito, ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am”, made by René Descartes. A short, but profound statement. For even when we are doubting everything, we are still thinking. Therefore the surest thing we can know is the existence of the thinking subject. And since thought is a spiritual activity, he had proved the existence of the human spirit. It was from this postulate that Descartes, a devout Catholic, set about arguing for the existence of God. Can there be anything more worthwhile than such contemplation? It seems, that there is not. Man can master the natural sciences, the arts and other disciplines. We go away after a period of study with a sense of self content, often thinking, “Behold, I am wise”. Not so with the contemplation of Christ. No subject of contemplation can so humble the human mind, than thoughts of Christ. Yet, even though it humbles the mind, it also expands it. As Charles Spurgeon said, “He who often thinks of God, will have a larger mind than the man who simply plods around this narrow globe.” One who thinks they are educated, cultured and sophisticated, yet has never given so much as a passing thought to Christ, and Him crucified; is a fool. They could say of themselves, “I am but of yesterday, and know nothing.” It is most profitable for the human mind to often contemplate on the one who said, “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. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” It was Augustine who said, “The greatest happiness is for the mind to attain God.” The Philosopher, namely Aristotle, also agrees with this idea in the final book of the Ethics, where he says, that man’s ultimate happiness is speculative, that is, speculation bearing on the most noble of knowable objects, namely God. Most importantly, it is confirmed in Scripture. For it is written in John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Think on these things.

Bono book excerpt: Grace over karma

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled… . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched …

Protecting yourself online

As more economies continue to be driven by information, success will not be defined by who has the highest net worth. Rather, success will largely depend on how well individuals and companies use, manage and protect their information, both offline and online. Consumers should be aware of the dangers present in the online world: viruses, privacy threats, hackers and so on. There are tools, in addition to antivirus software, that users should install to minimize potential online threats and the information trail that often accompanies online transactions. You can visit the Home PC Firewall Guide at, http://www.firewallguide.com, for a list of software in categories such as anti-spyware, anti-phishing and personal firewalls. You should have a tool or combination of tools, which you regularly update, that protects you from various threats.

When consumers provide information to an organization they expect that the information collected will be used solely for the purpose of providing the service requested. Unfortunately, current practices, in both the offline and online world, has long shattered this expectation of privacy. Information generated during transactions are often used without the consumer’s knowledge or consent for a variety of other purposes. Some companies even go as far as to insist that the information consumers provide them with is now “company property”. There are several examples where companies use and disclose personal information for purposes well beyond what the individual intended. If we do not take active measures to protect our personal information, we could have just as well left a bag of cash on the ground. That is how information should be thought of in the 21st century, as currency.

The Internet presents this generation with unique opportunities as well as challenges. As the Director of Information at Coca Cola said, “We have got to get people to recognize, from an awareness perspective, what the dangers of the online world are.” If people fail to recognize these dangers, they will never become responsible users of information with any degree of competence. That in itself would be devastating to any economy where information is increasingly becoming one of the greatest assets. Second only to its people of course.

Jesus is the only way

A writer recently commented, “You cannot be 100% right about what you believe, because you are not God, you are not divine. You are simply a fallible human…”. Now assuming the writer believes their own statement, that statement itself, made by a fallible human, might not be 100% right. So, why should anyone believe it? Whilst it is true that, to err is human, it does not logically follow that humans always err. Humans can be 100% right about faith related matters. Faith is not the complete absence of reason. So, is “religious tolerance” (whatever that means) a noble virtue? In John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He used the word ‘the’, definite article. He did not say, “one of the truths” or “one of the ways”. If religious pluralism were true, for Jesus to make such a claim, He would have to be either a liar or a narrow-minded Jew. But this is certainly not the case, is it? Christianity, not to be confused with Christianity-and-water (watered down Gospel), makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is the only way. Some may find it strange, or offensive, the claim that there is only one correct religious worldview. This is because of the conventional view that religious relativism is correct and is the way all educated, tolerant and cultured people think. Unfortunately, the conventional view often serves to protect people from the painful job of thinking. People are relativists in one way by being absolutist and dogmatic in another – generally towards things they dislike. People need to be loved more than they need to be tolerated. If you love someone, you tell them the truth. The truth is in Acts 4:12, where it says, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” What’s that name? Jesus, of course. Saved from what? Well, that is another story.

The empty self and loss of thinking

What psychologists call ‘the empty self’ continues to emerge in epidemic proportions in western societies. The empty self is constituted by a set of values and behavioural patterns that eliminates the life of the mind and makes maturation almost impossible. I think most people would agree that adolescent personality traits are staying with people longer today than in earlier generations. In some cases, well into the thirties and forties. The empty self is controlled by infantile cravings and constantly seeks to be filled up and made whole by food, entertainment and consumer goods. Such a person is often materialistic, preoccupied with sex, physical appearance and body image. Hard work, delayed gratification, endurance and sacrifice are all enemies. For the empty self, pleasure is all that matters and it had better be available at the press of a button! Television has a lot to do with this (and I do not think this is one of those cases where someone mindlessly uses the media or the American government as a scapegoat). Studies indicate that widespread television viewing induces mental passivity, retards motivation, negatively affects reading skills, weakens the ability to stay focused and encourages an overall passive withdrawal from life. This has lead to a loss of thinking in the wider society. People do not persuade others of their views (religious or otherwise) on the basis of argument and reason, but rather, by expressing emotional rhetoric and politically correct words. Reason has given way to rhetoric, evidence to emotion and substance to slogan. Now granted, we don’t all have to read to the point of Paul of whom it was said, “As he continued to make his defense, Festus shouted, “You’re out of your mind, Paul! Too much education is driving you crazy!” (Acts 26:24). But remember this, you will be the same person you are five years from now, save two things – the books you read and the people you meet. Let’s grab a book more often instead of that remote…shall we?

Jesus’ teaching and Islam

In his essay Jesus in Islam, Principal of the Muslim College in London, Zaki Badwi begins, “Muslims do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God.” He goes on, “The Qur’an argues, however, that having no father is not proof of divinity – in the case of Jesus – any more than having no parents at all is evidence of Adam’s divinity. The rigorous monotheism enshrined within Islam has no place whatever for any Trinitarian doctrine.” But listen to Jesus teaching Nicodemus in (John 3:16-18), “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 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.” It says, “only begotten Son” for a very important reason. When you beget, you make something of the same kind as yourself. Humans beget humans. Birds beget birds. What God begets is God. When you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. God created Adam, so of course Adam has no divine nature. Jesus was not created but begotten of God and therefore is divine in nature. Muslims say they regard Jesus as ‘a great teacher and one of the prophets’. But Jesus taught, “You must be born again”. How can you regard someone as a great teacher and not accept the most important thing in their teaching? Just a question.

After the recent bombings in London, most people will understandably have questions about Islam on their minds. The best thing I can do is to point interested persons to the online Christian/Muslim dialogue, Answering Islam. This article is particularly interesting. Persons can decide for themselves.

Same-sex marriage and liberalism

Western states seem to be under assault from the supporters of same-sex “marriage”. This assault though has to do with much more than “a piece of paper”. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby writes, “They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don’t want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else.” Same-sex “marriage” is a radical attempt to bully Western states into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature and socially destructive.

Ironically, many Western liberal states now seem to be pinned in by their own logic. The champions of “tolerance” and “human rights”, are not so sure about this issue. Edward Skidelsky in the January 2002 issue of the British left-liberal magazine Prospect, painted a pretty grim picture concerning modern liberalism. He wrote, “Classical liberalism, as exemplified by Tocqueville, Mill and Isaiah Berlin, was discursive and philosophical. It tried to engage its opponents, to appeal to their reason and humanity. It could afford the luxury of argument, because it rested securely on an idea of human nature as benevolent and reasonable. Modern liberalism does not rest on any such conception. What is left is a set of legal claims, advanced in peremptory fashion, with no appeal to common reason. In the absence of any positive ideal to support it, the liberal proclamation of individual freedom looks increasingly like a mere license to selfishness.”

Modern liberalism, having severed itself from its Christian roots, is now up the proverbial creek, without a paddle. With non-Christian minorities living within their borders, Western states will now find it increasingly difficult to return to the Christian confession. At least without remaining true to their “liberal” and “tolerant” doctrine. Skidelsky follows this logic, “It [liberalism] must sever itself from its historic roots in Christianity, yet in doing so it severs itself from the source of its own life. Liberalism must follow a course that leads directly to its own atrophy. It must extirpate itself.”

Upon reflection, the same-sex “marriage” debate might actually be a blessing in disguise. It was said once that you should never argue with a fool, for they will first drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Let the liberal “marriage radicals” follow their logic to its bitter end. If we ask, “What will they think of next?” The answer is probably, “If it is ok to marry individuals of the same sex, why not animals…who is to say sex and maybe even a union between the species is wrong?”. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. With the underlying naturalistic assumption being, we Homo Sapiens are just animals; people are already arguing for the acceptance of sex between species. If you disagree with them, you are accused of speciesism; which they consider to be in the same category as racism and sexism. Maybe only when we reach that stage, will we at last realize that the teaching of Genesis about humanity is as realistic and sensible as it always has been. Only time will tell I suppose.

The inherent flaw in dualism

Dualism is a belief in two supreme gods or powers, both existing independently and ad infinitum, which are in opposition to each other. Depending on the specific dualistic philosophy these two powers are called different things, for example, “Anabolic/Catabolic”, as one writer put it. I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis when he said, “Next to Christianity, Dualism is probably the most sensible and manliest creed on the market”. Christianity goes closer to Dualism than most people think. The New Testament often talks about a dark power in the universe who is behind death, disease and sin. The difference is, that Christianity thinks this dark power was created by God. It was originally created good, but rebelled and turned evil. Christianity agrees with Dualism that the universe is at war. But we do not think it is a war between two independent powers. It is more of a civil war, a rebellion. Dualism is sensible to a point, but there is a catch. To be effective, this dark power or force, must still have attributes which are good. Therefore, the question arises, “From whence did this dark power get these good attributes?” The powers which enable evil to carry on, are powers borrowed or stolen from his opponent. This is why Christians believe the devil is a fallen angel. This is not merely a childish fable. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. Everything which enables a bad man to be really good at being bad, are in themselves good things – intelligence, free will, good looks, charm and so on. Therefore, this dark power could not have existed ad infinitum independent of God. That is why no dualistic philosophy makes sense. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasoning faculties and leads us to a knowledge of God; confirming our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful. While pleasing men’s fancies, it hinders their faith. The Lord reminds you, we are all “sheep” in a sense. The wise ones, choose the care of the chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4).