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).