So by problem, I also mean danger, because we tend to underestimate this issue, and overestimate our capacity or ability in understanding it. This is about mediums, guides, gurus or generally people who say they’ve received ‘word’ or inspiration from some spiritual source – even those who share your beliefs. Many people seek direction this way, from books written by people who’ve had some dramatic spiritual event to guide their lives and provide some help to other people seeking similar direction. In a general sense though, Spiritism, according to one of its chief proponents ‘Allan Kardec’, is “a philosophical doctrine with religious effects. It has its fundamental basis, like any other religion, God, the soul and a future life. But it is not like most established religions as it does not have dogmas, rituals, or temples, and among its followers, nobody takes or receives the title of priest or high-priest.” Now, if you believe in the spiritual realm (as I do), this can become a tricky topic if you’re not looking to offend anyone because it involves people’s beliefs, but I think people should allow their beliefs to be shaken a bit from time to time, to see how deep their roots really are, and to test the strength of their particular belief system. So without complicating things too much, here’s the problem: Trust. If you’ve read a book or heard someone speak about spiritual guidance, whether from a psychic medium, an Imam, a pastor, or simply a friend offering some help via (deeper) self-help books, then the issue will come up; how do you trust the source of the guidance offered. Recently a friend offered/suggested a book written by a woman who wrote because she claimed she was inspired by “a voice”, saying it was like she wasn’t writing the book at all, but rather simply writing whatever the voice told her to write. Later, she claimed (believed) that the voice belonged to Jesus. The problem is that some of what she wrote (the voice said) was simply not Biblical. This is a problem, not just for me (a Christian) but for anyone interested. This brand of Spiritism I find to be common among New Age Religions, along the lines of Eckhart Tolle and even those behind the fairly recent book ‘The Secret’. Another perspective is the all roads lead to Rome idea, ie. the all-encompassing route of embracing all religions and beliefs as being essentially the same thing – all religions lead to God, they’re just different strokes for different folks (via-a-vis pluralism). But that’s an overlapping issue. Spiritism is a bit more specified and direct. Getting back to the book in question; How do we know that the author of the book (A course in Miracles by Helen Schucman, 1948-2013) is on the right path? For a Christian this is simpler because whatever disagrees with the Bible, is false, since the Bible is Truth, the Word of God being the Way, the Truth and the Life… so anything inconsistent with it, is therefore NOT the truth. I'm aware that to some this seems a bit narrow-minded, but you wouldn't call a passenger narrow-minded for insisting that only a qualified pilot should fly the plane. And that's essentially what this is about, qualifying forms of Spiritism. But what about non-Christians? Specifically Non-Christians who also happen to believe in some form of Spirituality and seek guidance through similar books, or a spiritual realm, the afterlife, ancestors, spirit-guides, a higher consciousness, self-help meditation etc.? How would you trust the word of a psychic? [Side note - This by the way is also one of the reasons why I am not a Muslim. I believe Muhammad had a profound spiritual experience in that cave, but how do I trust one man’s word, a man who himself according to tradition, was unsure about the source of the revelation upon receiving it?] People like to compare the Quran to the Bible, but that’s not accurate. It would be more apt to compare the Quran (1 book comprising the teachings/insights of 1 man, Muhammad) to other books/writings other men, like the Books of Isaiah or Jeremiah, or the Epistles of Apostle Paul (his writings contained within the Bible). This comparison would be more reasonable. This leads to why the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah as well as the New Testament Gospels and Epistles etc, are joined and included into a singular collection: the Bible. Viewed individually, they can all be bracketed as spiritual books and a form of ‘Spiritism’, the 66 books in the Bible, after generations of deep scrutiny (written over a period of 1500 yrs) are found to be consistent with one another in thought, content and purpose. It simply means it carries divine credentials like no other book - hence it being the most attacked book in human history. But for Non-Christians, I’m curios to learn; what are your criteria for discerning spiritual integrity? If we all believe that there is a spiritual realm, and if that spiritual realm resembles in some small way, the essential dynamics of this world, in terms of the ‘invisible’ qualities like intellect, morality, consciousness etc. – and if we assume that passed souls (ancestors) are now a part of this metaphysical/spiritual realm… then its logical to assume that since good and evil are evident in this natural world, then it's wihtin the spiritual world as well. In fact, it would be quite presumptuous, or even naive to think good and evil are not prevalent in the spiritual realm. This is especially true if you acknowledge that these elements, the natural world and the spiritual, interact with one another. Then from there, that people in this life will pass on to the next life in some form or other. Are we willing to gamble and assume that good and evil do not exist in the spiritual realm? And with that knowledge, when one attempts to interact with the spiritual, how do you then discern if whatever you’re interacting with, is good or evil? The truth is divisive, simply because it is exclusive – there is one narrow way, the right way… and many people find themselves on the wrong side or outside of it, this is why doing the good or the right thing, is often so difficult. For this reason it can be said that truth is sometimes offensive because, by its nature, it says that certain positions are wrong/false. Hence, (capital T) Truth excludes some people, and can be offensive. So, taking up the position of Truth may also at times come across as arrogant, with further potential for division. Having faced my own crisis of faith and been in a position of deep doubt, I can at least attest to it not being a very good place to be; but still, I had to go even deeper to a place where I was willing to accept and deal with the consequences if I found there to be an error in my beliefs. It was a commitment to put the truth to the test, or whatever test I could come up with, and then to be willing to deal with those consequences, whatever it was, whether I liked the answers I found or not. [This is also why New Age pluralism is so popular, because then there is no wrong answer, so it fits many people's desires - to each is his own, or simply another branch of relativism]. All this is naturally related to the quandary: 'Is there a God? and if there is, then who is he and how do we get to know him/it... and did this creator reveal himself to the human race in some way?' So often in this world, which we’ve made so very complicated, we seek guidance and sometimes that ‘guidance’ comes in forms that seem welcoming at first. However, scratch at the surface and it may reveal some inconveniences that many are simply not willing to confront. To use a common saying which also happens to be from the Bible, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matt 7:13) I understand the desire for spiritual guidance, but what are our criteria for deciphering this thing (spirituality) which by its very nature is alien to us? It is something we are unqualified to deal with, hence our methods for interacting with it cannot come from us. So, do we not need some sort of barometer to judge all spiritual matters… if not, then what? We are quick though to create our own way when wading into spiritual waters, all to fit our own spiritual desires and perspectives. How do you discern or judge Spiritism? My advice is to earnestly seek the Truth . . . As to "what is truth?" as a friend asked me recently, well that's firmly entering epistemology. But since it is such a tricky subject to define, perhaps the best starting point is to clarify what it is NOT. And its at this foundation where we find the issue of relativism and absolutism. Is Truth Absolute/fixed/objective, or is it relative? "What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are..." But, if "truths are illusions" then nothing is absolute, then it means that that claim is self-defeating... because then nothing is certain/the truth/to be trusted, including that very sentence "truths are illusions". You see if Nietzsche's claim is true (which by the way, would make it absolute) then by his own claim everything he said is an illusion, and why bother listening to/reading it in the first place. The following quote though explains it better IMO: "The philosophy of relativism says that all truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But one has to ask: is the claim “all truth is relative” a relative truth or an absolute truth? If it is a relative truth, then it really is meaningless; how do we know when and where it applies? If it is an absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. Moreover, the relativist betrays his own position when he states that the position of the absolutist is wrong – why can’t those who say absolute truth exists be correct too? In essence, when the relativist says, “There is no truth,” he is asking you not to believe him, and the best thing to do, is follow his advice." Some handy links:
"What is Truth? | Explain Truth | Define Truth" - carm.org "What is Truth?" - Paul Pardi article on philosophynews.com
0 Comments
"Israel has no better friends throughout the world." As I wrote this article, news came in of 2 Palestinian teenagers shot by Israeli IDF soldiers. From what I gathered, two teenage Arabs wielding knives and clubs broke into a settlement home in Eli and started beating and eventually stabbed an Israeli man in his house. The man fought back, protecting his wife and children and managed to get them out the house. The family called emergency services and when the soldiers arrived the two teenagers, who’d been hiding, then attacked the soldiers. – On first reading I must question why these two weren’t arrested by police, as happens in regular communities? it seems odd (to outsiders) with the use of excessive force… But on the other hand; what were the teenagers doing there (apart from attacking people)? What did they hope to achieve? Also, what did they think would happen after attacking soldiers? Then there's the imbalance: guns and bullets versus bats and knives… though in 2011 there was similar story when two Arab teenagers (similarly armed) broke into a house (in Samaria), murdering an entire family. As a rule though, tensions are always high. Since the beginning, Israeli soldiers have taken the stance of no compromise. But we still live with the fact that 2 more teenagers are dead. The result of stories like the one above, is that Israel is often painted as the bad guys, and they’re not innocent, so why is it that Christianity always takes the side of the Israelis, even when the nation’s actions are hard to comprehend, let alone explain reasonably? We all know the story that Israel is God’s chosen people, but in a world (modern society) increasingly dismissing God and the Bible (or Torah) as irrelevant, can the “chosen people” still be justified? Does that stance even apply anymore? History [Biblical] The Bible contains some of the oldest historical records known to man, much older than the Qur'an. Foundations of Israeli culture (founded in the wisdom of the law of Moses) is divinely inspired and linked/integral to the religious beliefs of over half the world’s population (55% in 2010), and that’s only counting the big ones (Christianity – a third of the world’s population, Islam – quarter, and then the much smaller Judaism)… and that 'religious' population is increasing fast. In other words, Israel is the most devout state in exercising God’s early inspired practices, due to the fact that Israel as a nation has a direct covenant with God (Deut 5:2). “Although other ancient communities saw a divine presence in history, this was taken up in its most consequent fashion within the ancient Israelite community and has remained, through many developments, the focus of its descendants' religious affirmations” --- [http://history-world.org/history_of_judaism.htm] God's favourite, or chosen nation; what does that mean? Firstly; what kind of God has “chosen people”, i.e. favourites, what about the rest of us unlucky enough to be born in another country… and furthermore, regarding said favourites, why Israel? No one knows why God chose Israel because no one knows the mind of God. The second part though is quite interesting, looking at the nation itself – if one were to petition the world, Israel would definitely not be the most popular country insofar as topics of human rights and politics are concerned. In fact many would see the nation as (and they've been labelled as such) supremacists. Seeing themselves (in some ways) as higher than the rest of the world, kind of like the way other school kids look at the teacher’s pet. Moreover, what does it mean for the rest of the world knowing that God has chosen one nation? At a glance, in terms of Biblical practice/law etc… Israel has drifted far from God. It’s a tough sell; how does one reconcile “Love thy neighbour” with protecting oneself from terrorism and being the only tiny Jewish State in a hostile (Anti-Semitic) Arab world (with leaders openly proclaiming their will for Israel's destruction)? But then again, God has this habit or pattern of redemption… the Bible is full of it, it’s literally the central message of the Bible: Salvation, redemption of humanity through his son Jesus Christ (a Jew). And if we look throughout history, Israel has constantly failed God, failed to obey him. Yet the message is that despite (our) failings, God still loves us. So in reality, as Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone… no one is without sin, so no one can really judge. Israel is an allegory for all of us. "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8 295 - Terrorist attacks worldwide thus far for 2015, averaging 27 per month… however November alone currently stands at 33 so far, and with the Paris attacks inspiring the trending hashtag “#PrayforParis”, I take it many people are wondering (yet again, as it is with most atrocities or disasters throughout history) where was God during this time, or why did it happen, or the greater question of ‘why is there evil in the world’? It sets off another flurry of questions: If God created everything, then did he create evil, and thus, doesn’t that make God evil…? A political satire show jokingly presented an overlapping issue by belittling a politician’s belief in God, along the lines of “he believing that the world is around 6000 years old, and he believing in a God that is powerful enough to create the universe in 6 days but not powerful enough to NOT make paedophiles”. Many sceptics hearing these sorts of comments on an otherwise mainstream news show would gleefully laugh at said man with his seemingly, by modern standards, conservative beliefs, the insinuation being: how can we (citizens) allow such a man with such (ridiculous) beliefs to govern a state or country. The bigotry here is pretty palpable and intentional. What so often frustrates me, is when intelligent people fail to really think. This ultimately comes down to choice, and what we choose to believe based on the evidence at hand. As we know, good lawyers are very capable of getting guilty men off the hook, and it happens more often than we care to admit. The evidence for or against God’s existence is the same for all. To myself, the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing (For), but I acknowledge that there is just enough of an element of doubt to fuel the ‘un-believer’. As to why this doubt exists, well I encourage you to read another article I wrote exploring this very issue. [Why do you need faith to believe in God?] I must also add that much of the bias against God is fueled by man’s own ignorance and pride, and that other thing listed among the notorious 7 deadly sins, that of ‘Sloth’ (or laziness/apathy/indifference). Many are content to live without truly knowing, because to know or to seek to know would mean disturbing their status quo. It means (via their misguided perception) perhaps living a devout life of celibacy and going to church every Sunday and helping thy neighbor, and generally being accountable, and gasp, reading the Bible - that outdated and thick book of many tiny words written in some ancient languages that’s mostly confusing and filled with parables… and who knows what to take literally and what not, and how is something that apparently contravenes modern scientific theory going to help me today? Not to mention all the “fairytales” with talking animals and bushes… So, instead of going through all that hullabaloo, why not skip it and just go on with my life, “as you were” minding my own business, and being generally (by the world’s standards) a good and law abiding citizen, because if being a good person isn’t good enough for whatever god may or may not exist, then maybe he/she isn’t a god worth knowing. The issue arises: Are you earnestly seeking the truth? If not, then don’t bother continuing with this read. *** If you are, then you must face a very real truth: that if God exists, then he most likely does not conform to our rules or the standards you or I set – we, being the creation, and God, the Creator. So when we say that being a good person should be good enough for God for us to get into heaven or paradise or whatever, we are doing 2 things here:
So that means that we have to relinquish power or concede that we do not (and will never) know everything. At the heart of this, is submission… to submit to a greater power than ourselves, an entity that knows better than we do and that has the ability to, and has, outlined a particular way in which we should live our lives… But we don’t want to be told how to live our lives. This is essentially crux of the matter, like a rebellious teenager not wanting a parent to interfere and tell them what to do… so we choose our own way, and in a world where we’re free to exercise our own free will, evil will exist.
There are many more issues and questions that this raises, but essentially, we need to confront or entertain the issue of ourselves and our relation toward (a potential) God. Once we accept the simple dynamics of this relationship, then the state of play is made more apparent, and the consequences we live with are put into a little more context… this is also when the answers become more complicated and even messy, and we must first be prepared for answers we don't like, or are uncomfortable, before we even earnestly ask the hard questions. “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” [Image credits: unless otherwise stated - tumblr.com, warphotographer.org, Facebook.] ******* Have we outgrown religion, or god (the idea of a god/God, or any deity of some sort)? Has science successfully rendered such views baseless? And by that token, has Creationism or Creation Science (the anti-evolutionist view if you will, or those who believe in the Biblical account of Creation) provided any worthwhile rebuttal? Or has Creation Science, described in a recent article I read as a ‘pseudo science’, become the so called ‘laughing stock of the Science world'? The short answer is of course: no… Simply put, the above questions and implications is another form of propaganda – promoted by the secular mindset, which is essentially an atheistic one. The scientific community is rife with it, as many respected scientists (who are also Christians, or religious in some way) quietly go about their work whilst retaining their creationist views without broadcasting it, because to do so would bring about prejudice against them for their beliefs. Ben Stein, a high school science educator, in his DVD “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” highlights the discrimination in the (American) education institutions if you do not believe in the naturalistic evolutionary world view. Is there any merit to the claim that truly intelligent (scientific) people cannot believe in God? The idea that any person with an education, an advanced degree, doesn’t believe in the Bible (or have any religious beliefs) because (specifically) the Bible is unscientific? Bill Nye (famous as ‘Bill Nye the Science Guy’) in a Youtube video for theBigThink.com said “And I say to the grown-ups: If you want to deny evolution and live in your, in your, uh, world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the Universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it… Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future” [taken from the article "Bill Nye: the (Pseudo-)Science Guy" by Dr. Jeff Miller] – more than implying or stopping short of saying that to believe in God and/or the Biblical account of creation (or any religion) will hamper your progress in science. In other words, creation scientists or those who share those beliefs cannot offer anything worthwhile/credible because their beliefs taint their findings. Also that anyone with these beliefs are living in a dream world. Of course his statement and what it implies is false. Agnostic Niel Degrasse Tyson stated that nearly half of the practicing scientists in America are religious and believe in/pray to, a god, yet it does not adversely affect their work. If we were to apply this view to history (bearing in mind that the Big Bang Theory has only been around for 35 years) we’d have to fudge out many contributions by so-called ‘creation-scientists’ who, based on Nye's intimation, seem to lack credibility. Men like
I could add a lot more names that are less famous. (I must add that this does not mean I agree with all of their personal views; for one, Newton did not believe Jesus was God, while it’s reported that Einstein – born a Jew – believed in a pantheistic god) but it can be said that they all accepted the Biblical account of creation as Truth. Now you might claim that modern science has unearthed the universe's true origins (minus God), but in fact, everything they have (against the Bible) is actually speculation. Pseudo Science An "old-earth ministries" article I read, labeled Creationism as a Pseudo Science since it cannot be empirically proven, and based on their definition, in this writers opinion, Creation Science can then rightly be described as Pseudo Science as it does not abide by the clinical definition of Science (it cannot be tested and proven in a lab via observational experiments… this being observational or practical and physical science). One can only observe the universe/nature to see if there are indications that are consistent with the Biblical explanation. That is to say, does anything we observe in nature or the universe scientifically contradict the Bible’s account or not? Conversely, Cosmology, with its presiding model of evolution and the Big Bang Theory, also cannot be proven… in fact its for this reason that it remains a theory and nothing more. Scientists have failed to provide any empirical proof, nor can they. What we can do is speculate and simulate, but even if (by way of an example) they do locate the much vaunted “god-particle”, it does not disprove God, nor does it prove the evolutionary theory, nor does it disprove creationists. (FYI, they’re not sure whether or not they’ve found the Higgs-Boson particle but they think that they have. One Scientist described it as recognizing a familiar face in a crowd as it passed by. It could be what they think it is, but it also may not be. So they think they’ve found it but it’s hard to tell because the process occurs so quickly in the Hadron Collider, so the ‘Find’ is yet to be verified). The reason they cannot prove the theory, is because they're speculating about something that happened in history (with no human witnesses), so all the experiments in Cern are speculative simulations of what scientists think happened in or near the beginning, but no one can say for sure. (FYI, In my email response to that article, I highlighted that according to their definition of 'Pseudo Science', they may as well add Cosmology into the mix as well since it fits the their bill... they have yet to respond.) "Concerning the term “pseudo-science,” we’d use that term differently than you’re suggesting. We’d use it to mean, basically, “false science.” Science based, for example, on faulty assumptions. With regard to science that involves unobserved events, we’d probably use the term “historical science” (as opposed to observational science), rather than pseudo-science, to describe those events. Much of geology, biology (notice that evolutionary biology is historical science, since no one has seen one type of creature give rise to a completely different type of creature, crossing a phylogenic boundary; we’d also call it a pseudo-science though, since it hinges on the flawed assumption that naturalism is correct), and cosmology are based on unobserved events, but would still be deemed science. Forensic science is another good example of science using indirect, rather than direct evidence—the scientists didn’t directly witness the event, but instead, are assessing what happened based on indirect evidence." But as I’ve said, what does this prove? If in fact the particle is verified (and I for one think that even if they haven’t found it yet, the particle probably does exist) what does it say about the origins of the universe. Practically, the particle can be ‘used’ by both evolutionists and creationists, but of course it doesn’t explain much. What do I mean? - Well, how did the particle come about in the first place? If it is the catalyzing particle to create all the others, then how was it created, or what catalyzed its formation? What or who created the Higgs-Boson particle? Additionally, this particle does not validate anything in the Big Bang Theory or the evolutionary model. It’s a link in a chain. Unfortunately for evolutionists, that chain is very incomplete. In fact the evolutionary chain has no beginning. As one scientist put it; Evolution and The Big Bang Theory have not made it to the starting line yet to compete with Creationism, because they cannot account for the origin of life/ the veritable “In the beginning” moment. Currently, this model has no beginning, apart from “Spontaneous generation and Abiogenesis” which contradict Scientific law. Where does the Higgs-Boson particle “fit” in the timeline of creation/development of the universe? One could say it was merely a tool God created to make the universe. Its like an artists tool - used not to shape the clay, but rather to make the clay required for the sculpture. If one were to apply it to the evolutionary model, then it would be integral to what came before the Big Bang… In other words it doesn’t explain what occurred to incite the implosion/explosion/expansion of the original mass to create the big bang. This of course is another bone of contention, with evolutionary scientists divided as to the origin of the theorized big bang, because some say that it must have had a center, while others disagree (ie. there is no center of the universe). The most preposterous notion though is that the entire universe comes from a “cosmic egg”, or cosmic dot (no bigger than a full-stop on this page) – a “single point” from which everything – you and I, earth, The Milky Way etc… evolved. This by the way, violates scientific law, echoed by Agnostic Scientist and former (he passed away in 2006) NASA astronomer: “But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact” --- Robert Jastrow (1977, p. 32). Dating [and the Geologic timetable] A major issue of course is dating methods. There are quite a few methods out there, the most famous being Carbon Dating (which is based on several major assumptions, and can only be used for previously living matter with a limit of measuring only up to 40 000 years – meaning any fossil found and measurable using this method is by default, younger than 40 000 years old… thus it cannot be applied to the Prehistoric timescale for Dinosaurs which measures in the millions of years. For this, they instead rely on rocks around the fossil to date the specimen). Hence the need for other methods to suit and somehow aid the evolutionary theory and geologic timescale --- some of which are the Potassium-Argon, Uranium 238 and Fision-Track methods, all of which render vastly different dates for the same geological samples. Here’s a link detailing 20 different dating methods and the assumptions that are needed for ALL of them (they list 7 basic general assumptions and then further outline specified flaws of each individual dating method.) – Science vs evolution – Why non-historical dating techniques are not reliable To give you an idea of how dating works: an archaeologist will take a fossil he’s found, and before testing it, the scientists will ask him for an assumed/estimated date based on his expert opinion (i.e. how old does he think it is, based on his research and experience?) he’ll offer an estimate, and then they’ll search for a date that suits his theory. "Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?"—*Glen R. Morton, Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age. Another article I read recently, on LiveScience.com, outlined the history of the feud between Evolutionists and Creationists, written by a (supposedly) unbiased author. One of the points she highlighted was the Creationist belief that the world came into being in 6 days and the earth is younger than 10 000 years old… She then stated “when in fact it is 4.5 Billion years old” – this of course is an outright lie. It’s odd that a learned scientist, or science writer would make such specious statement. What is a fact is that based on a flawed dating system, the earth appears to be billions of years old, or "according to some scientists, the earth is believed to be...". Why are so many scientists so afraid of accepting that “Earth changes can happen in catastrophic leaps” as we’ve witnessed with floods, earthquakes, tsunami’s etc. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view." Some general questions I have:
Summing up – This is an article that can spawn volumes of work, and has for many an individual investigating these sorts of topics in earnest or tackling the philosophical dynamism which starts where science ends. Labeling Creation Science as a 'laughing stock' merely demonstrates the accusers ignorance and brand of bias. It strikes me as odd though that many people in the field do not earnestly want answers, but have rather settled on their own preconceived conclusions. Many (non-Christian) scientists dismiss outright the creation model of the Universe (and God/the Bible etc), before even considering it or investigating it. This in my opinion is unscientific (though scientists have covered themselves in this regard… according the University of California, Berkeley, “the scientific process only applies to the natural world. Hence, anything considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science”). One can claim that you’ve considered something and found it to be a joke, but in reference to Christianity you’re only expressing your ignorance. The fact is that many people evade the Biblical explanation because it means facing some serious personal issues. Because once you’ve decided to investigate the Bible and its claims seriously, it then means you have to open yourself up to the possibility of being accountable to God... in other words it means confronting the truth of God, and that means realistically facing our rebellious nature. Most people in the world don’t want to do this. What it also means is wrestling with the notion of the supernatural, and this plays on one of mankind's most primal fears... the fear of the unknown. "Astronomers try not to be influenced by philosophical considerations. However, the idea of a universe that has both a beginning and an end is distasteful to the scientific mind. In a desperate effort to avoid it, some astronomers have searched for another interpretation of the measurements that indicate the retreating motion of the galaxies, an interpretation that would not require the universe to expand. If the evidence for the expanding Universe could be explained away, the need for a moment of creation would be eliminated,and the concept of time without end would return to science. But these attempts have not succeeded, and most astronomers have come to the conclusion that they live in an expanding world" --- Robert Jastrow - Until the Sun dies (1977, p.31) "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way..." --- Isaiah 53:6 [Image credits: youtube.com, cern.ch, iconqal.com, quoteinsta.com]
A friend asked this question on Facebook: Why do people thank God/(whichever deity they serve/believe in) for their success, when its clearly as a result of their own hard work? It’s not about us, it’s about God. When we acknowledge Him as our saviour, it is a complete and all encompassing decision that involves every aspect of our lives. --- There’s a scene in the TV Show ‘The Cleaner’ where the protagonist (Benjamin Bratt’s character, known to have ‘conversations’ with God) is asked by drug rehab centre competitor: “if you’re so righteous and are apparently on some mission from God, why is it that you and I have the same success rate with the people we want to get clean?” If all Christians were well off and living a peaceful and successful life with a great job/house/car, wouldn’t the rest of humanity/society recognise this and gravitate toward it, toward the status, that success in a veritable move of “I want me some of that” – It would be a pretty simple and easy choice. But God is more interested in transforming you inwardly first – physical and material wealth will come in their own time. Of course, the common tagline in these situations is that “it’s all a test” which it is, but it’s not a typical pass/fail scenario, because we will all fail – the point is in developing our relationship with God. And it’s in the trials that we experience the most growth; in our lifelong path. But in accepting Jesus, we take on a lot more than physical/material success. We’re also acknowledging an entire spiritual realm – the supernatural. Choosing this path is accepting that there will definitely be challenges, because it’s about Our Relationship with God! The goal here is, not to invest so much into the materialistic and fleeting nature of this world, because it all ultimately ends in death. So, in taking this path we’re undertaking a full spiritual transformation (or just acknowledging spirituality to begin with), which is the ageless struggle – involving things like faith, spirit, soul etc… --- CS Lewis. “We don’t have a soul. We are souls. We have a body” And whilst we do that, we also look at the world around us differently, the natural world, because we see it in an entirely different context (kind of like IT being the tip of the Iceberg, and we’re focussing on the unseen bit). Of course there’s the shorter answer: that when you choose to believe in God and acknowledge his power, you also come to realise that “without him, I would not exist”, and neither would this world. I exist because of him (I am here because of Him). For a God that has created worlds, what am I, who am I, or where do I fit in? I thank him for being my creator, and thank him for the ability to work and achieve, as well as giving me life… whereas others choose not to (thank or acknowledge him). The Knesset is wrong about the way they’re going about ‘preserving’ the Jewish state, demonizing all and sundry, etc etc. You, we, everyone already knows this. They’ve lost their humanity, disregarded many of the values preached about in the Bible – chief among them: “Love thy neighbour”. We needn't say anything more. So, I got to thinking, since this is the Israel we are saddled with, and for all intents and purposes, it’s not going anywhere (despite the wishes of Hezbollah, Hamas and many other Arabs). So, what are we to do about this…? Here then is an objective look at what is happening… and what the Bible tells us - and with that, we can also take stock of why the Bible is in fact relevant at all: Now, for a neutral reader, let's look at that – why use the Bible? Well, let’s approach this from a broader perspective and look at it as it stands… for instance, approximately 80% of the prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled, considering it was written by so many authors, and many predictions involve modern day occurrences (sometimes speaking of things which even they did not understand) and always in great detail, and since Israel herself has always been a central figure in the Bible, it seems logical. [there are of course those who do not believe in the Bible as a tool of historical fact, but that is a different debate altogether - objectively it has proven itself, thus far, as at least "80% accurate" in its predictions, with the other 20% still pending] It was predicted that the people of Israel would be scattered all over the world: “These are the people of the Lord, yet they have come out of HIS land” In modern times, this has already happened. Isaiah 66:8 “Who has heard such a thing? Who Prior to this Israel had never been a sovereign nation, since before Christ. Also, read Luke 21:24 Some history:
At the moment Israel is not the most loved state in the world – to put it lightly (they were never really) – and their influence on world events goes hand in hand with the controversies. I am not contesting that Israel are wrong for treating the Palestinians in the way that they have, but it is expected when looking at it in Bible context. If Israel were an organism, then this is the way it would go about neutralizing the threat to its existence. Even when nations pledge “peace” – which they have claimed to do (whether you see Israel as victim or perpetrator) – the Lord says there will be only destruction (1 Thess 5:2-3, Jer 8:11). When you look at the nation of Israel, their history and the nature of their existence; then their current actions are not surprising for they have been at war and under threat for so long. Additionally, when you consider that the Prime Minister is an ex Special Forces soldier and war veteran, on the same page with the head of Mossad (with similar qualifications), it all starts to make a little more sense. You see, there is wide sentiment that Mossad (the most effective killing machine in the world) is indeed out of control, much like the CIA, and exact their own agenda to manipulate the might of the US war machine, to their benefit. (*See the Trojan Operation which directly led to America invading Libya on false terrorism claims.) Knowing that they are the only (tiny) Jewish State in the Arab dominated Middle East, and that in 1967, in the Khartoum conference (5 surrounding Arab nations united) declared... “...no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel and no peace with Israel.” So with the opposing side very clear, the lines drawn in the sand with a constant threat of war (the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack), a country like Israel would push to stay prepared and be pre-emptive in their actions. Those actions have made many enemies, but they seem not to care for anyone’s opinion – this too was prophesied in the Bible - as Israel have always been pinned in a corner, forced constantly overcome great odds. In Zechariah the Lord foretold, “Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the people around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. [So, even as a plain book, the Bible continues to be relevant… just one of the many reasons it’s a bestseller.] To conclude: the actions of Israel and the situation we sit with today, in some way (human rights violations aside perhaps), is simply the way it was predestined to be… and in these times, if there is another not-so-deeper message to tack on (from those prophecies) is that it will be violent, and it will get ugly. I pray for strength and wisdom! Final thoughts, on Syria: Who stands to gain the most from a destabilized Syria? For Israel, any Arab nation not looking their way, is a good Arab nation. If there is any animosity toward Israel, be sure to target it at The Knesset – just like whenever I reference the US and their disagreeable actions, it’s imperative to focus on the Government. The people may have put them in power, but of course that power is abused. Sentiment will always be divided... God Bless! {Bible verses from The MacArthur Study Bible} Related Reading: An Objective look at Apartheid Israel, Part 2 Israel: An Objective look Part 3 - Tipping the 1st Domino An old school friend asked this question in a religious rant on Facebook, prompting me to have a sit-down of good ‘ol contemplation on the issue. To be honest, it was more about the "why is he going to hell" (according to christian beliefs), than "will he". Of course one can't disagree with the stance of most/all atheists and 'neutrals', the guy is a model citizen of the world – almost the male version of Mother Teresa (you know what I mean), spreading nothing but joy and happiness - so why would such a great guy be doomed to the eternal fires of hell? Here’s the thing though; the issue of God, or god. Who is this dude, and why, if he does in fact exist (in the way Christians believe in him), then why would he send such a great guy like His Holiness to hell. What kind of a god punishes good? > World belongs to humanity, not this leader, that leader or that king or prince or religious leader. World belongs to humanity. God So, one day God took a risk and decided to create the world, the heavens and the earth (no small feat, even for him – he did rest on the seventh day). He then took an even bigger risk: he created Man, and endowed him with the gift of free will. Let me put it to you another way: one day, God decided to have children. With the gift of free will, his children then turned away from him and worshiped other gods and idols – this you can interpret as the most dominant aspect of your life. This of course is no ordinary story. God loves us, all of us, and with that – taking another risk, to put his heart out there and be rejected time and time again, and to feel that pain… It IS a relationship. When people speak of a relationship with God, they MEAN a relationship. It goes both ways. Only God has already professed his love for us, already forgiven our innumerable sins – If only we were to acknowledge him as the one true God. So, regarding the Dalai Lama (or any good person who also happens to be a non-believer) God created a home for him and his children to live in, but let me ask this: If heaven is our ultimate home, then why would God allow people to dwell in his house when they do not acknowledge him? He gave us the choice. For those people (even those who do good), who worship other gods, or recognize a different ‘spiritual parent’ – so to speak, they are destined to carry on along that road. They chose NOT to live in the house (Kingdom) of God, and elect to stay in a different house. So, if there is only a heaven and a hell, then there is only one place for those who do not dwell in heaven. This is not easy to accept, by any means. The thing is, even for Christians, doing good deeds and even being a regular attendee of church, will not guarantee your place in heaven. The truth is nothing we do will ever be enough, because being born into this world – means we were born into sin. Man welcomed sin into the world. And there is no room for sin in heaven. And you may have heard - NO man is without sin. Sin Whatever is not of God, is sin. [Romans 3:23 - everyone has sinned and is far away from God's saving presence] This is rather hard to accept.
To be with God, we can only offer ourselves as living sacrifices. God is in love with us, he is after our hearts, but WE deserted him. Spiritually, Christians are destined to be the Bride of Christ (you've probably heard this one before), but think of it as a groom awaiting his bride who constantly cheats on him... here he is, offering and professing his Love forever and always, but we keep turning our back and him. So how are to live in the house of God when we refuse to accept him If we only make the decision to open ourselves up to him… this will NOT ensure an easy life, not by a long shot; it means a life wherein you are at constant odds with your human nature, and the battle between the spiritual and the physical is one which is waged every day.
>> Recommended reading: Wild at Heart by John Eldredge<< Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. Some interesting reading: The story goes that a Buddhist monk apparently died and came back to life... and his life and beliefs have been changed forever. Link to Athet Pyan Shinthaw Paulu's translated testimony (from Cambodian): 'Back from the Dead' Some debunking of the story - one needs to be skeptical about these things: Debunking Monk's resurrection ‘The story that follows is simply a translation of a taped testimony from a man with a life-changing story. It is not an interview or a biography, but simply the words from the man himself. Different people react in different ways when they hear this story. Some are inspired, some skeptical, a few will mock and ridicule, while some others have even been filled with rage and anger, convinced these words are the ravings of a mad man or an elaborate deception. Some Christians have opposed the story simply because the radical and miraculous events described herein do not fit their feeble image of an Almighty God.’ |
[Banner illustration by Joel Kanar]
WRITING
|