Highly recommended

I recently received (and listened to) the following resources from RZIM: CD403 - Finding Water in the Desert, CD214 - The Lord Is My Light and CD168 - The Revelation of God Through Us: Apologetics with a Touch. I would highly recommend all of them. The highlight for me was the message Amazing Grace and the Gospel of Reconciliation by Stuart McAllister from Finding Water in the Desert. Do yourself a favour and get these resources...

The greatest conversation ever

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.

"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Salvomag.com...

...is the home of a new magazine. Their mission is stated below:

Blasting holes in scientific naturalism, marveling at the intricate design of the universe, and promoting life in a culture of death.

Critiquing art, music, film, television, and literature, interrupting mass media influence, and questioning the sanity of our consumerist lifestyle.

Countering destructive ideologies, replacing revisionist fictions with undeniable facts, nd paring away political correctness.

Debunking the cultural myths that have undercut human dignity, all but destroyed the notions of virtue and morality, and slowly eroded our appetite for transcendence.

Recovering the one worldview that actually works.

New products @ RZIM

RZIM has some new products on their store front for Summer 2006. They include:

• Cracking the Code
• Truth?
• Q & A Volume IV

They look pretty interesting and will probably be added to my wish list. I have the following items on order from them:

• Finding Water in the Desert
• The Lord Is My Light
• The Revelation of God Through Us: Apologetics with a Touch

Heat get their first title...

...after "back-sweeping" the Dallas Mavericks. I didn't really follow The Finals but Mavs fans seem to think they were hard done by the officiating. But for now, the Heat celebrate their first NBA title.

Free seminary courses online

The courseware posted on this site comprises an assortment of classes from Covenant Seminary's master's degree programs. Their selection is designed to provide a broad, foundational knowledge of the Scriptures as well as guidance for engaging a variety of ministry contexts through the study of church history, doctrine and practice.

Been a long time...

since I last posted. Was extremely busy with moving house (and all that goes with that) and Bible shool (assignments plus exams coming up). The move was a huge step and drained us physically and emotionally. But we have settled nicely and are very thankful to have our own home ... ;)

Currently reading...

The Collected Works of C.S. Lewis, which is quite enjoyable. The volume contains three seperate novels and I'm currently to God in the Dock. I would definitely recommend it to anyone, especially C.S. Lewis fans ;)

Exciting time for sports fans...

That's what yesterday (May 17th) proved to be. First off, Barcelona came from one goal down to beat a 10-man Arsenal 2-1 in the UEFA Champions League Final. As a Manchester United fan, that was very good news (and I say that unashamedly).

The Cleveland Cavilers have shut-up Rasheed Wallace and the Pistions (at least for now) by shocking them on their home floor to take a 3-2 series lead back to Cleveland. If the Cavs pull off this upset it will be one of the biggest playoff upsets in history - Guaran-sheed!

And last but not least, my Spurs have lived to play at least one more game in Dallas after winning by one-point at home. Duncan hit is first 12 shots on his way to a 36 point, 12 rebound game.

Giving

Accoring to Wikipedia, Philanthropy is the voluntary act of donating money or goods or providing some other support to a charitable cause, usually over an extended period of time. In a more fundamental sense, philanthropy may encompass any activity which is intended to enhance the common good or improve human well being. Someone who is well known for practicing philanthropy may sometimes be called a philanthropist. Although such individuals are often very wealthy, people may nevertheless perform philanthropic acts without possessing great wealth.

I've been on this earth less than 30 years, and if there is one thing that is true, it is Acts 20:35: "It is more blessed to give than to receive." Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to let other people get the blessing.

Gospel for Asia and The Global Fund seem to be very worthwhile causes. I have to do a bit more research on The Global Fund, but it's probably only a matter of time before I start to chip in there as well. Remember, people may nevertheless perform philanthropic acts without possessing great wealth.

PS3: Inside and Out

GameSpot is now featuring a detailed look at Sony's highly anticipated PS3. Read full story here...

The Global Fund

The Global Fund represents a first-time opportunity to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria on an unprecedented scale. It is an enormous undertaking, but our goals are within reach. If you would like to assist our efforts to combat these life-threatening diseases, you may make a donation of any amount to the Global Fund. Through our grant agreement system which relies on in-country partnership and leadership, you can be assured that your contribution will go directly to people in regions that are most affected by these diseases. Find out more here...

Champs on the ropes

My beloved Spurs are one game away from elimination in the 2006 NBA Playoffs. Last night's over-time loss to the Mavericks was heart-breaking...

Top 20 Products @ RZIM

Check out the top 20 products people are ordering over at RZIM...

Article link: Going long for Jesus

It's no accident that pro sports often resemble holy revival meetings. Devout athletes who praise God are coached by evangelical ministries with ties to the Christian right. But many players and fans feel left out of the huddle. Read full article here...

Book wish: Exploring Reality

Added yet another title to the list of books I plan on reading (eventually). This one is called Exploring Reality : The Intertwining of Science and Religion. So much books and so little time. I will probably get Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview and Unspeakable : Facing Up to Evil in an Age of Genocide and Terror next. They both look like good reads.

Blog makeover

I'm mulling over a makeover for Light the Lamp. I'm thinking about getting a Wordpress theme from Template Monster and a hosting plan from LivingDot. Of course this would be in the very distant future...

7 more wins...

and the San Antonio Spurs would be back in the NBA Finals. Yesterday they won (not very convincingly) against the Dallas Mavericks.

The Da Vinci Code Cracks

The latest issue of Solid Ground from Stand to Reason contains some good material on "cracking" Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. You will need Adobe Acrobat reader to view the document.

Blog link: Between two worlds

I came across and interesting link whilst over at the Stand to Reason blog. It's called Between two worlds: A Mix of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and Culture. Make sure to check it out.

Evolution and morality

Evolutionists would have us believe that man (including morality) evolved. But this is a bit odd isn’t it? Morals seem to be dissolving rather than evolving. Scientists have observed monkeys practicing basic “moral” behaviour and conclude that it is the result of natural selection. But motive and intent are crucial parts of moral conduct so it is quite silly to think that morality can be reduced to observable behaviour.

If evolution were true, virtues like mercy and love would not be acts of “virtue” that were freely chosen. They would be instinctive behaviours that were hard-wired for personal survival (a fact evolutionists readily admit). However, moral values involve chosen traits, not instinctual ones. This is most evident in the fact that we hold people morally responsible for free choices, not innate reactions. No one goes before the law court and argues, “Evolution, genetics and natural selection made me do it. Survival of the fittest and all that good stuff your honour.” If morality could be reduced to a naturalistic mechanism, it wouldn’t be morality anymore.

Darwin’s disciples fail to realize (or admit) that morality is not simply an account of what we do (descriptive), but a system explaining what we ought to do (prescriptive), and therefore evolution can’t explain it. If you are confused about origins, be sure to include Answers in Genesis and True Origin Archive in your research.

Atheism's bloody past

It was Laurence Sterne who said, “Whenever a man talks loudly against religion, always suspect that it is not his reason, but his passions which have got the better of his creed.” Atheism is completely illogical and anyone with a basic introduction to philosophy should pick this up. Atheism affirms a negative in the absolute (there is no God), which is an obvious logical contradiction. Bertrand Russell realized (and admitted) this in his later essays and it is the primary reason he switched to agnosticism.

On the opinion that innocent blood has been shed in the name of religion, we should be honest enough to admit that atheism has an equally, if not, bloodier history. Stalin was an avowed atheist. In fact, Lenin (who read Friedrich Nietzsche) specifically selected Stalin because of his hatred of things religious. Hitler, who personally presented a copy of Friedrich Nietzsche’s writings to Benito Mussolini, gave Nietzsche’s theory of the “Superman”, a military interpretation. The “Superman” was an individual who overcame what Nietzsche termed the “slave morality” of traditional values, and lived according to his own morality. The rest as they say, is history. Nietzsche advanced the idea that “God is dead,” or, “traditional morality was no longer relevant in people’s lives”. Nietzsche and countless other ungodly philosophers have heavily impacted the Western mindset, so it is little wonder that we are in this moral quagmire.

If atheism is true then no moral law exists. If morality is espoused, it is merely utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or emotive. The West is being rocked at her knees because we have lost the point of reference for the values which we are desperately trying to hold onto. We think we can survive without adhering to a transcendent moral law. Atheism’s bloody past cries out against the experiment.

The abolition of sin

Modern society is desperately trying to abolish the concept of sin. With political correctness now on steroids, we dress up sin with high-sounding words. Vices have become virtues and vice versa. Take the Good as New “translation” of the sacred Christian Scriptures. This translation describes itself as women, gay and sinner friendly. The Scripture says, “for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:9). They have changed it to “If you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated.” To avoid offending people in homosexual relationships, references to “husband and wife” are replaced with “partner.”

This “translation” is a bit shocking but not totally surprising. Paul warned young Timothy about this, “For the time will come when people will not put up with healthy doctrine but with itching ears will surround themselves with teachers who cater to their own needs” (2 Timothy 4:3). We can sugar coat sin and psychoanalyze ourselves until the cows come home. But we should also remember the prophet Isaiah’s words: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)”

Blog break

Bible shcool exam preparation has not left me with much time to write. Anyways, you can check out the following apologetic resources from RZIM which look pretty interesting. I'm considering purchasing, most, if not all of them:

D403 - Finding Water in the Desert

CD214 - The Lord Is My Light

CD168 - The Revelation of God Through Us: Apologetics with a Touch

CD301 - The Harvard Veritas Forum

CD308 - Engaging Culture With Conversations That Count

CD112 - Is There Not a Cost?

CD212 - Is There Meaning in Evil & Suffering?

CDDCODE - The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction

CD159 - Why Don't I Feel My Faith?

The problem with Christianity

Mohandas Gandhi gave a lucid explanation of Christianity’s problems when he said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” This is a common (and legitimate) “beef” many have with the Christian faith. The problem is not Christianity per se, but Christians. When Christians behave badly, we throw serious doubt on the credibility of the gospel and our claims to be “new creatures in Christ Jesus.”

The world is in a sense right to judge Christianity by its fruits. The Lord himself was most severe when he dealt with the religious leaders of his day who should have known better and judgement must begin at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17) if it is to being at all. But the world should be careful in her judging of Christendom. It tends to give unbelievers a false sense of security outside of Christ. One is left to think they can point out a couple of “hypocritical Christians”, make the case that they were “nicer” or “more virtuous” and all will be well. But it won’t be. Ultimately, each of us will be judged individually on our acceptance or rejection of Christ. In the words of Christ, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:17-18)”

To be content to live outside of Christ and point to Christians who behave more like the devil himself is to do a great disservice to your soul. In the parable of the weeds and the field, the weeds and the wheat had to grow together lest the servants pulled out some of the wheat with the weeds. So it is in Christendom, the weeds and the wheat must grow together. But at the end of the age, the Lord will “send his angels to gather from his kingdom everything that causes others to sin and those who practice lawlessness and they will throw them into a blazing furnace.” Literally.

The missing link

The evolutionist is still looking for “the missing link”, the evolutionary “ancestor” of both human beings and modern apes. One would think they stand a better chance of finding a one-ended stick. Now granted, the evolutionist is not wrong in the search for “the missing link”, simply misguided. Instead of combing the earth for fossils, they should look to Jesus Christ. He is the missing link, the one through whom God reconciled the world to himself. As the apostle Paul put it, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ…” (2 Cor. 5:17-18).

Jesus Christ is the “missing link” and once man links us with him, then the “next stage of evolution” can begin. Only then can man begin the long, arduous process of becoming what he was always intended to be – a new creature in Christ Jesus. Who ever said evolution and Christianity were incompatible?

No ordinary man

After Jesus delivered his most quoted sermon (Matthew 5-7), Matthew tells us, “the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matthew 7:28-29). Some say Jesus is just a prophet, a good man, a moral teacher, but not God. Yet, if we pay close attention to his words, it is clear that he is God. The most obvious clue is his claim to forgive sins.

In Mark 2:7, the scribes and the religious teachers asked, “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?” In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes, “Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did.” No ordinary man (in his right mind) can claim to forgive all sins. No ordinary man says, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:23-24). No wonder the people asked, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? (John 6:42)” This is easily answered. Jesus Christ, is no ordinary man.

God is just

You have probably heard it said over and over again that, “God is love.” Whilst this is true, I think we have overemphasized this truth at the expense of another, namely, “God is just.” To quote “God is love” ad nauseam might mislead people into thinking they can transgress God’s law, never repent and everything will be alright in the end because, “God is love.” God is love, but it is equally true that God is just. We should therefore be careful not to mistake God’s love for lack of justice. If we, who are evil, exact justice, then how much more a God who is perfectly holy, good and pure?

The writer of Hebrews offers us a sobering reminder that God’s love and grace is not a license to do as we like. To those who trample God’s Son and insult the Spirit of grace, the dictum is this, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31).” Does God love you? Yes. Will He nonchalantly turn a blind eye to the transgression of His law? Absolutely not. Justice will be exacted, not because He is cruel, but because He is love; and perfect love always exacts justice.

Problems with Islam

It does not matter if offense is not meant, some will probably be taken. Therefore let me get straight to the point. There are some problems I have with Islam (not Muslims) which I find very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile.

Their prophet is supposed to be the last and final prophet to the entire world. He performed no miracles because he said there was no need for it. Yet the Qur’an is believed to be a miracle by Muslims, but the Qur’an is in Arabic. So unless one knows Arabic, one cannot perceive the miracle. What is even more troubling is the fact that a large number of Muslims in the world do not even speak (or understand) Arabic, so the Qur’an in its original language is not accessible to them. Nevertheless, Muslims have traditionally objected to its translation on the grounds that it is the word of God. Islamic doctrine teaches that the Qur’an is the miracle of Muhammad and neither its composition nor its contents can be imitated. So there are millions of people who cannot perceive this miracle (because they don’t know Arabic) and the English and other translations they will tell you are not accurate. The only accurate translation is the original translation in Arabic. So if the Qur’an is the final and last revelation from God to man, and the only translation considered accurate and pure is in Arabic, pray tell; how on earth will anyone who does not speak Arabic, understand what God revealed?

They will tell you that the Bible we have is not the original Bible, it is corrupt, contains contradictions and it is not an accurate representation of Jesus Christ. They maintain that Jesus never really died on the cross and therefore the resurrection was a fabrication. But how does one know whether a thing is truthful without knowing whether or not there is a unit by which to measure it? There is no point of reference regarding the claim by Islam that the Bible is corrupt. We do not have the supposedly pure, original Bible with which we can compare our supposed corrupt version. If we are simply told that what we have is wrong based on something that is never shown to us, we have a slight problem. I will tell you what it is like. It is like saying planet X is such-and-such distance from earth, I do not know the actual distance, but just take my word for it. As a postscript I should add that they will never tell you what was changed, when or by whom.

The Qur’an was written about 6 centuries after Jesus Christ. But remember from the previous point, the original absolute was corrupted. But about 600 years later, we now have the latest and greatest revelation from God which means that B (Qur’an) succeeds A (Gospels, Scripture etc.). So B overrules A because A is corrupt. So if that is the way an absolute is overruled, what is to keep C from coming in 6 centuries from now and overruling B? This is exactly what Joseph Smith did when he founded Mormonism. The previous revelations as found in Christianity and Islam are “corrupt” and he has come out with the last and the greatest revelation and so on. If absolutes keep overruling absolutes without any point of reference and we can keep going on and on ad infinitum (or more like ad nauseam).

They can freely debunk truths we hold about our Lord but you cannot do the same with the names or truths that are precious to them. We can be told in the Qur’an that Jesus never died (which is what is said), we can be told that it is blasphemy to claim that Jesus said he was the Son of God (but that is precisely what he said). In other words, all kinds of concepts that are treasured truths (the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Jesus’ deity) can be denied by Islam. But to even suggest that some treasured Islamic truth might not be true, is “deeply offensive” to Muslims. So, A is given the right to impugn what B is saying but B is not given the privilege of scrutinizing what A is saying. How can there be any dialogue?

Israel still important to God

Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for the complete annihilation of the nation of Israel: “Very soon, this stain of disgrace [Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world.” The ruling party in the Palestinian government, Hamas (official name: the Islamic Resistance Movement), recently reiterated their position which does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. These comments are not totally shocking. Israel’s location was ruled by Muslims for centuries. They intend to regain control and see Israel’s current position in the Middle East as temporary. But despite some men’s efforts to destroy Israel, she still has a very important part to play in God’s redemptive plan and will be protected.

Salvation (of the entire world) “is of the Jews” (John 4:22), which Jesus fulfilled. In Romans 11:25, Paul writes, “that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.” Gentiles refer to every non-Jewish person in the world. Once the Gentiles have “come in”, “Israel will be saved.” Regarding the task of taking the gospel to the world, Jesus made it abundantly clear to his disciples: Jews first, then the Gentiles (Acts 1:8).

The Jews who reject the gospel will be inexcusable. But the Jews’ rejection of Jesus is also part of the plan (I am puzzled at this, but not entirely surprised. It is one of the reasons I believe Christianity, it is not something man could have invented). Concerning the unbelieving Jews, Paul writes, “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy (Romans 11:11).” The salvation of the Gentiles will “provoke Israel to jealousy”. They (Jews) will want what we (Gentiles) have and so “be grafted in again (Romans 11:23).”

The perfect plan, from a perfect God. No wonder Paul wrote, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? (Romans 11:33-34)”

Thinking about a digital audio player?

I know I am. But as with anything else these days, there is so much choice. Make sure to check out Digital Audio Player Review before dishing out your cash. Of course there is the Apple ipod, you can also get custom colour iPods from Colorware.

You should also check out the Zen Vision M which has been getting rave reviews and seems to be better than the ipod. The X5 also seems to be a pretty good alternative to Apple's ubiquitous offering.

And once you have your MP3 player, make sure to fill it up with some MP3s from:

SermonAudio.com

Stand to Reason Radio

Ravi Zacharis International Ministries

you get the picture ;)

More article links

Answering Islams has a series of articles which speak to the following topical issues:

Is Islam Above Criticism?

Are Pictures of Muhammad Really Forbidden In Islam?

Islam and Human Rights

The Spirit of Islam

The Da Vinci Code resources

There are two types of people in this world. Those who have read The Da Vinci Code and those who haven't. Which category are you in?

Below are some links that "crack" Dan Brown's now infamous novel (the movie is due out later this year).

Catholic Answers Special Report: Cracking The Da Vinci Code

The Da Vinci Code: Of Magdalene, Gnostics, the Goddess and the Grail

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry: The Da Vinci Code

Article link: Needed: Mature, Moderate Muslims

Another interesting read on the now infamous cartoon controversy...

Truly wired from birth?

There is a common misconception that there is a “gay gene” and homosexuals are born (wired) that way from conception. This is utterly false. There is absolutely no scientific evidence which shows that homosexuality is genetic. Concerning genetics and behaviour research, Dr. Joel Gelernter of Yale comments, “it’s hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated.” “...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute” (Science 264:1687 (1994)).”

No one is “wired that way”. Rather, research shows that homosexual behaviour is the result of a multiplicity of factors. It is interesting to note that the people who use that phrase consistently fail to cite any conclusive research to substantiate their claim. Myths abound in the area of unnatural sexual urges and relations. The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality [http://www.narth.com/], is an excellent resource for debunking much of the popular misinformation in this area.

The war for oil theory

It was well said that the first casualty in war is the truth. The war in Iraq has resulted in a blitz from the foreign policy experts who substantiate that saying with their “war for oil” theory. A view which is also shared by the majority of Arabs. A recent public opinion survey showed that 75 percent of Arab respondents believe that the main motives of U.S. policies in the Middle East are “oil, protecting Israel, dominating the region and weakening the Muslim world”.

It was recently reported that the current cost of the war in Iraq for the Bush administration was around ½ billion USD. A figure that is likely to climb to USD$1-2 trillion according to economics professor, Joseph Stiglitz, and Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes. So we are to believe that the Americans are spending hundreds of millions, perhaps trillions in the long run, to gain control of Iraqi oil fields which are not worth anywhere near that amount? Really now.

Depending on which study you believe, we have anywhere between 40-95 years worth of oil left. Therefore, as oil gets more scarce and expensive, alternative energy sources will become more attractive. Since 2001, the Americans have spent close to USD$10 billion on alternative energy sources. The oil age will eventually come to an end. As Sheik Yamani said, “… but not for lack of oil, just like the Stone Age came to an end, but not for lack of stone.” John Hawkins aptly sums up the oil for war theory this way, “It’s really nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan that through parrot-like repetition has managed to impress liberal partisans, people who don’t like Bush, and those who don’t really understand foreign policy.”

The word of God

Jesus predicted the resilience of God’s word when he said, “Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will remain forever” (Matthew 24:35). The Bible has survived amidst criticism, rationalism, and countless ridicule. Eighteenth century French philosopher Voltaire predicted the demise of the Bible in light of rationalism. Fifty years after he died, his old home in France was used as a storage and distribution center for the Geneva Bible Society.

The Bible has been “banned, burned and bludgeoned with … animosity and scorn.” But why? John Calvin answers: “Whenever people slander God’s word… they show they feel within its power, however unwillingly or reluctantly.” Modern folk have an aversion towards God’s word because, “the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword,… quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). It confronts everything that is evil within us and lays bare our soul before a mighty God. We shun it because Jesus is not politically correct enough and requires too high a standard of us to allow Him to shape modern society.

To think that philosophy or science will eventually render God’s word irrelevant is imprudent. As Isaiah put it, “The grass withers, and the flowers fade, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

Christianity and pluralism

A king leads several blind men to an elephant and asks them to describe it. The resulting descriptions are conflicting, because each blind man touches a different part of the elephant. The supposed moral is this, each religion only has a portion of the total truth and if we could overlook our disagreements and exclusive claims we would realize we are all “feeling the same elephant.”

But as Lesslie Newbigin in, “The Gospel in a Pluralist Society” points out, “If the king were also blind there would be no story. The story is told by the king and it is the immensely arrogant claim of one who sees the full truth which all the world’s religions are only groping after.”

The tolerance police will no doubt sentence you to sensitivity training if you insist that “your religion” is the only right way. But as G.K. Chesterton put it: “I won’t call Christianity my religion, because I didn’t make it up. God and humanity made it, and it made me.” Christians can respect the concept of religious freedom in an increasingly pluralistic society but we cannot be indifferent to the great commission and the eternal destiny of others. Our exclusive claim is not based on our finite perspective; but on the perspective of the King of Kings who knows everything from alpha to omega. You are free to reject his claim, but please, do not be mistaken about what he claimed: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Atricle link: How to write a letter to the editor

Doug Groothuis has written 11 tips on getting your "letters to the editor published." It's a good read.

STR bog post: Criticism vs. Intimidation

There is a good entry in blogsphere from STR. The entry comments on the response of the media over the now infamous 12 cartoons. I find the whole western media response to this issue very hypocritical.

No laughing matter

Contrary to what some would have us believe, not all Muslims are “deeply offended” by the now infamous cartoons. This response was offered by Danish Muslim, Naser Khader: “The imams should stop criticizing the cartoons and instead criticize the terrorists that cut the throats of innocent hostages… But on such occasions we never hear a word from them.” Similar sentiments have been echoed in “blogsphere” by other Muslim commentators.

The most hypocritical aspect of this outrage, is the fact that an Egyptian newspaper published the same cartoons in October 2005 and not a peep was heard. The Arab European League has responded by publishing anti-Semitic and holocaust-denying cartoons on their website. And, a leading Iranian newspaper is holding a holocaust-denying cartoon competition (what’s good for the goose I suppose). After every terrorist attack, great care is taken to assure us that Islam is a religion of peace which has been “hijacked by a fringe element”. Yet, we hear nothing from peaceful Muslims condemning: the violent (sometimes deadly) cartoon protests, holocaust-denying comments and the call for Israel to be “wiped off the map” from the Iranian leader. Why the silence?

The secularization of our culture

An irate caller recently took a moderator to task for even suggesting something Christian in the public square. What nerve, how dare anyone put forward anything from the religious realm as a valid idea in the “real world.” R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley have accurately captured the secular attitude toward Christianity: “No martyr’s blood is shed in the secular west. So long as the church knows her place and remains quietly at peace on her modern reservation. Let the babes pray and sing and read their Bibles, continuing steadfastly in their intellectual retardation; the church’s extinction will not come by sword or pillory, but by the quiet death of irrelevance. But let the church step off the reservation, let her penetrate once more the culture of the day and the … face of secularism will change from a benign smile to a savage snarl.”

If knowledge is power then those who claim to only deal with “objective” knowledge will be able to dictate the affairs of the day and marginalize and silence groups who are judged to rely only on “blind faith and private opinion.” This will lead to an increasing secularization of society. Secular wants God out. And as G. K. Chesterton lamented, “Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything.”

What is love?

Nowadays, “love” is egoistic instead of altruistic. This once noble virtue has degenerated into a “vague diffusion of kindly feeling.” We have succeeded in trivializing “a more excellent way.”

As long as we subscribe to this trivial view of love, we will never fully understand divine love as personified by Jesus Christ. Traherne in Centuries of Meditation, II, 30, wrote the following on divine love: “Love can forbear, and Love can forgive … but Love can never be reconciled to an unlovely object … He can never therefore be reconciled to your sin, because sin itself is incapable of being altered; but He may be reconciled to your person, because that may be restored.” In John 15:13 we read, “Greater love hath no man than this, than a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13) Yet, while we were still enemies, Christ sweat blood, then died for us. Now THAT is love.

Case of the misguided atheist

There is an interesting case in Italy being brought against a priest who is being accused of unlawfully misleading the public by presenting Jesus of Nazareth in his parish newsletter as an historical figure. The accuser, a professed atheist, argues that, “Christ never existed, but is an invention of the Church.” He is claiming that the priest has violated an article under the Italian penal code, which sanctions people who mislead others. “Abuse of popular gullibility” is the actual term used in the penal code.

It is really too late in the day to come to the public, furthermore the courts, with this nonsense. R. Scott Appleby, a professor of church history at Notre Dame writes, “there is more evidence of Jesus of Nazareth than there would be for many other historical people who actually existed. Not only did Jesus actually exist, but he actually had some kind of prominence to be mentioned in two or three chronicles.” There is also considerable extra-biblical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth from non-Christian writers. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus is considered by scholars to be the most important non-Christian source on Christ’s existence. There are also the writings of Pliny the Younger, who described a policy of executing Christians who refused to curse Christ. Tacitus, a contemporary of Pliny, also wrote of Jesus being executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate.

C.S. Lewis once commented, the man who claims not to believe anything solely on the basis of the historical evidence would have to be content to know nothing all his life. Jesus of Nazareth existed, and the historical records of friend and foe alike attest to this fact. Christ, on the road to the villages around Caesarea Philippi, posed a most relevant question to this discussion: “Who do men say that I am?” The disciples responded, but Christ was silent on the conflicting reports concerning his identity. He responded only with the more probing: “But who do you say that I am?” (Mark 8:29, emphasis mine)

The deadliest vice

“It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels.” – Saint Augustine

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis makes the following observation concerning pride, “There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves. And the more we have it in ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.” We tend to think that people are proud of being wealthy, smart or beautiful. But that is not true. People are proud of being wealthier, smarter and more beautiful than others. If everyone was equally wealthy, smart or beautiful, there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes us proud, the pleasure of being above everyone else.

The worse kind of pride though is not material, but spiritual. The devil simply delights in a proud Christian. If your religious life has you thinking (if even for a split second) that you are “good”, or worse yet, “better” than anyone else; you can be sure that you are being acted upon by the devil himself. The real test of being in the presence of God is this: you either see yourself as insignificant in comparison to His majesty, or you completely forget about yourself altogether. It should therefore come as no surprise that Scripture is replete with warnings against pride. Proverbs 16:18 tells us, “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” The Lord tells us to, “learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart.” (Matthew 11:29) The antidote for pride, is humility. Humility does mean having a low opinion of oneself. It can simply be thought of as pride in God: But “he who boasts, let him boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 10:17)

Article links: Religious pluralism

In Jesus the only Saviour, Greg explains why there is no such thing as a pluralist Christian.

In Pluralism, Greg argues that: One of us must be wrong, at bare minimum. Maybe we both are. But one thing that we can never say is that we're both right.

Think on these things

“People say they love truth, but in reality they want to believe that which they love is true.” - Robert J. Ringer

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.” - G. K. Chesterton

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” - Mahatma Gandhi

“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.” (John 15:18-19)

A voice for the unborn

“We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life – the unborn – without diminishing the value of all human life … there is no cause more important.” – Ronald Regan

There seems to be a drastic decline in the value of human life. The lives of innocent children and the unborn are no exception. This is evident from the following report of a testimony given in trial in Trinidad: “He also told of a failed attempt to kill her because there was a child with her but said if he was offered more money he would have also killed the child” [www.trinidadexpress.com]. The value of human life in its earliest stages is diminishing even more in light of research which deliberately destroys one human being so that another may benefit immediately. Michael Kinsley, in favour of stem-cell research, writes: “An embryo feels nothing, thinks nothing, cannot suffer and is not aware of its own existence.” Peter Singer of Princeton University takes this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” Therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

In, “Should the Baby live?”, Mr. Singer writes, “When we kill a newborn, there is no person whose life has begun. When I think of myself as the person I am now, I realize that I did not come into existence until sometime after my birth.” Mr. Singer completely misses the mark. If he did not exist until sometime after “his birth”, in what sense is the birth his? The only way he can make sense is to admit that he existed (in the embryonic stage) before birth. One cannot help but wonder what the proponents of stem-cell research or abortion would say if they were the ones about to be killed. The sad irony is, people who defend these practices are alive and kicking.

Killing embryonic human beings is wrong

“Ethics is nothing else than reverence for life.” – Albert Schweitzer

There seems to be an attempt to obfuscate the moral issue surrounding the harvesting of the unborn. Human embryos may be less developed, or “immature”, but they are still human beings. The embryos are not potentially human, but humans with great potential. If the embryo is a human person, then the continual harvesting of the unborn is one of the clearest-cut examples of genocide since the Holocaust. German doctors convicted at the Nuremberg Trials argued that they were only using the brains of the Jews for “the common good”. They claimed that the troops, not the doctors, killed the Jews. The doctors argued that they had “a moral imperative” to make beneficial use of the bodies supplied to them. The Court rejected this claim. Any civilized society should also reject embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), which uses an evil means (killing) to secure an end some believe is for “the common good.”

The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics [www.stemcellresearch.org] have reported that: “Embryonic stem cells pose an unusual risk for genetic changes and tumor formation, with the risk increasing the longer the cells are grown, thus making their therapeutic use even more speculative and problematic.” Despite this, advocates of ESCR either downplay or completely ignore the alternatives. Stem cells can be acquired from adult sources and umbilical cord blood, which kills no one. President Bush recently signed the “umbilical cord blood bill” to the tune of US$79 million. Scientists now believe that adult stem cells are more flexible than previously thought and as a result are now exploring ways of treating disease using adult, not embryonic stem cells. In the British Medical Journal [January 30, 1999], Deborah Josefson notes that researchers have found that adult stem cells were as effective in reconstituting the immune system as fetal neural stem cells. In addition, the problem of immune rejection can be circumvented when an individual’s own cells are used. Adult stem cells can also reverse degenerative diseases of the eye [Science, Vol. 287, March 17, 2000].

Patrick Lee [Associate Professor of Philosophy, Franciscan University of Steubenville] and Robert George [McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University] ended one of their articles on the ethics of ESCR, on this note: “Human physical organisms come to be at conception, whether by a natural process or by lab technology. It is wrong to kill and dismember them – at any stage of their existence – in the hope of benefiting others.” I would strongly urge the policymakers in this country not to aid in any form or fashion – either through funding or promoting – this grotesquely immoral practice. Or do we lack the moral and the political wisdom to do so?

Are we all God's children?

No doubt many of you would have heard some people saying: “But we are all God’s children”. I think this is mostly an honest mistake, but it is still just that, a mistake. We are all God’s creation but we are not all God’s children. Scripture is clear on this issue.

In John 8:44 Jesus says to the Pharisees, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” In verse 47 he adds, “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” If we were all “God’s children” why would Jesus tell the Pharisees “ye are of your father the devil”? Furthermore, why would he add, “because ye are not of God”? He certainly doesn’t mean they were not created by God. As politically incorrect as it sounds, Jesus identified two categories of people: children of the devil and children of God. John makes this point again in 1 John 3:10 (ISV), “This is how God’s children and the devil’s children are distinguished. No person who fails to practice righteousness and to love his brother is from God.” If “we are all God’s children” why would we the Scriptures say, “This is how God’s children and the devil’s children are distinguished”?

In the opening of the Gospel of John we learn who have the right to be called the children of God: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). According to scripture it is very simple. If you have the Son, you have life and you are a child of God. If you do not have the Son then you do not have life and are a child of the devil. It’s not very politically correct but it cannot be watered down. Such is the nature of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What is truth?

“To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” – Jesus

Truth is a word that is often used. But what is truth? Aristotle defined truth in, Metaphysics 4.16 as, “to say of what is that it is or to say of what is not that it is not.” In Soliloquies, Augustine defines true as, “the true is that which is.” In “True to Life: Why Truth Matters”, Michael Lynch writes, “It is the way the world is that matters for truth, not what we believe about the world.”

In the seventeenth-century, chemists noted that something similar happens when metal rusts and wood burns. According to the science of the day, the common cause was phlogiston (the release of an invisible gas). Today however it is known that it is oxygen which is gained, not lost, in both processes. Yet phlogiston was “confirmed” as the cause by the most knowledge scientists of the day. But it was false. This is a good lesson to be mindful of: just because we believe it doesn’t mean its true, and just because it’s true doesn’t mean we’ll believe it.

Truth is one of the few things that are intrinsically good. Money for example, is only instrumentally good, in that it is merely an instrument in acquiring other things – food, clothing, shelter and so on. There is also something very liberating about the truth. Once we know the truth, painful as it can be sometimes, we tend to press on with our life with more certainty. As Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32) Very true indeed.

The canker of our age

“Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.” – Albert Einstein

Moral relativism, the idea that right and wrong are more of a personal preference rather than an objective truth binding on everyone has unfortunately permeated the entire fabric of our society. When it comes to principles of right and wrong, morality is reduced to a matter of individual preference. But when people express moral convictions they are not merely expressing a preference. They are affirming that a particular conduct is wrong, period.

Moral relativism promotes the pseudo virtues of neutrality and tolerance. But people who think they are being “neutral” and “tolerant” do serious damage. They might get a few pats on the back here and there but they send the wrong message to our children. Children grow up believing that it is simply up to them do decide what is right or wrong. Relativists are essentially sowing the seeds for moral anarchy.

Two things need to consider. One, all human beings find God’s moral law written upon their heart: “… the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness …” (Romans 2:15). A law demands a lawgiver. Without a transcendent law or lawgiver, all transgressions (sin) are nullified, but, “through the law comes the full knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20) Two, when someone does something wrong, their conscience bears witness to the fact that they have broken God’s moral law. This creates within us the feeling of guilt because we know we have committed moral crimes against God. It is at this point that the Christian worldview makes the most sense. All have sinned and fallen short, since no one can perfectly keep the law. That is the bad news. The good news is this: we can be freely justified by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24).

The new tolerance

In our postmodern era, the true meaning of a once noble virtue, namely tolerance, has been distorted into a vice. The word “tolerant” is now used rather loosely to describe a person who is non-judgmental, impartial and neutral. But we need to be absolutely clear in our minds about this once noble virtue or we will completely drown in a morass of confusion. Tolerance can apply to three things – persons, behaviours or ideas – and the rules differ for each. We tolerate people by allowing them to express views. We tolerate some behaviour because certain types of behaviour can be detrimental to society. As Lincoln said, “there is no right to do wrong.” Finally, we tolerate ideas by allowing different ideas a charitable hearing, not by dogmatically affirming that all ideas are equally true.

The new tolerance is elitist regarding persons but egalitarian regarding ideas. A more sensible guideline is: be egalitarian regarding persons, but elitist regarding ideas. True tolerance applies to how we regard people, not ideas and beliefs. We can respect people who hold different viewpoints from ours by listening to them. But we can disagree with their ideas because some ideas are good and some are foolish. Some are true and some are false.

Like most of the West, we are seemingly committed to this new tolerance. It therefore follows that if you disagree with someone (God forbid you tell them they are wrong), you are apt to be labelled “intolerant” or “narrow-minded” (the usual ad hominem fallacies). But people often take offense when none is given or intended. If one says that P is false, it does not logically follow one hates everyone who believes P. This is where our postmodern friends seem to be confused. They treat viewpoints, beliefs, ideas and people as synonymic. This is erroneous and the sooner we realize this the more progress we can make in addressing the issues of our day. Those who insist on confronting people with name-calling rather than confronting the ideas should remember the old adage: “When you keep throwing mud you disadvantage yourself in two ways. You get your hands dirty and you continually lose ground.”

Why atheism is illogical

“He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him.” – George Orwell

The outright denial of God, is completely illogical. The atheist is in effect stating an absolute negative, which is self-defeating. The term atheism comes from two Greek words. The prefix “a”, the negative meaning “without” and Greek word “theos” meaning “deity” or “God”. Atheists continue to attack theism (primarily Christianity) because it is impossible to defend their own position (an absolute negative), which is a formal logical fallacy. To dogmatically affirm, there is no God, one would have to be omniscient and omnipotent. If atheists were intellectually honest, they would have to say, at best: “With my limited knowledge, it does not seem as if God exists.” Which leads us to the more reasonable, but equally embarrassing position of, agnosticism.

The word “agnosticism” in the Greek also comes from two words, the prefix “a”, and “gnosko” meaning “know”. The agnostic is in effect saying, “I am without knowledge”, or “I do not know”, concerning the question of God’s existence. Interestingly, in Latin, the word “agnostic” is the same word as “ignoramus”. Many agnostics therefore prefer to retain the title of atheist, but in effect cling to agnosticism.

One of the participants at the Harvard Veritas Forum [available at www.rzim.org] commented, “On the question of Nietzsche’s rejection of God, that was out of his own existential pain which he suffered.” I can almost guarantee you, that most people who cling to the aggressive form of atheism are deeply hurting inside. Unable to reconcile their pain with the concept of a loving God, they deny His existence. More often than not, atheists hate God rather than disbelieve in Him. The sooner they realize the feeling is not mutual, the better.

The ultimate contradiction

No doubt many of you would have heard it said: “there is no truth”, “truth is relative” or something to that effect. Now quite apart from anything else, this is absolute nonsense. Anyone who argues, there is no truth, or, truth is relative, will inevitably end in error because their starting premise is wrong. Aristotle was probably the first to make this observation when he wrote, “Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion.” In other words, if there is no truth, then the very statement [there is no truth] cannot itself be true. And if that statement is not true, then why should anyone listen to anything else you have to say? The funny thing is, this is almost exclusively asserted by those who are supposed to be “educated.” Go figure.

Abortion's pivotal question

“If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people to not kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.” – Mother Teresa

Language is a powerful tool because it moulds our minds and how words are used influences our receptivity to an idea. Some ideas, if communicated in straightforward terms would be offensive, but if we drape them in “politically correct” terms they become more palatable. Pro-choice is perhaps the most wicked example of semantic power. As a result, abortion is one of the chief moral crimes of our time.

The key issue with abortion is not whether abortion is legal. The fact that something is legal does not necessarily mean it is morally right. Slavery was legal, apartheid was legal and so was everything Hitler did in Germany. The key issue is not about a woman’s right to choose either. As former abortion clinic worker, Judith Fetrow said, “There is a great difference between the intellectual support of the woman’s right to choose and the actual participation in the carnage of abortion. Because seeing body parts bothers the workers.” A woman’s “right to choose” is the oft used political justification for abortion. However, this is a shallow misunderstanding and a betrayal of the word “choice”. Choice cannot exist apart from the context to which it is being applied. A choice only means something when we address the issue of what we are choosing. Sharon Osbourne [www.selfevidenttruth.org] now regrets her choice: “I had an abortion at 17 and it was the worst thing I ever did. I would never recommend it to anyone because it comes back to haunt you.” [London Daily Mail, Dec. 18, 2004]

Abortion involves killing and discarding the unborn. When we peel away the high-sounding, empty politically correct buzz-words, the key issue is this: What is the unborn? Gregory Koukl [www.str.org] writes, “If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.”

Philosophical jokes

A philosophy professor walks in to give his class their final. Placing his chair on his desk the professor instructs the class, "Using every applicable thing you've learned in this course, prove to me that this chair DOES NOT EXIST."

So, pencils are writing and erasers are erasing, students are preparing to embark on novels proving that this chair doesn't exist, except for one student. He spends thirty seconds writing his answer, then turns his final in to the astonishment of his peers.

Time goes by, and the day comes when all the students get their final grades...and to the amazment of the class, the student who wrote for thirty seconds gets the highest grade in the class.

His answer to the question: "What chair?"

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?


"Hmmm... well there's an interesting question isn't it?"

"Define 'light bulb'..."

"How can you be sure it needs changing?"

Three. One to change it and two to stand around arguing over whether or not the light bulb exists.

Article link: Relativism Self-Destructs

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

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

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

Life links: resources for abortion research

Abortion Facts

American Collegians for life

LifeNews.com

Life Training Institute

Ohio Right to Life

Self-Evident Truth

The Moral Question of Abortion

In the rotation

Currently listening to:

The Incredible Walk

The Faith

Purified

Day by Day

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

Site in the spotlight: Stand to Reason

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

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

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

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

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

Christ on: the way to the Father (God)

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

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

Does the Bible teach reincarnation?

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

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

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

Focus on the Nation of Islam

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

Black Muslims - The Nation of Islam

The Nation of Islam: The Relentless Record of Hate

Witnessing to the Nation of Islam

Quotable quotes: Prayer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book (wish) list

The following is a list of books that I plan to add to "the collection", over the course of time:

Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous

Faith, Reason and the Existence of God

None Greater: John The Baptist

On Writing Well, 25th Anniversary

Orthodoxy

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview

Politics, Theology and History

St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica (translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province) (5 Volume Set)

The Chicago Manual of Style

The Elements of Style

The Gospel in a Pluralist Society

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy

Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time

Unspeakable : Facing Up to Evil in an Age of Genocide and Terror

On the lighter side

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

Straight thinking about religion

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

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

Article link: Straight thinking about tolerance

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

Being made perfect through suffering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus on true worship

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

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

Don't "debt the malls" this Christmas

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

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

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

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

The human element

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

Sabbath keeping

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

This will be short.

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

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

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