tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66289570835610683582024-03-14T02:21:36.983-07:00Faith and Knowledge Bringing the two together, as it should be.
FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-57415556053626072742020-08-09T08:39:00.000-07:002020-08-09T08:39:08.802-07:00Review of Persuasions by Douglas Wilson<p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-indent: 36px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-indent: 36px;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDutYtuvQexZkqgPd1x4m3coGVXyv6Rnwalo1HaOklc3OSMO8C6YLKTxQ5Jkv6-dPqKRQp-5hLk_KtkHeeFKq5LCq-Jd-O7qm59gIHMvYQS6YA4D70rBfL1piCS_DZx1ZMnzRsQf6eCO_V/s475/Douglas+Wilson%25E2%2580%2599s+book%252C+Persuasions.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDutYtuvQexZkqgPd1x4m3coGVXyv6Rnwalo1HaOklc3OSMO8C6YLKTxQ5Jkv6-dPqKRQp-5hLk_KtkHeeFKq5LCq-Jd-O7qm59gIHMvYQS6YA4D70rBfL1piCS_DZx1ZMnzRsQf6eCO_V/s0/Douglas+Wilson%25E2%2580%2599s+book%252C+Persuasions.jpg" /></a></div><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span><p></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-indent: 36px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Douglas Wilson’s book, Persuasions is a collection of short parables involving the character Evangelist, who meets various people in a variety of situations all having one thing in common. They are all walking the one Road toward the Abyss. The Master of the City tried to give warning to the travelers, but many ignored them. One man known only as the Evangelist meets these travelers. With what seems to them as almost otherworldly ability he sees right to the heart of the individuals and can share with them the truth about their journey.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Some of the people whom Evangelist encounters seem significantly impacted by his insight and profound revelatory words, others offended, while yet others just ignore and keep walking on.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-indent: 36px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">Persuasions deal with some very pertinent issues facing humanity today, Immorality, Feminism, Atheism, Marriage, Hypocrisy, Evolution, and other topics. Each issue discussed is done with articulation and a firm understanding in a manner that engages the reader to think as well as respond all in the same paragraph.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-indent: 36px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><br /></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none; text-decoration-line: underline;"><b>Chapter title:</b></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-indent: 36px;"><span class="s2" style="font-kerning: none;">Mark- Atheism</span></p><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-indent: 36px;"><span class="s2" style="font-kerning: none;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none; text-decoration-line: underline;"><b>Chapter summary:</b></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-indent: 36px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s2" style="font-kerning: none;">Mark, a seemingly intelligent atheist is walking on the road when he encounters Evangelist. What follows is their discussion as to the validity of reason and the cogency of the argument Mark posed, to prove his perspective. Mark believes that by definition, Creation is a fairy tale. However, he is quickly given a question that sends his prior conception of reality into question. “How can time, and chance, acting on matter, produce reason?” What follows in the chapter clearly shows Mark the fallacy of his thought process and his notion of the believability of the existence of God.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s2" style="font-kerning: none;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><br /></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none; text-decoration-line: underline;"><b>Chapter flow of thought</b></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-indent: 36px;"><span class="s2" style="font-kerning: none;">“I don’t have time for fairy tales” Evangelist smiled.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>“Neither do I.” The idea that belief in God equates to fairy tales is a common objection given by atheists. Persuasions doesn’t let the reader get bogged down in bad argumentation nor does it evade the questions posed by Mark, the Atheist. According to him, reason has always been thought to be the sole bastion of reality, as well as the proprietary realm of the atheist and not visited by the Christian. However, Evangelist shows Mark how his reasoning fails on his grounds and under its own merits; simply put, his reasoning for reason is unreasonable.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-indent: 36px;"><span class="s2" style="font-kerning: none;">Evangelist gets to the truth of the matter concerning the atheist plane of thought by uncovering its core of nihilism. Once he exposes the fallacy of Mark’s reliance on the very subject with which he dismisses God, Mark has only the truth that his denial of God is unreasonable.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s2" style="font-kerning: none;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><span style="text-indent: 36px;">He is left with one more thought by Evangelist as he continues walking on the road, which is if there is no reasoning left to rebel against God, he must then be faced with the fact of his sinful nature. And that his only real reason for continuing to deny God is that he wishes rather not to live according to the way God insists that we live. Mark’s final comment is that Evangelist is presupposing the existence of God, to which Evangelist simply replies almost knowingly, “certainly.”</span> </span></span></p>FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-77993288104658032872019-05-30T22:49:00.003-07:002020-06-30T09:35:59.541-07:00Is Good, Good Enough?<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'}
</style>
<br />
Every language in the world has a word expressing good in the sense of having the right or desirable quality. Media has projected the idea of “good” like a sliding scale, from desirable like The Beach Boys who were looking for Good Vibrations, though in point of fact this good is regarding Transcendental Meditation. As the song of the same name indicates “Transcendental meditation can emancipate the man and get you feeling grand it's good, it’s good, it’s good.”<span style="color: #b45f06;">1</span><span style="color: #783f04;">
</span>On the other end, good is something to be avoided as Billy Joel says in Only the Good Die Young, "They say there's a heaven for those who will wait, some say it's better but I say it ain’t, I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, the sinners are much more fun... You know that only the good die young.”<span style="color: #b45f06;">2
</span>More recently The Black Eyed Peas twist “good” to involve spending the night partying in a way that they will probably not remember the next morning. “I’ve got a feeling, that tonight's gonna be a good night that tonight's gonna be a good night tonight's the night, let's live it up I got my money, let's spend it up go out and smash it like oh my God jump off that sofa, let's get, get off”<span style="color: #b45f06;">3
</span><br />
<span style="color: #b45f06;"><br /></span>
Good has become a low hanging fruit of on the scales of approval. There is good, better, best. It is not even in the top of consideration, therefore, when the world speaks of being a good person the assumption of their level of affirmation is median at best. With the definition of good being so far from the Biblical meaning as Jesus says in Mark’s Gospel ”Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."<span style="color: #b45f06;">4</span>
It would seem no wonder why the world does not understand what good really is. Good has taken on a new definition as adequate or slightly above acceptable. There are some good restaurants in this neighborhood, but across town, there are great ones. Even though great has traditionally referred to a designation of size, we use it as a descriptor above good. Would that indicate that Jesus wasn’t a great teacher, but only a “good” one, certainly not? The modern world has skewed the importance of what the word “good” means especially with regard to salvation and the conditions of acceptance into heaven.<br />
<br />
Often the rebuttal to a question of one's salvation sounds like this, “But I’m a good person. Don’t I deserve to get into heaven?” or “How could a loving God, send good people to hell?” These questions come up again and again, with the misguided equivocation of the term good meaning nice, as opposed to its actual meaning of righteous. Jesus again clarifies the issue “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!”<span style="color: #b45f06;"> 5
</span>Those who are evil still know how to give good gifts. Being good at being a human is not the same as being good in the eyes of righteousness. As humanities goodness or moral scale continues to slide one should realize that being good at being a human should not be the ultimate goal.<br />
<br />
Humans are the ones responsible for all atrocities on earth. Humans are the designers of everything from pornography, pedophilia, and pyromania to horror movies, haunted houses, and hostages. Humans are the articulators of political corruption, the agitators of social unrest, and the proprietors of the global destruction of our rainforests and oceans. As George Orwell said, “Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.”<span style="color: #b45f06;">6 </span>The evidence shows that humanity is not and should not be the litmus test for what goodness is or the goal to which one should attempt to achieve. One horrifying realization about murderers is that they can otherwise be good humans.<br />
<br />
John G was a well-respected business owner and heavily invoked in his community. He was the vice-president of the Springfield Jaycees a community group known for civic engagement and philanthropic involvement. Mr. G was even named as the third most outstanding Jaycee within the state of Illinois.<span style="color: #b45f06;">7</span> He was the Democratic precinct captain in the Chicago suburbs in the 1970s. Mr. G was even a member of his local Moose Lodge <span style="color: #b45f06;">8</span> and was heavily involved in charitable services at fundraising events, parades, and children's parties where he would dress as "Pogo the Clown”. John G or John Wayne Gacy was convicted of thirty-three murders in 1980. His good community service and actions were no match for what was deep within. The good actions of this man meant nothing during his trial and subsequent conviction. While most people aren’t secretly serial killers, all have at one time or another held contempt in their hearts, and as 1 John states, “Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.” <span style="color: #b45f06;">9</span> While most good humans would not physically commit murder it is safe to say that holding contempt in one's heart is a pang of guilt that all have faced at least once and realistically more than thirty-three times like Gacy.<br />
<br />
When one thinks of good humans the name Gandhi frequently comes to mind. As one who the world often cites along with Jesus as a leader to be admired. He was thought of as a great man who was the architect of a form of nonviolent civil disobedience that would influence the world and inspired future leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. One would think this would be the ultimate example of human goodness. However, in his book Gandhi: Naked Ambition, author Jad Adams, claims that Gandhi, “a London trained lawyer-turned-guru, was a ruthless cult leader who enslaved his followers with such bizarre sexual demands that it became difficult for many people to take him seriously, even during his own lifetime.”<span style="color: #b45f06;">10</span> Gandhi was said to have slept naked with his two nieces, and other girls, in an attempt to test his resistance to temptation.<span style="color: #b45f06;">11 </span>What does not seem to be thought of by the guru was how this type of behavior was mentally damaging these young girls who were having to sleep with a naked adult male relative while they were being used as pawns in his personal quest for spiritual superiority. This was not the action of a righteous man but rather one who was good in the world’s eyes. Clearly following the examples of humans in their quests for earthly goodness seems to lead to nowhere. The only exception could be Paul’s direction to “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”<span style="color: #b45f06;">12</span><br />
<br />
When one thinks of the ultimate quest for goodness on this earth what typically comes to mind is world peace. It is a standard answer at most beauty pageants, graduation ceremonies, political rallies, and more. Humanitarian efforts attempting to achieve world peace have been the goal of many good humans throughout the decades. Imagining that one day if we could all work together to reach the ultimate goal of a good utopian society, free from suffering, pain, hunger and more. That humanity could achieve the ultimate good on earth. John Lennon’s song Imagine has been the rallying cry for many “good human” movements, the lyrics are telling,<br />
<br />
“Imagine there's no heaven, it’s easy if you try, no hell below us, above us only sky. Imagine all the people living for today. Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace…No need for greed or hunger a brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people sharing all the world.”<span style="color: #b45f06;">13</span><br />
<br />
This again is the world’s idea of ultimate good, through imagining goodness, happiness, and peace. Sadly, this idea of peace without the ultimate author of peace is a world that we will never see. John Lennon’s memory continues to this day to inspire many humans to seek good for this world. While that goal seems noble and John seems to many to be the epitome of the good human preaching world peace, give peace a chance, and war is over if you want it. However in the book, John Lennon: The Life, a very different individual is painted, one who habitually abused his two wives and child, as well as leaving the band due to serious heroin addiction (as opposed to what John told the public, which was creative differences with Paul), among other telling character flaws.<span style="color: #b45f06;">14</span> The idea that man can be good on their own has shown itself, again and again, to be false. Being good at being a human is not what is required for salvation. Being a good person is different than being saved. Earthy goodnesses ultimate goal is still only going to be good enough for the earth. <br />
<br />
The organization called Good Inc. defines good by saying “Good is a question, not an answer…Our beliefs guide how we make sense of what’s good in the world. Good to us is when you live well and do good…We aim to create a world (and solutions) that do not force us to choose between what makes money and what does good, or what’s meaningful and what’s fun.”<span style="color: #b45f06;">15 </span>The guiding philosophy of organizations like Good Inc. indicates good is arbitrary based on what is good to them, they will not force a definition of what is meaningful and do not offer an answer but rather question. However, they will still try to make sense of what is good in the world. This creates a cognitive dissonance that is often seen when there is no objective moral grounding. Good is only good when it’s good for them. Good Inc. host events like Goodfest “Celebrating progress, positivity, and the power of people through music.” In an interview with Good Inc. Yoko Ono stated that to be good in this world all you have to do is think differently. “Your thoughts create reality. The most pragmatic way to create world peace is to use your power of visualization. Think Peace, Act Peace, Spread Peace, Imagine Peace. Your thoughts will soon cover the planet. The most important thing is to believe in your power. It works.”<span style="color: #b45f06;">16</span> The self-centered, internal thoughts and humanistic belief in one's own power is not a tenable method to gain the ultimate peace that can only be found through salvation in Christ. Thinking peacefully my gain temporary calm within oneself, but that is all the farther it will go. Even in the minds of good humans, there is a reason that the term self-righteousness has a negative connotation. Most individuals know that if one is always self-focused, even on good thoughts, it won’t cover the planet as Yoko Ono implies. Paul shares a similar statement in Romans 8:8 people who are self-centered aren’t able to please God. Humans cannot produce righteousness by themselves, that only comes through the power of the Holy Spirit of God.<br />
<br />
<br />
C.S. Lewis had it right in the Screwtape Letters when he said, ”There is nothing like suspense and anxiety for barricading a human's mind against the Enemy. He wants men to be concerned with what they do; our business is to keep them thinking about what will happen to them"<span style="color: #b45f06;">17 </span>When the focus is on the earthly goals, aspirations, worries, and human endeavors then the mind and spirit will not be able to focus on the will and desire of God.<br />
<br />
A study found in the journal of ISCON<span style="color: #b45f06;">18 </span>asked subjects to list up to 10 attributes associated with each of six different self-concepts. Each self-concept involved a particular domain of the self (i.e., the “actual” self, the “ideal” self, or the “ought” self) combined with a particular standpoint on that self (i.e., the subject's “own” standpoint or the standpoint of a significant “other”). As predicted, the actual-ideal discrepancy was generally associated with dejection-related emotions and symptoms, whereas actual-ought discrepancy was generally associated with agitation-related emotions and symptoms.<span style="color: #b45f06;">19 </span>These findings seem to line up with the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans 7:15-20 “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."<span style="color: #b45f06;">20</span><br />
<br />
Paul was clear, he could no longer rely on himself to be good, his goodness no matter how much he wanted to do good would never amount to anything, without the righteousness of Jesus. In Matthew, Jesus clears up any question as to what good means, “Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” Why do you ask me about what is good?” (Matthew 19: 16-17 ) Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Jesus told the rich young ruler what to do. “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.” (Matthew 19:21-22) Jesus knew the condition of the man’s heart, his desire was to do a good thing, but when faced with doing the righteous thing he went away sadly. Not because he was unaware of what to do, but rather because he was unwilling to do what had to be done.<br />
<br />
As one can see, bad people can do good things. However, it is more than good things that God is calling us to do. One must look past earthy good into the realm of righteousness. One must recognize that what the world views as good is only worth anything to the world. Often it has little eternal value. Therefore, when people say “I’m a good person, I deserve to go to heaven.” One should ask them good at what? Are they good at sports, are they good at recycling, are they good at being nice? Outward goodness is no match for inner goodness which Jesus called us. First and foremost Evil is a matter of the heart. Jesus made this very clear when speaking to the Pharisees, who were thought to be the example of goodness. Matt. 23:27 ”Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.” Even being active in the church is not reason enough to gain access to heaven. Many Christians have spent their time and energy focused on the outward good and have missed the mark of the inward good Jesus calls all believer to live by. This truth is summed up very well in Matt. 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’’<br />
<br />
Does this mean there is no hope for anyone? <br />
<br />
None of these things count when in comparison to what is being called of all believers, and that is righteousness. A difference between someone who is good and someone who redeemed can be summed up in the mentality of when they realize they have done something wrong. The questions, “Am I going to get caught? or “Is this a sin?” tell the overall worldview of the individual. <br />
<br />
The response that I have frequently given when talking to atheists and concerned believers on this topic is an analogy of a family reunion. While Dr. Jones may be a very nice human and while I like him as a professor, he is not a member of my family. Therefore when the Chase family reunion is hosted, Dr. Jones will not be receiving an invitation. If Dr. Jones had married my second cousin Gertrude, then Dr. Jones and his lovely bride would be more than welcome at the family reunion, and I bet he would do great at the three-legged race. God calls us to His family, the response is acceptance of that call and thereby inclusion into the family of God. There are immense benefits and rewards associated with this acceptance, including being welcome into the greatest family reunion that will ever take place in heaven.<br />
<br />
Like the rich young ruler, who had kept the earthly commandments and felt as though he was secure, many thought living a good life was enough, being nice, friendly to the elderly, willing to serve on the PTA, and taking snacks to T-ball games, or even dressing up as a clown for charitable fundraising events, but all these things don’t make someone saved. Being good at being a human is not the qualification that God is requiring of us. We are called to more than earthly goodness, we are called to salvation through Christ into righteousness. Jesus answered I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the father except through me.<span style="color: #b45f06;">21</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<hr width="80%"><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
<a name="1"><b>1 </b></a>Beach Boys, “Transcendental Meditation”, Friends, Capitol Records, 1968<a href="#top1"><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name="2"><b>2 </b></a> Billy Joel, “Only The Good Die Young”, The Stranger, Columbia Record, 1977
<a href="#top2"><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name="3"><b>3 </b></a> Black Eyed Peas, “I Gotta Feeling”, The E.N.D., Interscope Records, 2009
<a href="#top3"><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name="4"><b>4 </b></a> Mark 10:18
<a href="#top4"><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name="5"><b>5 </b></a> Matthew 7:9-11
<a href="#top5"><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“6”><b>6 </b></a> George Orwell (1970). “A Collection of Essays”, p.191, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
<a href="#top6”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“7”><b>7 </b></a> Cahill, Tim, and Russ Ewing. Buried Dreams: inside the Mind of a Serial Killer. Bantam Books, 1986. Pg. 48
<a href="#top7”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“8”><b>8 </b></a> Ibid. pg. 143
<a href="#top8”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“9”><b>9 </b></a> 1 John 3:15
<a href="#top9”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“10”><b>10 </b></a> Roberts, Glenys. “Sexual Torment of a Saint: A New Book Reveals Gandhi Tortured Himself with the Young Women Who Worshipped Him, and Often Shared His Bed.” Daily Mail Online, Associated Newspapers, 9 Apr. 2010, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264952/A-new-book-reveals-Gandhi-tortured-young-women-worshipped-shared-bed.html.
<a href="#top10”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“11”><b>11 </b></a>Ibid<a href="#top11”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“12”><b>12 </b></a> 1 Corinthians 11:1
<a href="#top12”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“13”><b>13 </b></a> John Lennon, “Imagine”, Imagine, Abby Road Studios, 1971
<a href="#top13”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“14”><b>14 </b></a> Norman, Philip. John Lennon: the Life. Anchor Canada, 2009.
<a href="#top14”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“15”><b>15 </b></a> Goldhirsh, Ben. “How We Define GOOD.” Philosophy | GOOD, www.goodinc.com/about/philosophy.
<a href="#top15”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“16”><b>16 </b></a> “GOOD Spends International Day of Peace With Yoko Ono.” GOOD, 17 Feb. 2015, www.good.is/articles/good-spends-international-day-of-peace-with-yoko-ono.
<a href="#top16”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“17”><b>17 </b></a> Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters. Macmillan Co., 1943. Pg. 28
<a href="#top17”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“18”><b>18 </b></a> The International Social Cognition Network, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucjtrc1/ISCON/
<a href="#top18”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“19”><b>19 </b></a> E. Tory Higgins, Ruth Klein, and Timothy Strauman (1985). Self-Concept Discrepancy Theory: A Psychological Model for Distinguishing among Different Aspects of Depression and Anxiety. Social Cognition: Vol. 3, Special Issue on Depression, pp. 51-76.
<a href="#top19”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“20”><b>20 </b></a> Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®
<a href="#top20”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
<a name=“21”><b>21 </b></a> John 14:6
<a href="#top21”><sup>↩</sup></a><br />
</span>
FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-53964169790497558652016-12-14T07:48:00.000-08:002016-12-14T09:11:48.816-08:00Not another "War on Christmas" Before I hear about the "War on Christmas" from anyone else this year I want to share something... If the worst thing you have to deal with is a nativity being removed from a city hall, a cross taken down from a tree on the city square, or any other number of stories about the ACLU "ruining Christmas" remember the Bible says, Matt. 10:22 "You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved."<br />
<br />
<br />
Remember (those of us who are Christians), being offended that the world does what the world is going to do doesn't steal from us as believers. If you let this stuff steal your joy then that's on you... NOT THEM.<br />
<br />
It just shows what was mentioned about 2,000 years ago that we shouldn't expect any less. This concept of government not accepting or promoting the Christian faith is not a new one... it's not Obama, it's not the Democrats, it's not the Supreme Court it's just the world being the world. I mean look at history for a bit, read Nero's persecution of Christians in AD 64, he hung Christians on burning crosses for fun, while dressed up like a circus act... seriously.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeaBQNo_Cq9FTLHk9wi33S8eu8V6O8fJhvSBd2OlvY7TBqJjXovNkoGi2z3veXVDpgZaFmejUgI76CvAReu38nqjl3eZ9yN4WmiGVXCEGH-8UoGNKF2E9mkjqMPcW06hrW09SuxDjRGf6k/s1600/Jean-Le%25CC%2581on_Ge%25CC%2581ro%25CC%2582me_-_The_Christian_Martyrs%2527_Last_Prayer_-_Walters_37113.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeaBQNo_Cq9FTLHk9wi33S8eu8V6O8fJhvSBd2OlvY7TBqJjXovNkoGi2z3veXVDpgZaFmejUgI76CvAReu38nqjl3eZ9yN4WmiGVXCEGH-8UoGNKF2E9mkjqMPcW06hrW09SuxDjRGf6k/s320/Jean-Le%25CC%2581on_Ge%25CC%2581ro%25CC%2582me_-_The_Christian_Martyrs%2527_Last_Prayer_-_Walters_37113.jpg" style="cursor: move;" /></a><i>“Therefore to eliminate this rumor he falsely produced defendants and inflicted the most extraordinary punishments upon those whom, hated for their crimes, the people called Christians. The origin of this name was Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate put to death in the reign of Tiberius; crushed for a while, the deadly superstition burst forth again not only throughout Judea, the source of this evil, but even throughout Rome, to which all horrible and shameful things flow from everywhere and are celebrated. Therefore the first persons arrested were those who confessed; then on their information, a great multitude was convicted not so much on the charge of setting fire as on hatred of the human race. Mockeries were added to their deaths, so that wrapped in the skins of wild animals they might die torn to pieces by dogs, or nailed to crosses they were burned to death to furnish light at night when day had ended. Nero made his own gardens available for this spectacle and put on circus games, mingling with the people while dressed in a charioteer’s uniform or standing in his chariot. As a result there arose compassion toward those who were guilty and who deserved the most extraordinary punishments, on the grounds that they were being destroyed not for the public good but for the savagery of one man” </i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>(Tacitus, The Annals 15.44.2-5)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<br />
Honestly it's time we stop getting offended and realize that we really have no "right" to be offended when the world acts like the world, we are called to so much more than this.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Jesus didn't die for you to have "rights" He died for you to be saved.</b></div>
<br />
<br />
If you are staking your hope on your "rights" then you are missing what was prophesied to be your future by Jesus himself. And if this is all it takes for you to start complaining about the world... my friends your faith is shallow. Do you stand on the Word of God or are you going to be offended at the world being what it has always been. <br />
<br />
I love you all and I am a firm Christian, but let's spend our time this season being Jesus, not being offended for Jesus. He doesn't need our offense, He already died and called us to do the same thing... and friends believe me when I say, he wasn't kidding when he called you to be willing to "take up your cross and follow Him." This is no cross... this is a stubbed toe at best.FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-29398695915733654742016-07-19T12:20:00.000-07:002016-07-19T12:20:00.857-07:00Book Review: Tactics, by Greg Koukl<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlgR3d1OXRUzFVQQIclCAesphyAmbOQsDs6ccyFTeIV9BOE-iMtAh144RNpK7nIrcZgoPflJc2pwRT4ZrkSHGg4PY0ZAylGF4QDskZU0ebVggjwa5NEWRF3UB3TD7KniJnPZ4RblgXymsD/s1600/71UbCFh%252Br1L.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlgR3d1OXRUzFVQQIclCAesphyAmbOQsDs6ccyFTeIV9BOE-iMtAh144RNpK7nIrcZgoPflJc2pwRT4ZrkSHGg4PY0ZAylGF4QDskZU0ebVggjwa5NEWRF3UB3TD7KniJnPZ4RblgXymsD/s320/71UbCFh%252Br1L.jpg" width="320" /></a> In his book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tactics</i>, Greg Koukl gives a very definite pattern of how to engage someone about one’s faith. Koukl breaks up the idea of the book into two sections: The Game Plan and Finding The Flaws. In each chapter, he develops the idea of a tactical, non-confrontational, non-offensive apologetic way to maneuver effortlessly in conversation with a variety of individuals. This process keeps the engager in the driver's seat becoming an effective ambassador for Christ in the process. Koukl’s no-nonsense approach gives people the freedom to share their faith in a manner that doesn’t seem forced or contrived. As he puts it, it is not about always “sealing the deal” but sometimes about just putting a pebble in the shoe of the listener to start them thinking. The tactics discussed here create a safe and level playing field for both the ambassador and nonbeliever. The Columbo Tactic is a straightforward and unforced maneuver that helps people interact without feeling like they are being steamrolled or caught in a conversation with no exit. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>256</o:Words>
<o:Characters>1463</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Hutto</o:Company>
<o:Lines>12</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>3</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>1716</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>14.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
</xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Arial;
color:black;}
</style>
<![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--> <!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Accurately following these tactics will prevent one from misdirecting or forcing the issue. By asking “what do you mean by that?” one can allow them to feel heard without manipulation or coercion. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tactics</i> is helpful on all levels of conversations from the everyday conversation in the grocery store or on the airplane to a deeper academic discussion on a campus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Koukl shows us that not all arguments are worth engaging in, and some commit suicide simply by pressing them in real-life application. Most importantly this book demonstrates to the reader that with a little practice and good listening skills a person can become an effective ambassador for Christ. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-29725240825617567222015-12-22T10:38:00.004-08:002016-06-21T19:25:43.775-07:00Is the Book of Mormon from God?<h1 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.2em;">
</h1>
<table border="0" style="color: black; font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top"><span style="background-color: white;">by </span></td><td valign="top"><span id="ctl00_cphPage_BblQuesContent_lblContentAuthors" style="background-color: white;"><a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/dm.aspx" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: red;">Dave Miller, Ph.D.</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /></span>
<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw7JMe1YEkbhzQ0uAjwCO8HKvK2m6AIiNpnhKN_w8iDJF3MHLgp7ECNZ7_CAf1wqIZ7T8spa2NDb0VUwqrmuvYXv9-WZF5zelkyN91YcllEvMosV1fsnJLutypp-zgoXp-wbPJW55HtAlJ/s1600/Questioning+Mormonism.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw7JMe1YEkbhzQ0uAjwCO8HKvK2m6AIiNpnhKN_w8iDJF3MHLgp7ECNZ7_CAf1wqIZ7T8spa2NDb0VUwqrmuvYXv9-WZF5zelkyN91YcllEvMosV1fsnJLutypp-zgoXp-wbPJW55HtAlJ/s200/Questioning+Mormonism.png" width="132" /></a><span style="background-color: white;">How may a person distinguish between truth and error? Can a person <b>know</b> which religion is right? Must a person rely on <b>subjective</b> inner inclinations and feelings? Or is religious truth ascertainable and knowable based on <b>objective</b> assessment? Most religions (e.g., Buddhism and Hinduism) base their credibility on some mystical or transcendental experience. Even some “Christian” groups (e.g., Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, et al.) claim that their credibility and authenticity may be established on the basis of the Holy Spirit Whom, they say, gives them their assurance. But when the Bible is examined, no such role is assigned to the Holy Spirit. Mystical religions have always existed, and have insisted that they were the recipients of leading and guidance from superior forces that are “better felt than told.” The God of the Bible, on the other hand, always offered evidence—<b>proof</b>—of the divine origin of the message before He expected people to believe (e.g., John 10:37-38; 20:30-31; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Deuteronomy 18:21-22).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The nature of truth is such that it does not depend upon subjective human experience for its veracity. Rather, God created human beings with minds that were designed to function <b>rationally</b>. We humans have the capability, if we maintain an honest heart free from bias, to consider and weigh evidence, and to draw correct conclusions. As Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). The truthfulness of religious claims is <b>verifiable</b> on the basis of evidence and rational thought. Humans can reason logically, and distinguish between truth and falsehood.</span></div>
<h2 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 1.25em; line-height: 1.2em; text-align: center; text-transform: uppercase;">
<b style="background-color: white;">NO ABSURDITIES OR CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS?</b></h2>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The nature of truth is such that it does not contradict itself. After literally centuries of scrutiny by hostile skeptics and unbelieving critics, the Bible has been found to be completely consistent with the nature of truth, logic, and the laws of thought. On the other hand, uninspired documents cannot stand up to such scrutiny. The <i>Book of Mormon</i> is one such document. <b>It lacks the marks of inspiration that characterize the Bible</b>. In an official publication of the LDS (Latter-day Saints), 31 conditions are identified as necessary in order to produce an inspired book. Condition #9 says, “You must not make any absurd, impossible, or contradictory statements” (see “The Challenge...,” 1990, p. 1). This affirmation is a self-evident truth. Yet, the <i>Book of Mormon</i> is guilty of violating this very criterion.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">In the first place, much of the King James Version of the Bible has been reproduced <b>verbatim</b> in the<i>Book of Mormon</i>—at least 25,000 words. For example, Mosiah 14 is a reproduction of Isaiah 53. 3 Nephi 13:1-23 is simply Matthew 6:1-23. Moroni 7:45 is copied from 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. Moroni 7:48 is 1 John 3:2. Moroni 10:8-17 is taken from 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. Alma 5:52 is Matthew 3:10. 2 Nephi 14:1-3 is Isaiah 4:1-3. The author of the <i>Book of Mormon</i> obviously had before him a copy of the King James Bible, and simply copied many sections directly from it. But this is only half of the problem on this point. The KJV is an <b>uninspired</b> <b>translation</b> of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into the English language of the turn of the seventeenth century, completed in 1611. But God gave the Old Testament to the Israelites in <b>their</b> native language (Hebrew), and He gave the New Testament in the first century in the <b>common language</b> of <b>that</b> day (Greek).Question: why in the world would God give His Word to Joseph Smith in <b>nineteenth-century America</b> (1830), not in <b>American</b> English, but in <b>the British language of seventeenth century England</b>? The obvious answer to the question is that <b>God would not do so</b>. This absurdity is inconsistent with the nature of God.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The reproduction of so much of the KJV in the <i>Book of Mormon</i> raises four additional concerns. First, Mormons frequently attempt to establish the superiority of the <i>Book of Mormon</i> over the Bible by insisting that the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries in the process of translation (a contention similar to Islam’s defense of the Quran). But if the Bible has been so adversely affected, why does the <i>Book of Mormon</i> quote so much of the King James Version? Apparently, at least <b>those portions of the Bible</b> are to be considered accurate!</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Second, all textual critics (those who study the original manuscript evidence that attests to the text of the New Testament) know that <b>textual variants</b> exist in the extant manuscript evidence. The vast majority of these discordant readings are resolved when all of the textual evidence is considered (e.g., Metzger, 1968, p. 185). If the <i>Book of Mormon</i> were inspired, not only would it refrain from incorporating the King James Version within its pages, it also would not include in those sections <b>the manuscript errors</b> that have crept into the text. Here was the perfect opportunity in 1830 for God to correct the mistakes that had accumulated during the previous 200 years (as well as the 1,500 years prior to the KJV). Instead, <b>the mistakes were perpetuated</b>!</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">For example, several textual variants occur in Matthew 6—a chapter that was reproduced in 3 Nephi 13. In Matthew 6:4, the Textus Receptus (the Greek text upon which the KJV was based) contained the words “himself” and “openly.” These insertions were perpetuated by the author of the <i>Book of Mormon</i> in 3 Nephi 13:4, as was the word “openly” in verses 8 and 16 of Matthew 6 (and 3 Nephi 13). Likewise, the Trinitarian ascription in 3 Nephi 13:13 and Matthew 6:13 in the KJV (“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen”) is not supported by the earliest and most important manuscript witnesses to the text of the New Testament. Subsequent translations, including the ASV, omit the sentence altogether, or, in the case of the NASB, place it in brackets. The manuscript evidence simply does not support these additions as being in the original, inspired autograph authored by Matthew. Many additional instances of the same type of faux pas can be cited. The one who was responsible for producing the <i>Book of Mormon</i> in these cases unquestionably (1) relied on the KJV and (2) demonstrated his ignorance of textual criticism.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Third, in addition to errors that are due to textual variants, the KJV also made <b>grammatical and stylistic</b> errors that were naively copied by the <i>Book of Mormon</i>. For example, in Hebrew, singular masculine nouns are changed to plural by appending “<i>im</i>” (pronounced “eem”)—the equivalent of “s” or “es” in English. The Hebrew words “cherub” and “seraph” are singular nouns. The plural forms of these words are “cherubim” and “seraphim.” The KJV translators mistakenly added an “s” to these terms to denote a plural form (e.g., Genesis 3:24; Exodus 25:18,19,20,22; Isaiah 6:2,6; Hebrews 9:5). Alluding to <i>cherubim</i>, Clarke explained: “[T]o add an <i>s</i> to this when we introduce such words into English, is very improper; therefore the word should be written <i>cherubim</i>, not <i>cherubim</i>s” (n.d., 1:56, italics in orig.; cf. Lewis, 1991, p. 59). Yet the original 1830 <i>Book of Mormon</i> reproduced the same mistake as the KJV in this regard (Alma 12:21; 42:2,3; 2 Nephi 16:2,6), though corrections were made in later editions. The unbiased observer is forced to conclude: God knows Hebrew; the author of the <i>Book of Mormon</i> obviously did not.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Another sample of stylistic error is the use of the expression “it came to pass.” This expression is a<b>Semitism</b>, or Hebraism, i.e., an idiomatic oddity or peculiarity of the Hebrew language that has no corresponding equivalent in English. Newer translations either drop it completely or render it with an approximate English equivalent like “it came about” or “it happened.” The KJV simply transferred the Semitism directly into English and, under its influence, has caused the expression to be naturalized into English religious usage. Nevertheless, it is not an idiom that is native to English. The <i>Book of Mormon</i> is literally inundated with the expression—as if the author was deliberately attempting to make his writing <b>sound</b> biblically or divinely authentic. In reality, he was unwittingly making it sound Semitic in seventeenth-century English! But God would not have communicated with Americans in 1830 through the convoluted pathway of Hebrew, to seventeenth-century British English, to nineteenth-century American English. Likewise, the peoples of the specific historical periods that the<i>Book of Mormon</i> claims to be depicting (e.g., the Nephites) would have had no earthly reason to have spoken in Hebrew themselves, nor to have their history reported in Hebrew phraseology and Semitic idiom. Apparently, later Mormon authorities, unable to completely eradicate this stylistic feature due to its extensive occurrence, were nevertheless so uncomfortable with the overuse of the phrase that they have deleted some of its occurrences when so many were used in close proximity with each other. For example, in Alma 14:7, the original <i>Book of Mormon</i> had three occurrences of “it came to pass”—in the same verse! Current editions have only one.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Fourth, in 3 Nephi 20:23-26, Jesus is represented as the speaker, and He applies to Himself the prophecy that Moses made in Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19. Yet, the author of the <i>Book of Mormon</i>unquestionably was relying on Acts 3:22-26, where <b>Peter</b> paraphrased the Deuteronomy passage, and then added <b>his own comments</b>. The <i>Book of Mormon</i> <b>mistakenly</b> has Jesus including Peter’s appended comments <b>as if they were part of Moses’ words</b> in Deuteronomy.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">In addition to the absurdities and contradictions that exist within the <i>Book of Mormon</i> in its close reliance on the KJV, contradictions also exist within and between the Mormon scriptures themselves. Consider, for example, the serious contradiction in the promulgation of polygamy. The <i>Book of Mormon</i> condemns the practice of plural marriages in no uncertain terms:</span></div>
<blockquote style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 12.74px; margin: 0px 3em;">
<div style="margin-right: 15.875px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was <b>abominable</b> before me, saith the Lord.... Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have <b>save it be one wife</b>; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts (Jacob 2:23-24,26-28; cf., 1:15; Ether 10:5; <i>Doctrine and Covenants</i> 49:16).</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">These referenced verses from the <i>Book of Mormon</i> enjoin <b>monogamy</b> with uncompromising vigor. Yet the <i>Doctrine and Covenants</i> flatly contradicts the <i>Book of Mormon</i> on this point:</span></div>
<blockquote style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 12.74px; margin: 0px 3em;">
<div style="margin-right: 15.875px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, <b>justified</b> my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an <b>everlasting</b> covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.... David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, <b>from the beginning of creation until this time</b>; and <b>in nothing did they sin</b> save in those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him <b>of me</b>, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and <b>in none of these things did he sin</b> against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife (132:1-4,38-39, emp. added).</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Two serious contradictions are evident. First, the <i>Book of Mormon</i> clearly condemned plural marriage as one of the “grosser crimes” and “whoredom”—at least among the Nephites. It specifically singled out the plural marriages of <b>David and Solomon</b>, denouncing them as an “abomination.” Yet <i>Doctrine and Covenants</i> insisted that David and Solomon were completely <b>justified</b>, and <b>committed no sin</b> in having multiple wives and concubines. If the author of the <i>Book of Mormon</i> and <i>Doctrine and Covenants</i> (allegedly Joseph Smith) had worded it differently, saying that God enjoined plural marriages at one point in history, but chose not to enjoin the practice at another point in history, or if he had said plural marriages were to be practiced by some people early in history but not by others later in history, then no contradiction would exist. For example, God enjoined animal sacrifice in the Old Testament, and then forbade its use in the New Testament. <b>But this is not what Joseph Smith did</b>! He <b>specifically</b> identified the polygamy of <b>David and Solomon</b>, and then made the mistake of both approving <b>and </b>condemning it! This constitutes a flat contradiction. Two statements are<b>contradictory</b> when they <b>cannot both be true</b> (cf. McGarvey, 1974, 3:31). [NOTE: Yet another indication of Joseph Smith’s uninspired status was his allusion in the above quotation (Jacob 2:27) to a man being permitted only one wife, but “<b>concubines he shall have none</b>.” This reference betrays an ignorance of the use of biblical terminology. A “concubine” in antiquity was a <b>wife</b>—not a <b>mistress</b>(unmarried sexual partner)—despite popular misconception (cf. Victor P. Hamilton’s article, “<i>pilegesh</i>,” 1980, 2:724)].</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Second, <i>Doctrine and Covenants</i> stated that the practice of plural marriage in this life is an<b>everlasting </b>covenant. The term “eternal” or “everlasting” as used in the Bible can sometimes be abbreviated to refer to a period of time of limited duration (e.g., Jonah 2:6). However, when additional terminology is employed that reinforces the primary meaning of “forever,” an abbreviated period is excluded. Terminology used in the <i>Book of Mormon</i> shows that “everlasting,” as applied to the covenant of plural marriage, was intended in its ordinary meaning of <b>forever</b>. Its application included one’s <b>entire earthly</b> sojourn, since the text says Solomon, Moses, and many others had practiced it “<b>from the beginning of creation until this time</b>.” Other references confirm this understanding: “both as well for time and for all eternity” (<i>D&C</i> 132:7); “in the world” (<i>D&C</i> 132:15); “on the earth” (<i>D&C</i> 132:46,48). Even Joseph Smith’s wife, Emma, was commanded to accept the additional wives given by God to her husband (<i>D&C</i> 132:52). Section 132 of <i>Doctrine and Covenants</i> claims to have been revealed to Joseph Smith in 1843. Yet 47 years later, on September 24, 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued an official declaration on the matter:</span></div>
<blockquote style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 12.74px; margin: 0px 3em;">
<div style="margin-right: 15.875px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice.... There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy.... And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land” (“Official Declaration<i>—</i>1” in <i>Doctrine and Covenants</i>, 1981, pp. 291-292).</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">In excerpts from three addresses that he delivered regarding this manifesto, Woodruff explained that if they continued to practice plural marriage, temples would be confiscated by the civil authorities, and the First Presidency and Twelve, and family heads, would be imprisoned. If, on the other hand, they ceased the practice, in order to abide by the law of the land, they would be able to continue the duties and ordinances of the church (including baptism for the dead). <b>Question</b>: Why would God refer to plural marriage as a <b>perpetual practice</b> that would bring damnation upon those who fail to practice it, and then call for Latter-day Saints to <b>refrain</b> from such marriages? God is timeless, and would have known ahead of time that the American government would reach a point at which it would call the Mormon practice of plural marriage to account. Therefore, He would not have enjoined the requirement as “everlasting” if He later intended to cease the practice. Nor would God have withdrawn one of His “everlasting commandments” simply because the law of the land by a pagan government made the commandment illegal and implemented persecution! <b>When in all of human history has God ever bowed to civil government in its opposition to His will?</b></span></div>
<h2 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 1.25em; line-height: 1.2em; text-align: center; text-transform: uppercase;">
<b style="background-color: white;">NO CHANGES?</b></h2>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Another legitimate affirmation listed in “The Challenge” is condition #10: “When you finish in 60 days, you must <b>make no changes in the text</b>. The first edition must stand forever” (p. 1, emp. added). “Houston, we have a problem.” Informed students of the Bible are well aware that no original autographs of the Bible are extant. We are completely dependent upon copies of copies of copies. Not so with the <i>Book of Mormon</i>. <b>The original 1830 first printed edition of the <i>Book of Mormon</i>exists! </b>In the words of Latter-day Saints President Wilford C. Wood in 1958: “I do testify that the uncut sheets of the complete First Edition of the Book of Mormon have been reproduced in its original unchanged condition; that this is a correct and perfect restoration of the First Edition of the Book of Mormon as received by the Prophet Joseph Smith and printed in Palmyra, New York in 1830” (prefatory material). Latter-day Saint authorities have repeatedly affirmed that the original <i>Book of Mormon</i> <b>contained no errors</b>. In 1883, a member of the First Council of the Seventy, George Reynolds, stated: “It was done by divine aid” (p. 71). Reynolds refers to the eyewitness account of Martin Harris—one of the scribes who participated with Joseph Smith in the translation of the <i>Book of Mormon</i> (p. 91). Joseph Smith claimed to have found gold plates that he translated into English using an instrument known as the “Urim and Thummim”—two white stones fastened together by a casing of silver, comparable to spectacles. Smith would hold the stones between himself and the gold plates. In 1881, the sixth president of the Mormon Church, Joseph F. Smith, explained the translation process (as reported by Oliver Huntington):</span></div>
<blockquote style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 12.74px; margin: 0px 3em;">
<div style="margin-right: 15.875px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the Book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence or word would disappear as usual (n.d., p. 168).</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">This procedure, that guaranteed complete accuracy of transcription, was further verified by David Whitmer. Whitmer, who continues to be listed in currently circulating copies of the <em>Book of Mormon</em>as one of the trio that constitute “The Testimony of the Three Witnesses,” described the process of translation in the following words:</span></div>
<blockquote style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 12.74px; margin: 0px 3em;">
<div style="margin-right: 15.875px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and <strong>when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear</strong>, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man (Whitmer, 1887, emp. added).</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">In view of the specific procedures by which the gold plates were translated, the <i>Book of Mormon</i><b>ought to be perfect</b>. Yet, when one compares the original <i>Book of Mormon</i> with a currently circulating edition, one observes that <b>many changes have been made</b> in the <i>Book of Mormon</i>since the original 1830 edition. This circumstance is completely unlike manmade translations of the Bible. All translators of the Bible are <b>uninspired</b> in their translating efforts. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, claimed to have been <b>supernaturally guided</b> in the process of translating the <i>Book of Mormon</i>, and preserved from making any errors. One official explanation as to why the original 1830 edition of the <i>Book of Mormon</i> was filled with grammatical mistakes and content blunders is—“printer’s errors.” This claim, of course, contradicts the above claim of President Wilford, who vouched for the authenticity of the existing 1830 edition and even included in his reproduction of it a “memorandum” by one of the original printer’s associates—John Gilbert. The memorandum recounts the care given to insuring accuracy in the printing of the manuscript that was brought to the printer by Hyrum Smith (Joseph’s brother), who, along with Martin Harris, supervised the project. Hence, the claim that “printer’s errors” are responsible for the errors in the original 1830 edition would be a suitable explanation if it fit the facts, but it simply cannot account for the types of mistakes contained in the <i>Book of Mormon</i>—<b>the types of mistakes printers do not make</b>.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Consider a few of the estimated 4,000+ grammatical mistakes that have been corrected in subsequent editions. The original 1830 <i>Book of Mormon</i> in Jacob 7:24 read, “but it all were vain.” Alma 48:25 read, “for the promise of the Lord were…” Alma 53:5 read, “it were easy to guard them.” 1 Nephi 5:11 read, “Adam and Eve, which was our first parents.” All of these errors have been corrected in more recent editions.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Consider also a few of the many changes that have been made that correct <b>content</b> mistakes. In Mosiah 21:28, “Benjamin” has been changed to “Mosiah” (since king Benjamin was already dead at this point in the narrative—Mosiah 6:4-5). In Alma 37:21, “directors” has been changed to “interpreters.” In 1 Nephi 13:32, “woundedness” has been changed to “state of blindness.” In Mosiah 27:29, “wrecked” has been changed to “racked.” In Alma 13:20 and 41:1, “arrest” has been changed to “wrest.” In Alma 17:13, “arriven” has been changed to “arrived.” The original 1830 title page listed Joseph Smith as “Author and Proprietor.” Now he is simply “translator.” In 1 Nephi 20:1, the phrase “or out of the waters of baptism” has been inserted. It was not in the original 1830 edition.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Printers occasionally transpose letters or garble a word or insert the same line twice or omit a word or two, perhaps a line here and there. But the above changes are not the kinds of errors that printers make.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">An honest and humble appraisal of these discrepancies should create great concern in the heart of one who believes Mormon documents to be inspired. Many criticisms have been leveled against the Bible over the centuries, yet have been answered decisively. If the <i>Book of Mormon</i> were from God, it, too, could be defended and its divine authenticity substantiated. However, the lack of adequate explanations to clarify such problems compel the honest individual to conclude that the <i>Book of Mormon</i> and the <i>Doctrine and Covenants</i> are not from God.</span></div>
<h2 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 1.25em; line-height: 1.2em; text-align: center; text-transform: uppercase;">
<b style="background-color: white;">REFERENCES</b></h2>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i>Book of Mormon</i> (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><em>The Challenge the Book of Mormon Makes to the World</em> (1990), (Euless, TX: Texas Fort Worth Mission).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Clarke, Adam (no date), <i>Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy</i> (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i>Doctrine and Covenants</i> (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Hamilton, Victor P. (1980), “<i>pilegesh</i>,” <i>Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament</i>, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Huntington, Oliver B. (no date), <i>Oliver Boardman Huntington Journals, 1842-1900</i> (Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State Historical Society).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Lewis, Jack P. (1991), <i>The English Bible From KJV to NIV</i> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), second edition.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">McGarvey, J. W. (1974 reprint), <i>Evidences of Christianity</i> (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Company).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Metzger, Bruce M. (1968), <i>The Text of the New Testament</i> (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Reynolds, George (1883), <i>The Myth of the “Manuscript Found</i>,” (Salt Lake City, UT: Juvenile Instructor Office).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Whitmer, David (1887), <em>An Address to All Believers in Christ</em>, [On-line], URL: http://www.irr.org/mit/address1.html.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Wood, Wilford C. (1958), <i>Joseph Smith Begins His Work</i> (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret News Press).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-right: 18.1719px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved</span></div>
<div class="socialMediaCallout" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; height: 10px; margin: 5px 10px 10px; vertical-align: top; width: 606px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="socialMediaCallout" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; height: 10px; margin: 5px 10px 10px; vertical-align: top; width: 606px;">
<br /></div>
<br style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Lucida Sans', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<hr />
<span id="ctl00_cphPage_BblQuesContent_lblContentFooter" style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: "lucida sans" , "lucida grande" , "lucida sans unicode" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br />Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.</span>FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-31142137769769649562015-11-19T10:55:00.002-08:002015-11-19T10:55:18.273-08:00God's Just Destruction of the Canaanites<h4 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.2em;">
<table border="0"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top"><span style="background-color: white;">by </span></td><td valign="top"><a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/el.aspx" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: black;">Eric Lyons, M.Min.</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</h4>
<div id="ctl00_cphPage_PubContent_pnlArticleAuthors" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Originally Published on Apologetics Press </span></div>
<div id="ctl00_cphPage_PubContent_pnlArticleAuthors" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Link to original Article <a href="https://www.apologeticspress.org/APPubPage.aspx?cid=4660" target="_blank">here</a></span></div>
<div id="ctl00_cphPage_PubContent_pnlArticleAuthors" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span id="ctl00_cphPage_PubContent_lblBodyText" style="background-color: white;"></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<img alt="" src="http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/rr/2013/Canaanites-Destruction-EL2.jpg" style="float: right; height: 105px; margin: 5px; width: 200px;" /><span style="background-color: white;">In the 1930s and 40s, the Nazi regime committed state-sponsored genocide of so-called “inferior races.” Of the approximately nine million Jews who lived in Europe at the beginning of the 1930s, some six million of them were exterminated. The Nazis murdered approximately one million Jewish children, two million Jewish women, and three million Jewish men. The Jews were starved, gassed, and experimented on like animals. In addition, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime slaughtered another three million Poles, Soviets, gypsies, and people with disabilities (see “Holocaust,” 2011 for more information). Most sane people, including Christians and many atheists (e.g., Antony Flew, Wallace Matson), have interpreted the Nazis’ actions for what they were—cruel, callous, and nefarious. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Some 3,400 years before the Holocaust, the God of the Bible commanded the Israelites to “destroy all the inhabitants of the land” of Canaan (Joshua 9:24). They were to conquer, kill, and cast out the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Exodus 23:23; Deuteronomy 7:1-2; Joshua 3:10). After crossing the Jordan River, we learn in the book of Joshua that the Israelites “utterly destroyed all that was in the city [of Jericho], both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword…. [T]hey burned the city and all that was in it with fire” (Joshua 6:21,24). They also “utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai” (Joshua 8:26), killing 12,000 men and women, and hanging their king (8:25,29). In Makkedah and Libnah, the Israelites “let none remain” (Joshua 10:28,30). They struck Lachish “and all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword” (10:32). The Israelites then conquered Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, Debir, and Hazor (10:33-39; 11:1-1). “So all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded” (Joshua 11:12). </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">God had the Israelites kill countless thousands, perhaps millions, of people throughout the land of Canaan. It was genocide in the sense that it was a <strong>planned</strong>, <strong>systematic</strong>, limited <strong>extermination</strong> of a number of <strong>nation</strong> states from a relatively small area in the Middle East (cf. “Genocide,” 2000; cf. also “Genocide,” 2012). But, it was not a war against a particular race (from the Greek <em>genos</em>) or ethnic group. Nor were the Israelites commanded to pursue and kill the Canaanite nations if they fled from Israel’s Promised Land. The Israelites were to drive out and dispossess the nations of their land (killing all who resisted the dispossession), but they were not instructed to annihilate a particular race or ethnic group from the face of the Earth.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Still, many find God’s commands to conquer and destroy the Canaanite nation states problematic. How could a loving God instruct one group of people to kill and conquer another group? America’s most well-known critic of Christianity in the late 1700s and early 1800s, Thomas Paine (one of only a handful of America’s Founding Fathers who did not claim to be a Christian), called the God of the Old Testament “the Mars of the Jews, the fighting God of Israel,” Who was “boisterous, contemptible, and vulgar” (Paine, 1807). Two centuries later, Richard Dawkins (arguably the most famous atheist in the world today), published his book <em>The God Delusion</em>, which soon became a <em>New York Times</em> bestseller. One of the most oft-quoted phrases from this work comes from page 31, where Dawkins called God, a “racist, infanticidal, genocidal…capriciously malevolent bully” (2006). According to one search engine, this quote (in part or in whole) is found on-line approximately one million times. The fact is, critics of the God of the Bible are fond of repeating the allegation that, because of His instruction to the Israelites to kill millions of people in their conquest of Canaan, the God of the Bible has (allegedly) shown Himself to be an unruly, shameful, offensive, genocidal, “evil monster” (Dawkins, p. 248; cf. Hitchens, 2007, p. 107).</span></div>
<h2 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1.25em; line-height: 1.2em; text-align: center; text-transform: uppercase;">
<span style="background-color: white;">WAS GOD’S CAMPAIGN AGAINST CANAAN IMMORAL?</span></h2>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">How could a supremely good (Mark 10:18), all-loving (1 John 4:8), perfectly holy God (Leviticus 11:44-45) order the Israelites to slay with swords myriads of human beings, letting “none remain” in Canaan? Is not such a planned, systematic extermination of nations equivalent to the murderous actions of the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s, as atheists and other critics of Christianity would have us believe? In truth, God’s actions in Israel’s conquest of Canaan were in perfect harmony with His supremely loving, merciful, righteous, just, and holy nature.</span></div>
<h3 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.2em;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Punishing Evildoers is Not Unloving</span></h3>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Similar to how <strong>merciful </strong>parents, principals, policemen, and judges can <strong>justly</strong> administer punishment to rule-breakers and evildoers, so too can the all-knowing, all-loving Creator of the Universe. Loving parents and principals have administered corporal punishment appropriately to children for years (cf. Proverbs 13:24). Merciful policemen, who are constantly saving the lives of the innocent, have the authority (both from God and the government—Romans 13:1-4) to kill a wicked person who is murdering others. Just judges have the authority to sentence a depraved child rapist to death. Loving-kindness and corporal or capital punishment are not antithetical. Prior to conquering Canaan, God commanded the Israelites, saying,</span></div>
<blockquote style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.74px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px 3em;">
<div style="margin-right: 16.75px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">You shall not hate your brother in your heart…. You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself…. And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself (Leviticus 19:17-18,33-34; cf. Romans 13:9).</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The faithful Jew was expected, as are Christians, to “not resist an evil person” (Matthew 5:39) but rather “go the extra mile” (Matthew 5:41) and “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39). “Love,” after all, “is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10; cf. Matthew 22:36-40). Interestingly, however, the Israelite was commanded to punish (even kill) lawbreakers. Just five chapters after commanding the individual Israelite to “not take vengeance,” but “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), God twice said that murderers would receive the death penalty (Leviticus 24:21,17).</span></div>
<h3 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.2em;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The Wickedness of the Inhabitants of Canaan</span></h3>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The Canaanite nations were punished because of their extreme wickedness. God did not cast out the Canaanites for being a particular race or ethnic group. God did not send the Israelites into the land of Canaan to destroy a number of <strong>righteous </strong>nations. On the contrary, the Canaanite nations were <strong>horribly depraved</strong>. They practiced “abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30) and did “detestable things” (Deuteronomy 18:9, NASB). They practiced idolatry, witchcraft, soothsaying, and sorcery. They attempted to cast spells upon people and call up the dead (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Their “cultic practice was barbarous and thoroughly licentious” (Unger, 1954, p. 175). Their “deities…had no moral character whatever,” which “must have brought out the worst traits in their devotees and entailed many of the most demoralizing practices of the time,” including sensuous nudity, orgiastic nature-worship, snake worship, and even child sacrifice (Unger, 1954, p. 175; cf. Albright, 1940, p. 214). As Moses wrote, the inhabitants of Canaan would “burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:30). The Canaanite nations were anything but “innocent.” In truth, “[t]hese Canaanite cults were utterly immoral, decadent, and corrupt, dangerously contaminating and thoroughly justifying the divine command to destroy their devotees” (Unger, 1988). They were so nefarious that God said they defiled the land and the land could stomach them no longer—“the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25). [NOTE: Israel was an imperfect nation (as all nations are), but God still used them to punish the Canaanites. God warned Israel before ever entering Canaan, however, that if they forsook His law, they, too, would be severely punished (Deuteronomy 28:15ff). In fact, similar to how God used the Israelites to bring judgment upon the inhabitants of Canaan in the time of Joshua, He used the pagan nations of Babylon and Assyria to judge and conquer Israel hundreds of years later.]</span></div>
<h3 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.2em;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The Longsuffering of God</span></h3>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Unlike the foolish, impulsive, quick-tempered reactions of many men (Proverbs 14:29), the Lord is “slow to anger and great in mercy” (Psalm 145:8). He is “longsuffering…, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Immediately following a reminder to the Christians in Rome that the Old Testament was “written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope,” the apostle Paul referred to God as “the God of patience” (Romans 15:4-5). Throughout the Old Testament, the Bible writers portrayed God as longsuffering.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Though in Noah’s day, “the wickedness of man was great in the earth” and “every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5), “the Divine longsuffering waited” (1 Peter 3:20). (It seems as though God delayed flooding the Earth for 120 years as His Spirit’s message of righteousness was preached to a wicked world—Genesis 6:3; 2 Peter 2:5.) In the days of Abraham, God ultimately decided to spare the iniquitous city of Sodom, not if 50 righteous people were found living therein, but only <strong>10</strong> righteous individuals.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">And what about prior to God’s destruction of the Canaanite nations? Did God quickly decide to cast them out of the land? Did He respond to the peoples’ wickedness like an impulsive, reckless mad-man? Or was He, as the Bible repeatedly states and exemplifies, longsuffering? Indeed, God waited. He waited more than four centuries to bring judgment upon the inhabitants of Canaan. Although the Amorites were already a sinful people in Abraham’s day, God delayed in giving the descendants of the patriarch the Promised Land. He would wait until the Israelites had been in Egypt for hundreds of years, because at the time that God spoke with Abraham “the iniquity of the Amorites” was “not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16). [NOTE: “The Amorites were so numerous and powerful a tribe in Canaan that they are sometimes named for the whole of the ancient inhabitants, as they are here” (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, 1997).] In Abraham’s day, the inhabitants of Canaan were not so degenerate that God would bring judgment upon them. However, by the time of Joshua (more than 400 years later), the Canaanites’ iniquity was full, and God used the army of Israel to destroy them.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Yes, God is longsuffering, but His <strong>long</strong>suffering is <strong>not</strong> an “eternal” suffering. His patience with impenitent sinners eventually ends. It ended for a wicked world in the days of Noah. It ended for Sodom and Gomorrah in the days of Abraham. And it eventually ended for the inhabitants of Canaan, whom God justly destroyed.</span></div>
<h3 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.2em;">
<span style="background-color: white;">What About the Innocent Children?</span></h3>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The children of Canaan were not guilty of their parents’ sins (cf. Ezekiel 18:20); they were sinless, innocent, precious human beings (cf. Matthew 18:3-5; see <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: black;">Butt</a>, 2003). So how could God justly take the lives of children, any children, “who have no knowledge of good and evil” (Deuteronomy 1:39)? The fact is, as Dave Miller properly noted, “Including the children in the destruction of such populations actually spared them from a worse condition—that of being reared to be as wicked as their parents and thus face eternal punishment. All persons who die in childhood, according to the Bible, are ushered to Paradise and will ultimately reside in Heaven. Children who have parents who are evil must naturally suffer innocently while on Earth (e.g., Numbers 14:33)” (<a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2810" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: black;">Miller</a>, 2009). God, the Giver of life (Acts 17:25; Ecclesiastes 12:7), and only God has the right to take the life of His creation whenever He chooses (for the righteous purposes that He has). At times in history, God took the life of men out of righteous judgment. At other times (as in the case of children), it was taken for merciful reasons. [NOTE: For a superb, extensive discussion on the relationship between (1) the goodness of God, (2) the contradictory, hideousness of atheism, and (3) God bringing about the death of various infants throughout history, see Kyle Butt’s article “<a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/260" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: black;">Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?</a>” (2009).]</span></div>
<h2 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1.25em; line-height: 1.2em; text-align: center; text-transform: uppercase;">
<span style="background-color: white;">CONCLUSION</span></h2>
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Though the enemies of the God of the Bible are frequently heard criticizing Israel’s conquest of Canaan, the fact is, such a conquest was in complete harmony with God’s perfectly loving, holy, and righteous nature. After patiently waiting for hundreds of years, God eventually used the Israelites to bring judgment upon myriads of wicked Canaanites. Simultaneously, He spared their children a fate much worse than physical death—the horror of growing up in a reprehensible culture and becoming like their hedonistic parents—and immediately ushered them into a pain-free, marvelous place called Paradise (Luke 16:19-31; 23:43).</span></div>
<h2 style="background: none rgb(222, 228, 231); color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1.25em; line-height: 1.2em; text-align: center; text-transform: uppercase;">
REFERENCES</h2>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
Albright, William F. (1940), <em>From the Stone Age to Christianity</em> (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins).</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?” Apologetics Press,<a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201" style="background: none; color: black;">http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201</a>.</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
Butt, Kyle (2009), “Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?” Apologetics Press,<a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/260" style="background: none; color: black;">http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/260</a>.</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
Dawkins, Richard (2006), <em>The God Delusion</em> (New York: Houghton Mifflin).</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
“Genocide” (2000), <em>The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language</em> (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
“Genocide” (2012), <em>Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary</em>, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide.</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
Hitchens, Christopher (2007), <em>God is Not Great</em> (New York: Twelve).</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
“Holocaust” (2011), <em>Encyclopedia.com</em>, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Holocaust.aspx#1.</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997<em>), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary</em> (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
Miller, Dave (2009), “Did God Order the Killing of Babies?” Apologetics Press,<a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2810" style="background: none; color: black;">http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2810</a>.</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
Paine, Thomas (1807), “Essay on Dream,” http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/paine/dream.htm.</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
Unger, Merrill F. (1954), <em>Archaeology and the Old Testament</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
Unger, Merrill F. (1988), “Canaan,” <em>The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary</em> (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).</div>
<div style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-right: 19.0469px;">
</div>
<div class="socialMediaCallout" style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; height: 10px; line-height: 18px; margin: 5px 10px 10px; vertical-align: top; width: 635px;">
<div class="twitter" style="float: left; text-align: center; width: 152.391px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.apologeticspress.org%2faparticle.aspx%3fcid%3d4660" style="background: none; color: black; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 20px; vertical-align: top;">Tweet</a></div>
<div class="fb-like twitter fb_iframe_widget" data-font="arial" data-href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/aparticle.aspx?cid=4660" data-layout="button" data-send="false" data-show-faces="false" data-width="450" fb-iframe-plugin-query="app_id=&container_width=153&font=arial&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apologeticspress.org%2Faparticle.aspx%3Fcid%3D4660&layout=button&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=false&show_faces=false&width=450" fb-xfbml-state="rendered" style="display: inline-block; float: left; position: relative; text-align: center; width: 152.391px;">
<span style="display: inline-block; height: 12px; position: relative; text-align: justify; vertical-align: bottom; width: 33px;"><iframe allowfullscreen="true" allowtransparency="true" class="" frameborder="0" height="1000px" name="f2d1a5ec34" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2FTlA_zCeMkxl.js%3Fversion%3D41%23cb%3Df48cb6d0%26domain%3Dwww.apologeticspress.org%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.apologeticspress.org%252Ff1f226fcc%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=153&font=arial&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apologeticspress.org%2Faparticle.aspx%3Fcid%3D4660&layout=button&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=false&show_faces=false&width=450" style="border-style: none; border-width: initial; height: 12px; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 8px; position: absolute; vertical-align: middle; visibility: visible; width: 33px;" title="fb:like Facebook Social Plugin" width="450px"></iframe></span></div>
<div class="twitter" style="float: left; text-align: center; vertical-align: top; width: 152.391px;">
<a href="mailto:?subject=Apologetics%20Press%20-%20God%27s%20Just%20Destruction%20of%20the%20Canaanites&body=http%3a%2f%2fwww.apologeticspress.org%2faparticle.aspx%3fcid%3d4660" style="background: none; color: black; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 20px; vertical-align: top;"><img alt="E-mail to a Friend" src="https://www.apologeticspress.org/App_Themes/COCMain/images/Email.png" style="border: none; vertical-align: top;" /></a></div>
<div class="twitter" style="float: left; text-align: center; width: 152.391px;">
<a href="https://www.apologeticspress.org/APPubPage.aspx?cid=4660#" style="background: none; color: black; margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 20px; vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Print This" src="https://www.apologeticspress.org/App_Themes/COCMain/images/Print.png" style="border: none; vertical-align: top;" /></a></div>
</div>
<br style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;" />
<hr />
<span id="ctl00_cphPage_PubContent_lblContentFooter" style="background-color: #dee4e7; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><br />Copyright © 2013 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.</span>FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-37704438894731379102015-04-28T13:12:00.003-07:002015-11-19T10:58:05.025-08:00Faith and Knowledge<br />
This article original publish on Apologetics Press<br />
<a href="https://www.apologeticspress.org/">https://www.apologeticspress.org</a><br />
by <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Bert Thompson, Ph.D.<br />
<br />
“As indicated earlier, there is not enough evidence anywhere to absolutely prove God, but there is adequate evidence to justify the assumption or the faith that God exists” (Thomas, 1965, p. 263, emp. in orig.).<br />
“Now we believe, not because of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Savior of the world” (John 4:42).<br />
It is evident that the two above statements stand in stark contradistinction to one another. The first statement suggests that people may hold to the assumption that God exists—a position the author identifies as “faith.” The second statement, from the pen of the inspired apostle John, describes some of the people of Samaria who had faith in the Lord’s deity because they knew He was the Savior—based on the evidence He had provided them.<br />
<br />
Obviously, both of these sentiments cannot be correct, for they represent mutually exclusive ideas of biblical faith. On the one hand, we are asked to believe that faith is an “assumption” made by a person who simply desires to believe something. On the other hand, the biblical record instructs us on the fact that knowledge is an integral part of faith, and that faith is not merely an “educated guess” or unfounded assumption. Why does this confusion over the topic of biblical faith exist? What is the relationship between faith and knowledge?<br />
<br />
WHY THE CONFUSION?<br />
<br />
Perhaps there is so much confusion surrounding the concept of faith because there are so many definitions from so many widely varied sources. First, faith has been defined by its opponents as “the power of believing what you know isn’t true,” or “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.” Second, even neutral authorities have added to the conflict, with reputable dictionaries suggesting that faith is a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof,” or “belief without need of certain proof.”<br />
<br />
Third, some in the religious community itself have been responsible for, or added to, much of the confusion. Examples abound. In his “Introduction” to The World and Literature of the Old Testament, John T. Willis has written: “The Bible claims to be inspired of God (II Tim. 3:16). There is no way to prove or disprove this claim absolutely, although arguments have been advanced on both sides of the issue. It must be accepted by faith or rejected by unbelief ” (1979, 1:11). J.D. Thomas, in his text, Heaven’s Window, wrote:<br />
<br />
In all matters of religious epistemology we come to the question of distinguishing between absolutely provable knowledge and that which is faith-dependent to some degree or other.... In other words, men of strong faith “act like” they have absolute knowledge, even though in this life they can never have more than a strong faith (1974, pp. 131,132).<br />
In his book, Dear Agnos, Arlie J. Hoover stated that “...faith, by standing between knowledge and ignorance, certainty and credulity, in a sense partakes of the essence of both. It has some evidence, which relates it to knowledge, yet it has some uncertainty, because the evidence is indirect” (1976, p. 28). Roy F. Osborne has suggested that “faith of any sort is based on probability.... In a world of fallible beings, imperfect senses, and partial experience, absolute certainty is only a theoretical concept” (1964, p. 132).<br />
<br />
If these writers are correct, faith is something based on little substantive proof, or, for that matter, no proof at all. Faith also allows men to “act like” they know something when, in fact, they do not. Further, at best faith is a probability proposition that may, or may not, have anything to do with truth. And, faith is seen as an entity composed of a small amount of knowledge and a big dose of uncertainty. Is it any wonder then that there is so much confusion in today’s world regarding the concept of faith and its relationship to knowledge.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, improper concepts of faith damage or destroy the effectiveness of Christianity. There are a number of reasons this is the case. First, unlike many other religions, Christianity always has been based in historical fact. From the historicity of Jesus Himself to the reality of His resurrection, Christianity has entered the marketplace of ideas with factuality as its foundation. To then turn and suggest that Christianity is based on an unproven and unprovable belief system nebulously termed “faith” is to rob Christianity of one of its most important constructs—verifiability rooted in historical fact. That which should be documentable is reduced to mere wishful thinking.<br />
<br />
Second, we live in a society in which an examination of the various evidences behind a claim has become practically an everyday occurrence. Whether we are purchasing an automobile or considering an advertiser’s boasts about its products, we routinely investigate a plethora of evidences that can prove, or disprove, what is being said. The Bible teaches that mankind is lost and in desperate need of salvation, which comes only through Jesus Christ. More often than not, the person who accepts and obeys the biblical message undergoes a radical change in both his thinking and his lifestyle. Surely the grand nature of Christianity’s claim is such that it requires both investigation and verification. For someone to suggest that Christianity, or the life-altering changes it ushers in, is based on little more than an unproven assertion (that might or might not be true) hardly could be viewed as a rational approach that would commend itself to intelligent people.<br />
<br />
Third, surely people in the world who are not yet Christians, yet whom we hope to see become Christians, are smart enough to see through a ruse that asks them to “act like” they know God exists, to “act like” they know Jesus is His Son, or to “act like” the Bible is His inspired Word when, in fact, they do not know those things at all. Further, if Christians simply “act like” they know, when in reality they do not, why are they not hypocrites? And why is the Christian—who eventually will have to admit that he does not really know these things—any different from the agnostic who readily admits that he cannot know these things?<br />
<br />
Fourth, any idea which suggests that faith is based on mere “probability” is at the same time tacitly admitting that there is some probability, however minute, that Christianity might just be false. In addressing this point, Dick Sztanyo has observed:<br />
<br />
To admit that Christianity is only probable is to admit the possibility that, in fact, it might be a hoax! Could you in your most irrational moment imagine even the slightest possibility of an apostle preaching the “God of probability” or the “God who may be”? ...I want to insist that there is not a single item in Christianity, upon which our souls’ salvation depends, which is only probably true. In each case, the evidence supplied is sufficient to establish conclusive proof regarding the truth of the Christian faith (1989, pp. 8-9,11, emp. in orig.).<br />
FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE<br />
<br />
What, then, is biblical faith? How does it relate to “belief ”? And what is its proper relationship to knowledge?<br />
<br />
Biblical Faith and Belief<br />
<br />
It is not uncommon to hear someone say, in regard to a belief that cannot be proven true, “It’s just a matter of faith.” Or, if someone is being advised about a particular course of action, the recommendation might be, “Just launch out on faith.” How many times has the comment been made that something is just “a leap of faith”? Certainly it is true to say that the word “faith” is used on occasion in each of these ways. And each of these statements may well express a certain belief. However, such a usage is not biblical faith. What is the relationship between biblical faith and belief?<br />
<br />
Is faith belief? Yes, faith is a kind of belief. The issue, however, centers on the kind of belief that is biblical faith. Belief refers primarily to a judgment that something is true. But belief may be weak or strong. If I say, “I believe it may rain tomorrow,” that is an example of a weak belief. It is an opinion I hold which, while I hope is true, and thus believe to be true, is nevertheless one that I cannot prove. However, if I say, “I believe the guilty verdict in the criminal’s trial is correct and just,” that is an example of a strong belief because I am able to present factual reasons for my belief, based upon available evidence. In addressing the idea of “weak” versus “strong” beliefs, David Lipe has stated that “...the difference in these two types of belief turns on the causes of the beliefs” (n.d., p. 3, emp. added). In his text, Critique of Religion and Philosophy, Walter Kaufmann listed seven causes of belief, the first of which was that “arguments have been offered in its support” (1958, pp. 132ff.). Thus, strong belief is a rational act based upon adequate evidence. Weak belief is produced by such things as emotion, vested interest, etc. (see Lipe, n.d., p. 4).<br />
<br />
Biblical faith is a strong belief based upon adequate evidence. In the New Testament, the noun “faith” (Greek, pistis) is defined as: “primarily firm persuasion, a conviction based upon hearing...used in the New Testament always of faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual” (Vine, 1940, 2:71). The verb “believe” (Greek, pisteuo) is defined as: “...to be persuaded of, and hence, to place confidence in, to trust...reliance upon, not mere credence” (Vine, 1940, 1:116). Thus, biblical faith is a conviction based upon evidence, and is “not mere credence.” The Bible does not recognize any such concept as a “leap of faith,” because biblical faith is always evidence- or knowledge-based. Peter urged Christians to be “ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). This corresponds directly to what Kaufmann would call a cause for belief because “arguments have been offered in its support.”<br />
<br />
Biblical Faith and Knowledge<br />
<br />
One of the foundational laws of human thought is the Law of Rationality, which demands that we draw only such conclusions as are warranted by adequate evidence. Agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell stated it this way: “Give to any hypothesis that is worth your while to consider just that degree of confidence which the evidence warrants” (1945, p. 816). Biblical faith adheres to the Law of Rationality, and seeks conclusions that have a confidence warranted by the available evidence. In producing biblical faith, both reason and revelation are employed. Geisler and Feinberg defined these terms as follows:<br />
<br />
“Revelation” is a supernatural disclosure by God of truth which could not be discovered by the unaided powers of human reason. “Reason” is the natural ability of the human mind to discover truth (1980, p. 255).<br />
These authors went on to observe that “the basic relation of reason and revelation is that the thinking Christian attempts to render the credible intelligible” (1980, p. 265). Using capacities for proper reasoning, the Christian builds faith based upon numerous avenues of evidence. Sometimes that evidence may be based upon testimony provided by revelation. Paul wrote that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17). Guy N. Woods has noted:<br />
<br />
Genuine faith derives from facts presented to the mind and from which proper and correct deductions are then drawn (John 20:30,31).... There is no such thing as “blind” faith. Faith itself is possible only when reason recognizes the trustworthiness of the testimony which produces it (1994, 125[11]:2).<br />
Skeptics, of course, have suggested that reliance upon the testimony of another does not necessarily result in personal knowledge. Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason:<br />
<br />
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it (1794, pp. 8-9, emp. in orig.).<br />
Paine’s assessment, however, is incorrect, as an examination of both historical and biblical cases will attest. Must testimony by necessity be diluted or destroyed simply because it has been passed from generation to generation? Not at all. We know George Washington lived, even though no one for the past several generations ever set eyes on him. We know of numerous other people and events in the same manner, as a direct result of credible testimony passed faithfully from age to age.<br />
<br />
Further, biblical information provides a good test case for the accuracy of information passed from one person to another. In Mark 16, the account is told of Mary Magdalene having seen the Lord after His resurrection. She immediately went and told other disciples who, the text indicates, “disbelieved” (Mark 16:11). Later, Jesus appeared to two men walking in the country. They, too, returned to the disciples and reported that the Lord was alive, but of the disciples it was said that “neither believed they them” (Mark 16:13). Were these disciples justified in rejecting the report of the Lord’s resurrection merely because they had not been eyewitnesses themselves? Was their disbelief somehow evidence of “intellectual integrity” on their part? Were they to be commended for their rejection of two different reports that originated with trustworthy eyewitnesses?<br />
<br />
No, the disciples were not justified in their disbelief. Later, when the Lord appeared to them, “he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen” (Mark 16:14). Thus, the Lord verified the principle that Thomas Paine attempted to refute. If Mary Magdalene had expressed accurately to the disciples what she had seen, and they in turn expressed accurately what they had been told, would this not constitute valid evidence-based testimony of the sort that would warrant genuine faith in the resurrection? Facts must be reported before they can be believed. In Acts 18, the circumstances are given in which “many of the Corinthians hearing, believed.” What did they hear that caused them to believe? It was the testimony given by Paul. Faith is thus seen as the acceptance of knowledge based upon credible testimony.<br />
<br />
Sometimes the evidence for faith may come by sight, as it did in the case of Thomas when Christ said to him after His resurrection, “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed” (John 20:29a). The Samaritans, mentioned earlier, believed on the Lord. The fact of their seeing Him did not preclude their believing on Him (John 4:41). There are times, of course, when faith and sight go together. Men sometimes walk by faith because of sight. Many came in obedience to the Lord during His earthly ministry because of what they heard and saw. During the early years of the church, many believed because of the miracles they saw performed. Much faith was produced by the actual events that were observed by those present.<br />
<br />
But what of those who have not seen those events firsthand? Do they have any less of a faith than those who witnessed such events? No, faith is not diminished by lack of sight. Jesus told Thomas, “blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29b). Paul observed that “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). Thomas had faith after sight. Today we have faith without sight, because of credible testimony from those who were eyewitnesses.<br />
<br />
What is the relationship between faith and knowledge? Does faith somehow rule out “knowing”? Can one both “know” and “have faith” at the same time, or is it an either/or proposition? In speaking to this issue, Woods has written:<br />
<br />
More recently, a much more sophisticated form of subjectivism has appeared wherein faith and knowledge are compartmentalized, put in sharp contrast, and each made to exclude the other. The allegation is that a proposition which one holds by faith one cannot know by deduction. This conclusion is reached by taking one definition of the word “know,” putting it in opposition to the word “faith,” and thus making them mutually exclusive. To do this is to err with reference to both faith and to knowledge! (1994, 136[2]:31).<br />
In John 6:69, Peter said to the Lord: “And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God.” Writing in 2 Timothy 1:12, Paul said “I know him whom I have believed.” The Samaritans told the woman who brought Christ to them, “Now we believe, not because of thy speaking; for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Savior of the world” (John 4:42).<br />
<br />
In his book on the relationship between faith and knowledge, The Concept of Rational Belief, Dick Sztanyo remarked:<br />
<br />
Biblical faith is built upon a prior understanding (knowledge) of what is to be believed.... Any conception of faith that severs it from its objective, epistemological base (foundation of knowledge) is at variance with biblical teaching! Biblically speaking, one does not believe that God is (or any other items to be accepted “by faith”): (1) against the evidence; (2) without evidence; and/or (3) beyond the evidence. Rather, one believes on the basis of evidence sufficient to establish the conclusion (1989, p. 3, emp. in orig.).<br />
Faith is directly linked to knowledge. Without knowledge (i.e., evidence), it is impossible to produce faith. Further, knowledge is critical in making faith active. Sztanyo has observed in regard to what he terms “rational” belief:<br />
<br />
This evidence enlightens the intellect which then makes a volitional commitment not only possible (since I now know what to believe) but also rational (i.e., I know what to believe)! Thus, faith is a volitional commitment of an informed intellect! Knowledge without commitment is disbelief (John 8:30-46; 12:42,43; James 2:19); commitment without knowledge is irrationality! Neither is a genuine option for a Christian (1989, pp. 18-19, emp. in orig.).<br />
In the Bible, faith and knowledge are never set in contradistinction. At times faith may be contrasted with a means of obtaining knowledge (e.g., sight), but faith never is contrasted with knowledge or, for that matter, reason. In addition, at times faith and knowledge may have the same object. The Scriptures make it clear that the following can be both known and believed: (a) God (Isaiah 43:10); (b) the truth (1 Timothy 4:3); and (c) Christ’s deity (John 6:69; cf. 4:42). Further, knowledge always precedes faith, and where there is no knowledge there can be no biblical faith.<br />
<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
<br />
In Hebrews 11 we find the “Hall of Fame of Faith,” because each person acted out of obedient faith to God’s commands. We are told “by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain...” (11:7), “by faith Noah...prepared an ark to the saving of his house...” (11:7), and that “by faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go unto a place which he was to receive as an inheritance...” (11:8). What does “by faith” mean in these statements? Were these people acting in the absence of evidence? Did they have no knowledge of what they were doing, or why they were doing it? Were they taking a “leap of faith”?<br />
<br />
In each of these instances, the people involved acted because they had knowledge upon which to base their faith. Cain and Abel obviously had been instructed on what would be a “more excellent” sacrifice. Noah had the dimensions of the ark set before him by God. Abraham did not set out on a journey with no destination; he travelled by directions provided by the Almighty. None of these individuals took a “leap of faith” or acted on what they felt was a “strong probability.” Rather, they acted because their knowledge produced biblical faith. Brad Bromling has addressed this very point:<br />
<br />
Some have made the mistake of thinking that faith is to be set in opposition to knowledge or evidence, as though the more one knows the less faith he needs.... This is a false concept of faith. Faith is knowledge-based!... When one gains knowledge of the truth, he is then in a position to engage his will and commit himself to the requirements of that knowledge (1988, 8:24).<br />
God’s wish is for “all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). It is His intent that we “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). Through such knowledge, upon which faith is ultimately built, we know that we are saved (1 John 5:13). The Lord’s promise was: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Because God has made the truth so plain, and so easily available, those who reject it shall stand ultimately “without excuse” (Romans 1:20).<br />
<br />
REFERENCES<br />
<br />
Bromling, Brad (1988), “In Defense of Biblical Confidence,” Reason & Revelation, 8:23-26, June.<br />
<br />
Geisler, Norman L. and P.D. Feinberg (1980), Introduction to Philosophy—A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).<br />
<br />
Hoover, Arlie J. (1976), Dear Agnos: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).<br />
<br />
Lipe, David L. (no date), Faith and Knowledge (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).<br />
<br />
Osborne, Roy F. (1964), Great Preachers of Today—Sermons of Roy F. Osborne (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press).<br />
<br />
Paine, Thomas (1794), The Age of Reason (New York: Willey Book Co.).<br />
<br />
Russell, Bertrand (1945), A History of Western Philosophy (New York: Simon & Schuster).<br />
<br />
Sztanyo, Dick (1989), The Concept of Rational Belief (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).<br />
<br />
Thomas, J.D. (1965), Facts and Faith (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press).<br />
<br />
Thomas, J.D. (1974), Heaven’s Window (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press).<br />
<br />
Vine, W.E. (1940), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).<br />
<br />
Willis, John T. (1979), “Introduction,” The World and Literature of the Old Testament (Austin, TX: Sweet).<br />
<br />
Woods, Guy N. (1994), “Faith Vs. Knowledge?,” Gospel Advocate, 136[2]:31, February.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Copyright © 1994 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.<br />
<br />
Link to original article:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=385">https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=385</a><br />
<br />
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.<br />
<br />
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:<br />
<br />
Apologetics Press<br />
230 Landmark Drive<br />
Montgomery, Alabama 36117<br />
U.S.A.<br />
Phone (334) 272-8558<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-53160503715849730642014-02-02T23:01:00.000-08:002014-02-02T23:01:02.828-08:00How to get Apologetics in your church, Four Lessons for the Apologetics Small Group<br />
<br />
This article was written by me and originally published on the site Apologetics315.com<br />
<a href="http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/06/how-to-get-apologetics-in-your-church-2.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/06/how-to-get-apologetics-in-your-church-2.html </a><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyMkg5MLxNEq616YYTOcj4poTiafT49dgvNaaXC2hAU61-6mwNtnNbTth8UJ01Em51rLCvbp4I0sgLXnsp0CgX8OV0NdNlHWNP4f2KWJ4I4dhly7e_tDxHy90t5Zevo6WNKT5PLPlB7wpl/s200/how-to-get-apologetics-in-your-church-2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyMkg5MLxNEq616YYTOcj4poTiafT49dgvNaaXC2hAU61-6mwNtnNbTth8UJ01Em51rLCvbp4I0sgLXnsp0CgX8OV0NdNlHWNP4f2KWJ4I4dhly7e_tDxHy90t5Zevo6WNKT5PLPlB7wpl/s200/how-to-get-apologetics-in-your-church-2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyMkg5MLxNEq616YYTOcj4poTiafT49dgvNaaXC2hAU61-6mwNtnNbTth8UJ01Em51rLCvbp4I0sgLXnsp0CgX8OV0NdNlHWNP4f2KWJ4I4dhly7e_tDxHy90t5Zevo6WNKT5PLPlB7wpl/s200/how-to-get-apologetics-in-your-church-2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyMkg5MLxNEq616YYTOcj4poTiafT49dgvNaaXC2hAU61-6mwNtnNbTth8UJ01Em51rLCvbp4I0sgLXnsp0CgX8OV0NdNlHWNP4f2KWJ4I4dhly7e_tDxHy90t5Zevo6WNKT5PLPlB7wpl/s200/how-to-get-apologetics-in-your-church-2.jpeg" height="200" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
<b style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, serif; line-height: 22.880001068115234px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Four Lessons for the Apologetics Small Group</span></b><br />
<b style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.880001068115234px;"><br /></b>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.880001068115234px;">
<i>by <a href="http://www.livewellblessbetter.blogspot.com/" style="color: #3366cc; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Randall Chase</a></i></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.880001068115234px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.880001068115234px;">
When I speak on the topic of Apologetics and designing an apologetics program I always try to implement a few key foundations that the student can take away with them. The four keys that I have seen to be most successful are:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">
1. Relationship building</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. Don’t speak beyond your knowledge base</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. Always be willing to learn</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4. Listen first, respond second</div>
<br /><b>Point One: Remember true relationship building is going to have the greatest lasting impact</b>. This means that it's not about how well you argue a point if the person that you're speaking to doesn't respect you as an individual enough to receive what you're saying. While you may get the point across, chances are he will not develop a lasting, life-altering outcome. The old saying “they don't care how much you know until they know how much you care” holds true even in the world of apologetics. This is the case too in the event of large debates, where two speakers are standing in front of an audience. The two speakers must have enough respect for one another to remain calm and collected, otherwise it simply becomes an argument. Not much is usually gained through simple argument.<br /><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="" name="more"></a><b>Point Two: Don’t speak beyond your knowledge base</b>. Nothing kills an argument or discussion quicker than when you throw out a piece of information that you simply looked up online or pulled from a blog and you can’t verify it. And NEVER make something up. There is nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know, but I will find out and get back to you.” This not only builds your credibility as a researcher but it also opens the door for follow-up conversations. Just remember that true research requires honest research. The following quote speaks volumes:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia; font-size: 13px; font-style: italic; line-height: normal; margin: 1em 20px;">
One of the most disastrous illusions of the internet age is that an amateur plus Google is equivalent to a scholar. A search engine offers information, more or less relevant according to the skill of the searcher. But it does not sift that information; it does not sort fact from fancy, wheat from chaff… A bright amateur armed with the internet may at best be better informed than he would otherwise have been, and he may occasionally catch a real scholar in a factual error. But it will not turn him into a scholar himself. There is no such thing as effortless erudition. —Dr. Timothy McGrew</blockquote>
<b>Point Three: Always be willing to learn</b>. There is a great need for learning and growing in the field of apologetics, before you ever get to the point that you can share what you have learned with others. You need to grow in your personal understanding of the truth claims in Scripture. Partly because at this point most aren't on the level of public debating, but rather we're just beginning to understand what it means to teach and how to organize an apologetics program. Everyone has to start somewhere, from C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and even Thomas Aquinas. They all began learning and growing at some point in their relationship with God. Likewise, they all started attaining to be more educated and learned in apologetics. The goal isn't to be a better arguer, but rather the goal is to first grow more in our personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Then with this we can share the truth.<br /><br />We see clearly that Jesus calls us to Love him with our entire mind. When He was talking to an Expert in the Law in Luke, one can see that there is just as much importance placed on Loving God with his Heart, as there is with loving Him with his Mind.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia; font-size: 13px; font-style: italic; line-height: normal; margin: 1em 20px;">
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Luke 10.25-29" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%2010.25-29" style="color: #3366cc; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Luke 10:25-29</a></blockquote>
If your ultimate goal is simply to learn how to debate well and win an argument there's other classes for that. This class should be the edifying and building up of fellow believers with the encouragement of the Holy Spirit within our life, and eventually to share the truth of the gospel with those around us. Each person has a different reason for desiring to grow apologetically. My personal desire was to be able to build up and edify in the mission field. Now understand: mission fields are not always some far off overseas place but they may be your neighborhood, school, or place of business. Start in your own backyard this is where God calls us first; it is our Jerusalem as in referencing to <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Acts 1.8" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%201.8" style="color: #3366cc; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Acts 1:8</a>.<br /><br />But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."<br /><br /><b>Point Four: Listen first, respond second</b>. Understand that when you do learn about your faith and the faith of others that you are maintaining a solid grasp on truth. This type of training isn't done so you can dominate the debate. Remember the key is compassion. When you speak to someone of a different faith or lack thereof, you must make sure they see first your compassion and then they are more likely to hear you. You must also learn the art of listening—this is one of the greatest lost art forms. So often if you watch debates with others or listen to conversations, people are so focused on getting their point out there that they neglect to listen and respond to the others concerns. This will immediately put you a leg up if you are willing to listen before you respond and then respond appropriately to the concerns laid out before you.<br /><br />Sometimes its just takes a person verbalizing a concern or hurt they have to begin a healing process for them, or to help them to understand the truth. Along with this know that when you do present something that is different from what they have thought and believed it may come as a shock to them. Oftentimes when I am speaking on the subject of the historicity of Christ, I am met with disdain and repugnance; once I am able to clearly elucidate the truth of the historical claims to Christ I am met with positive questions rather than smart retorts. Remember above all else you are representing Christ in all things, therefore do not get sucked into the trap of the quips and snide comebacks. These will shut the open mind of the genuine seeker quicker than anything. <i>Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Ephesians 4.2" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%204.2" style="color: #3366cc; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Ephesians 4:2</a></i><br /><br /><i>You can change the mind quickly, but changing the heart takes time.</i></div>
</div>
FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-65865285249706004472013-11-27T11:17:00.001-08:002013-11-27T11:17:52.648-08:00Book Review: Counterfeit Gospels by Trevin Wax<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiasWRYbwSGZAWVl-l77KSE4yWm_4__MCvzDEz736bBjM2NHpL9g8m3ULT7cSEozOiTGVttKFLeU2Xh6iQhBycLi3LDFTKRlYgmPuLpaXqqrBBmvTuYTcJzKFhQgvBfHWDaN68Td-g9JrGS/s1600/Counterfit+Gospel+3d+book.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiasWRYbwSGZAWVl-l77KSE4yWm_4__MCvzDEz736bBjM2NHpL9g8m3ULT7cSEozOiTGVttKFLeU2Xh6iQhBycLi3LDFTKRlYgmPuLpaXqqrBBmvTuYTcJzKFhQgvBfHWDaN68Td-g9JrGS/s400/Counterfit+Gospel+3d+book.jpg" width="282" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<ul style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Paperback:</b> 240 pages</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Publisher:</b> Moody Publishers; New Edition edition (March 24, 2011)</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">ISBN-10:</b> 080242337X</li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
For generations the church has attempted to overcome false
gospels. Those "lost" sections of scripture that attempted to distort
and change the words of Jesus. However the modern church is in a crisis, not of
changed words of Jesus but a change perceptions of the meaning of the Gospel.
In an attempt to make the gospel more easy to understand, more palatable, less
controversial, and all and all less dangerous it has created a counterfeit
gospel. This gospel is even more dangerous because it hasn't changed the Bible
itself necessarily but rather exchange the dictates and the standards by which
we should be held to. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
In Counterfeit Gospels <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/" target="_blank">Trevin Wax</a> describes the threefold crisis in the church:</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
</div>
<ol>
<li>A lack of confidence in the Gospel</li>
<li>A lack of clarity in the Gospel </li>
<li>A lack of Gospel community</li>
</ol>
<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
The book describes the counterfeits very well. With the "three legged
stool" approach to the gospel Wax tells what counterfeits are eating away at
each leg of the stool. From the idea of the <b>Therapeutic Gospel:</b> which looks good on
the outside but doesn't really take care of the root of the problem,
and the J<b>udgmentless Gospel: </b>this basically says we're all going to heaven and
who you to judge me? We see this problem very prevalent in the modern church. We
don't want to hurt anyone's feelings with the gospel because that "wouldn't be
nice".<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
The seeker friendly attitude that has become prevalent in
many churches today has water down the truth of the Gospel. What Jesus said was
hard-hitting, edgy, and honestly not as culturally appealing as some might really
think or wanted to be. Truth be told it was rather counterculture, but we want
to try to make it as easily palatable as possible. Acceptance of the Gospel
requires a life change, the difficulty in getting there is that a true life
change must occur out of the knowledge of where a person is, is not where
they should be. Hopefully with books
like <b>counterfeit gospel</b> we will be willing and able to stand up for what is
actual truth not just easily palatable truth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
I have personally seen this type of counterfeit gospel at
work in the church for a long time and it's incredibly disheartening. Mostly
because it's something that comes from the people of the congregation. and pastors generally just allowed to continue on. Pastors as the leaders are held
to a higher responsibility to stand up for truth to stand up for the right
reading of the Word and to know that we are the leaders of those communities.
If we are not leading our people, they will begin falling behind and they will
fall away. Much of it is because we are preaching a counterfeit gospel. I
would recommend this book for most evangelical pastors to read through and
truly evaluate what's being said on Sunday morning and also what's being talked
about our sermons on Monday afternoon keep in mind just because you preach it
doesn't mean your church members are following it. This would be a good
recommend read for a small group or community Sunday school class. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
FTC Disclaimer: </div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
These books/products are given to me to evaluate and decide if I like them or not and then write an honest review about them that I display on this blog. I do no receive monetary compensation for these reviews and all my reviews state my honest opinion of the products/books. I am in no way swayed by any type of bribery or cajoling. My opinions are my own and will be negative or positive depending on the book or product.</div>
FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-77631690847646359882013-11-17T20:21:00.001-08:002013-11-17T20:21:48.435-08:00FTC Disclaimer<div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Since the FTC has so kindly taken to regulate bloggers I have to state that, yes I get free books and sometimes products to review. These books/products are given to me to evaluate and decide if I like them or not and then write an honest review about them that I display on this blog. I do no receive monetary compensation for these reviews and all my reviews state my honest opinion of the products/books. I am in no way swayed by any type of bribery or cajoling. My opinions are my own and will be negative or positive depending on the book or product.</span></div><div><br></div>FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-3373604317695715682013-11-09T08:49:00.002-08:002013-11-09T08:49:56.147-08:00In the spirit of giving... and Coffee #OperationRedCup<object height="268" id="otvPlayer" style="clear: left; float: left;" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/static/flash/embeddedPlayer/swf/otvEmLoader.swf?version=fw1000&station=wtvd§ion=&mediaId=9318879&cdnRoot=http://cdn.abclocal.go.com&webRoot=http://abclocal.go.com&configPath=/util/&site=" ></param>
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param>
<param name="allowNetworking" value="all"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<embed id="otvPlayer" width="400" height="268" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true"
src="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/static/flash/embeddedPlayer/swf/otvEmLoader.swf?version=fw1000&station=wtvd§ion=&mediaId=9318879&cdnRoot=http://cdn.abclocal.go.com&webRoot=http://abclocal.go.com&configPath=/util/&site="></embed></object><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is an amazing story floating out there right now about a Raleigh NC mom of two, named <a href="http://momentswithlove.blogspot.com/2013/11/operation-red-cup.html?m=1" target="_blank">Sunny Myers</a>, who after having a "really bad parenting in the trenches day" (her words not mine) decided to post a picture of her Starbucks card on <a href="http://instagram.com/twosmartypants" target="_blank">Instagram</a> to encourage people to buy coffee for one another. This has gone viral (of course,<b> Coffee + Giving = Viral Content</b>)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The cool part about this is that everyone can get involved, if you want to participate all you need to do is show the card at the register have them scan it. If there is any money on the card you get to get free coffee <span style="font-size: large;">MAKE SURE YOU TAKE A PIC</span> and post it <b>#OperationRedCup </b>and if there isn't well then you need to reload it <strike>(cheapskate)</strike> I recommend putting <span style="font-size: xx-small;">At lest </span>$10.00 on it, why not, imagine what that could mean to some other mom (or dad) of two or in my case four... I could use a coffee break, I am writing two papers on the evidences for and against "Quantum Mechanics and its effect on the brain" (sorry don't mean to lose you) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img src="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/wtvd/cms_exf_2007/automation/images/9318664_600x338.jpg" /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Check out the whole story here:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><a href="http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9318665" target="_blank">Free Starbucks Goes Viral</a> </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b>
and follow Sunny's blog:<b> </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><a href="http://momentswithlove.blogspot.com/2013/11/operation-red-cup.html?m=1" target="_blank">Moments with Love</a></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">and on Instagram:</span><br />
<a href="http://instagram.com/twosmartypants" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>TwoSmartyPants</b></span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-70605681385718051622013-11-04T21:39:00.000-08:002013-11-04T21:39:00.112-08:00Review True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism<div class="tiny" style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="tiny" style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism (Kindle Edition)</span></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikydVhWN4fRakG8ke6mfmJMv_HKE_xIgx4ZoUMsP4wOFPi5cUSNrHWhMtZCOOFzuABat2hxABFSo4wYI-eM0z_-K8eoIp5TdcoGqpl4IMUwpSwEhEZwVd-z9cV578x1-Pz5q1v51qqYUdg/s1600/True+Reason+Christian+Responses+to+the+Challenge+of+Atheism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikydVhWN4fRakG8ke6mfmJMv_HKE_xIgx4ZoUMsP4wOFPi5cUSNrHWhMtZCOOFzuABat2hxABFSo4wYI-eM0z_-K8eoIp5TdcoGqpl4IMUwpSwEhEZwVd-z9cV578x1-Pz5q1v51qqYUdg/s1600/True+Reason+Christian+Responses+to+the+Challenge+of+Atheism.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="tiny" style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<br />
<ul style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>Print Length:</b> 278 pages</li>
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>Publisher:</b> Patheos Press (March 9, 2012)</li>
<li id="sold-by-merchant" style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>Sold by:</b> Amazon Digital Services, Inc.</li>
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>Language:</b> English</li>
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>ASIN:</b> B007J71S62</li>
</ul>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">I have read many of the books on both sides of the debate myself, from God Delusion, God is not Great, Portable Atheist, and many others, by Harris, Dennett, Dawkins and Hitchens, as well as the "oldies" by Darwin, Russell, and others. Being well versed on the New Atheist perspective and also a university level educator. I can say that this book holds reason and rational thinking to the light. It is not personal digs or venting half-cocked ideologies like those who are claiming to be the "brights" or the reasonable ones of the New Atheist Leadership. True Reason is simply straightforward easy to read and logically laid out.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">This book very clearly and without the sarcastic belittling (that many New Atheists write with) held the feet to the fire of the outrageous, ridiculousness, and often just misguided claims made in many of the aforementioned books.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">I feel like regardless of your personal belief or unbelief, if you are truly interested in Reason and Rationality, and not an obfuscation of bad historicity, poor rules of logic, or sophomoric philosophy (though as Alvin Plantiga says, that is even unfair to sophomores) then this book is well worth the nominal price.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Unlike Michael Ruse, philosopher of biology at Florida State University. Who said "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">True Reason makes me proud to be a Christian.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-57922010288790068002013-10-30T20:41:00.000-07:002013-10-30T22:28:03.467-07:00Review: The IVP Concise Atlas of Bible History<br />
<div class="" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: x-large;"><span style="line-height: 42px;"></span></span></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both;">
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 32px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 42px;">The IVP Concise Atlas of Bible History</span></h4>
</div>
<h4>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJDq4fSQn8xV-Q2rVRvTtwcW28SMh510VEHoJjPpnzJoCXHwBtl8xOZewE1XLI6WfXUzusU3IpAJ2bZnCeIa0maeCC4Z9j2UMs_UOgNfzu4pR9Jjx-SvZBpdcKzPRjJ2SSRAlThJFHJQnQ/s1600/The+IVP+Concise+Atlas+of+Bible+History.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Book Review" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJDq4fSQn8xV-Q2rVRvTtwcW28SMh510VEHoJjPpnzJoCXHwBtl8xOZewE1XLI6WfXUzusU3IpAJ2bZnCeIa0maeCC4Z9j2UMs_UOgNfzu4pR9Jjx-SvZBpdcKzPRjJ2SSRAlThJFHJQnQ/s1600/The+IVP+Concise+Atlas+of+Bible+History.jpg" height="320" title="The IVP Concise Atlas of Bible History" width="229" /></a></h4>
<h4>
</h4>
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 19px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li></li>
</ul>
</h4>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="line-height: 42px;"><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: x-large;"></span></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0976563); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(191, 107, 82, 0.496094); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 32px; line-height: 42px;">
<b style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Paperback:</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> 192 pages</span><br />
<b style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Publisher:</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> IVP Academic (September 27, 2013)</span><br />
<b style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Language:</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> English</span><br />
<b style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">ISBN-10:</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> 0830829288</span></div>
<div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118); font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 42px;">
This book is a wonderful full color, very well laid out easy to read yet highly informative structure. This concise version of the classic IVP Atlas of Bible History packs a punch with:</div>
<div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118); font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 42px;">
<ul>
<li>Great photos and Images</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>One hundred maps </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>A variety of panoramic reconstructions </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Multiple site plans</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Clear chronological charts</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>And much more</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118); font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 42px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118); font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 42px;">
This volume contains the latest findings of historians and archaeologists. From the origin of the Bible & Creation all the way through to the beginning of the New Testament Church and spread of early Christianity around AD 337.</div>
<div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118); font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 42px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118); font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 42px;">
The Concise edition benefits from a four-color design with highlight images, maps and charts is a must to any student of biblical geography, history or anyone just interested in knowing more than what the maps at the back of your Bibles shares. Its designed to be read at various education levels so that everyone from teachers to laypeople can understand the mapping of the Bible. This lightweight version will be a welcome addition to any course work at the college or graduate school level and serve as a great companion for personal or group study. </div>
<div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118); font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 42px;">
<br />
Paul Lawrence studied Akkadian, Hebrew and Near Eastern archaeology at University of Liverpool. He earned his Ph.D for his work on the relationship of Assyrian generals to the king. He is currently working on Bible translations for SIL International and is the author of The Books of Moses Revisited.</div>
FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-1999283231652165372013-10-14T19:59:00.001-07:002013-10-30T21:52:55.979-07:00Open the eyes of the Watchmaker<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHa36C0kY38wASPe74NFlbasLOQq8Eu2CJZZ8ulcdfPuRkqlmg0GMIYrkBbS_Sp0maPaziRiYJjYgvQGNgD182XUXWmBQ1sQIL3KFIyG9AaPjB_TXj7VN08v3VxqFPROHQyvAiv44FzJWG/s640/blogger-image--1993806806.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHa36C0kY38wASPe74NFlbasLOQq8Eu2CJZZ8ulcdfPuRkqlmg0GMIYrkBbS_Sp0maPaziRiYJjYgvQGNgD182XUXWmBQ1sQIL3KFIyG9AaPjB_TXj7VN08v3VxqFPROHQyvAiv44FzJWG/s640/blogger-image--1993806806.jpg" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are many scientific camps that are beginning to open their minds to consider the philosophical and scientific worldview espoused by the Intelligent Design movement. As discussed in Dr. Fazale Rana's book The Cell’s Design, the best way to use biochemical information to make the case for intelligent design rests on analogical reasoning in the tradition of Watchmaker analogy. While men like Richard Dawkins have tried to discredit this analogy by declaring the watchmaker to be blind, his perspectives can't overcome the obvious glaring truths that the systems found in nature beg for a designer. </div>
<div>
The similarities between man-made information systems and those found in the cell, expressed in the form of an analogy, logically and reasonably leads to the conclusion that biochemical design is intelligent design. Based on this line of reasoning, life does indeed appear to be the work of a Creator.</div>
<div>
The Cell, in its highly complex form shows what many secular Origin of Life scientists like Leslie Orgel and Paul Davies concede as design elements. Like the amazing mechanical engineering that is witnessed in the bacterial flagellum with its universal joint, propeller, drive shaft and rotor. Hume’s old and outdated argument that these appearances and analogies don’t stand up to the rigors of science have begun to diminish even more in the current light of proper analogical reasoning. There still is an unfortunate tendency within certain apologetic circles to take less convincing arguments and use them, due to their appeared value in a non-academic world. This only hurts the apologists ability to seem Relevent to modern science. </div>
<div>
However when you look at the biological arguments that stand up to reasons exam, you will find that many of the best arguments are those that have similar findings as man-made machines. Dr. Rana looks at a few instances where nanotrechnology seems to attempt to mimic the natural order of the cell to create machines, however even in our abilities we are unable to create an exact replica of the complex machines that exist within the cell. </div>
<div>
The strength of the argument lies within the ability of the cell to continue to impress and confound those scientists that are trying to explain away the clear general revelation that is witnessed within the world. To this I say, keep the open mind to reason that you declare to have and as more fingers point to an intelligent designer be willing to accept this just as you would any other hypothesis that after continued testing shows itself to be true. Don't just relegate the I.D. Movement to the far corners of the philosophy or theology department but as other scientists have begun to open their eyes to it, you do the same. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-5695171570261217142013-08-21T14:38:00.002-07:002013-10-30T20:43:31.649-07:00Review: Virtuous Minds<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTW-UVnJEPpXgN9TMDUoT6AEySbgWPr4v3jSydzMNCDjFVBxqJqibb0f-reUshiKyYHJfg33o8YsinlFLzP7Bwforwk-5QaXfYsXKaSczjD4HTIxZh5onXDE7J6Pv-031jD8tmlDSf6mBt/s1600/Virtuous+Minds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTW-UVnJEPpXgN9TMDUoT6AEySbgWPr4v3jSydzMNCDjFVBxqJqibb0f-reUshiKyYHJfg33o8YsinlFLzP7Bwforwk-5QaXfYsXKaSczjD4HTIxZh5onXDE7J6Pv-031jD8tmlDSf6mBt/s1600/Virtuous+Minds.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">VIRTUOUS MINDS [Paperback]</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small; text-align: justify;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: justify;">Philip E. Dow </span><span class="byLinePipe" style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: justify;">(Author)</span><br />
<span class="byLinePipe" style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"></span><span class="byLinePipe" style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"></span></div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; list-style: none; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em; outline: none; padding: 0px;"><b>Publisher:</b> IVP Academic (2013)</li>
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em; outline: none; padding: 0px;"><b>ISBN-10:</b> <span style="color: black; text-align: left;">0830827145</span></li>
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em; outline: none; padding: 0px;"><b>ISBN-13:</b> <span style="color: black; text-align: left;"> 978-0830827145</span></li>
<li></li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br />
<br />
This book brings up key issues facing the modern church and
Christians alike. For quite some time the, "God did it, and that enough
for me" answer was sufficient and the idea of a "God of the
Gaps" seemed to be a valid response to the tough questions. However we live
in a modern era of having to put aside not only rage, anger, brawling, and
slander, but also intellectual laziness, arrogance, ignorance and cowardice.
When taking God at His word, it doesn't mean that we simply stop seeking out
truth or that we don't attempt to search out for completeness in our knowledge
of who He is and how He operates in our world. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>"Intellectual
character is the force of accumulated thinking habits that shape and color
every decision we make."<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Being Virtuous in our mind has always had a connotation of
upholding purity in our thoughts, which is valid and needed. But we must also
hold up in our minds the intellect that God has given us. Honest curiosity
seeks after the truth in a balanced and objective way. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I Love that Philip E. Dow breaks down "The Seven
Intellectual Virtues" with such insight and understanding. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1. Intellectual Courage<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2. Intellectual Carefulness<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
3. Intellectual Tenacity<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
4. Intellectual Fair-mindedness<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
5. Intellectual Curiosity<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
6. Intellectual Honesty<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
7. Intellectual Humility<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Without one of these we run the risk of faltering on our journey
to education, engagement, and integrity. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
This book recommends that instead of shutting off when we
feel tired, pick up a book and learn something. Like a marathon runner, you
don't simply wake up one morning and jog the whole thing. You practice and
build up stamina, start walking then build up with a half mile jog, keep going up
to a full mile and so on. This analogy is a great one, since I am a runner I
understand the difficulty that comes with a long run. Likewise we must train
our minds daily to be ready when the time comes to put them to the test. These
keys to Intellect are often overlooked in a world where it seems like “might
makes right” or he that shouts loudest wins. With the rise of the New Atheist
movement and those who are so clearly intellectually deficient, yelling at the
top of their lungs falsehoods and lies. We must stand firm and rise up to a
level of better thinking and truly Love God With All Our Minds!<o:p></o:p></div>
FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-21383344116378049932013-05-13T10:59:00.002-07:002013-10-30T20:45:35.369-07:00Review: Abusing Scripture: The Consequences of Misreading the Bible By, Manfred Brauch IVP Academic<br />
<h1 class="parseasinTitle " style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><strike></strike></span></h1>
<h1 class="parseasinTitle " style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.7em; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</h1>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-lM4YBeSVdANrmRD5SxhbTVCIsjhhDMp4zKGrf387x6KZu7KUoRlSrPFqrYKraScPegYazWJ9wBczbRa5T3pe9xGn1zseWMcut6jMivn5Yhl1Xs4XzqcZMVF1zRcrTz5kLY5j6q1J9T14/s1600/Abusing+Scripture+The+Consequences+of+Misreading+the+Bible+Paperback.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-lM4YBeSVdANrmRD5SxhbTVCIsjhhDMp4zKGrf387x6KZu7KUoRlSrPFqrYKraScPegYazWJ9wBczbRa5T3pe9xGn1zseWMcut6jMivn5Yhl1Xs4XzqcZMVF1zRcrTz5kLY5j6q1J9T14/s1600/Abusing+Scripture+The+Consequences+of+Misreading+the+Bible+Paperback.jpg" title="" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">Abusing Scripture: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">The Consequences of Misreading the Bible [Paperback]</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=Manfred%20Brauch&search-alias=books&sort=relevancerank" style="background-color: white; color: #cc6600; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-decoration: none;">Manfred Brauch</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"> </span><span class="byLinePipe" style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">(Author)</span><br />
<span class="byLinePipe" style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"><br /></span>
<span class="byLinePipe" style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<ul style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>Publisher:</b> IVP Academic (March 17, 2009)</li>
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>ISBN-10:</b> 0830825797</li>
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>ISBN-13:</b> 978-0830825790</li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">This is one of the best books on the topic of Biblical Misrepresentation I have read. Braunch has a definite way of putting into clear context sections of scripture that have for years been pulled out of context and form fitted to someones doctrinal idea of a "truth". Many times preachers will unknowingly pull a sentence or two out as a sermon illustration or as a topic starter thinking there is no harm in this, but what happens when we begin adding to The Word ends up belittling the truth of scripture. Its not our job to make scripture fit our sermon or our notes, but rather our duty to make sure our sermons and notes fit the truth of Scripture. After Reading this book I have to agree with the very appropriate and concise review given by George P. Wood t</span><span style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">he Director of Ministerial Resourcing for the Assemblies of God.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Brauch is past professor and president of Palmer Theological Seminary (formerly Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary), as well as the author of Set Free to Be and Hard Sayings of Paul. The seminary has been described as "conservative, yet progressive" because of its combination of theological orthodoxy and social activism. The primary example of this conservative progressivism is undoubtedly Ron Sider, Palmer's best-known professor. Brauch is also an able exponent of that tradition.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Abusing Scripture offers a sixfold taxonomy of ways evangelicals (including us Pentecostals) are guilty of "doing violence to" Scripture:</span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> The abuse of the whole gospel through a failure to address human need for salvation in both "personal and social dimensions"</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The abuse of selectivity, which "is not an outright distortion of the meaning of given texts" but rather entails "ignoring or rejecting...other parts or passages of Scripture that support a different teaching, or present an alternative perspective, or advocate an opposing view"</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The abuse of biblical balance by means of "emphasizing certain biblical doctrines, perspectives, teachings, themes or mandates, while ignoring or minimizing the equal, or even greater, importance of complementary ones"</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The abuse of words, "when words and expressions are decoded (by teachers or readers) in ways that are not in keeping with the original encoding [by the biblical authors]"</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The abuse of literary and theological context, in which the meanings of specific passages are not derived from "the immediate textual materials that surround them" or from "the overarching theological concepts in broader literary contexts"</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The abuse of historical situation and cultural reality, which is really a failure to discern between "those things in Scripture that are culturally or historically relative, and, therefore, limited in their inspired authority to the people and situations addressed at that time, and the things that are transcultural and transhistorical, where the authoritative Word of God ins binding for all Christians at all times and in all cultures"</span></li>
</ul>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Throughout his discussion of this taxonomy, Brauch returns to three illustrations of these kinds of abuses in practice: "(1) the use and justification of force and violence in human affairs; (2) the relationship between men and women in home, church and society; and (3) the concern for justice and the sanctity of life in all areas of human relationships, institutions and culture."</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Source: </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R23U6F0YQUQT7C/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0830825797&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=">http://www.amazon.com/review/R23U6F0YQUQT7C/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0830825797&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=</a><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-19062217166205030432013-05-13T10:37:00.003-07:002013-05-13T11:02:17.852-07:00God and Evil: The Case for God in a World Filled with Pain (Paperback) IVP<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYGp0P9YiLiHiNyVuMJzXMaBQXzoX-lsCYQL2nY7dFXRGaRk3BqId5kSpT9GkKQgd7Ej_4XlyhscrV2jZy4KAKh4HlyaK0hp-lre31v6uAD3WlDw88HwxnnyrOEQjgN_5XtznPkUy9XM09/s1600/God+and+Evil+The+Case+for+God+in+a+World+Filled+with+Pain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYGp0P9YiLiHiNyVuMJzXMaBQXzoX-lsCYQL2nY7dFXRGaRk3BqId5kSpT9GkKQgd7Ej_4XlyhscrV2jZy4KAKh4HlyaK0hp-lre31v6uAD3WlDw88HwxnnyrOEQjgN_5XtznPkUy9XM09/s1600/God+and+Evil+The+Case+for+God+in+a+World+Filled+with+Pain.jpg" /></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.7em;">God and Evil: The Case for God in a World Filled with Pain </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #cc6600; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px;">Chad Meister (Editor), James K. Dew Jr. (Editor)</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<ul style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>Publisher:</b> IVP Books (January 15, 2013)</li>
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>Language:</b> English</li>
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>ISBN-10:</b> 0830837841</li>
<li style="margin: 0.5em 0em;"><b>ISBN-13:</b> 978-0830837847</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<br />
This book is a very good resource for an individual looking into this topic either for the first time or are relatively new to the argument.<br />
<br />
I am impressed with the large number of essays covering a vast number of topics, its great to see so many different individuals contributed to this book thereby attempting to reduce bias. While the majority of the contributors are Evangelical Christians, the number of scholars and theologians compiled in one volume are generally not available outside of a costly text book.<br />
I am always hesitant to promote any one book, but rather I recommend gathering a number of books on the same topic, so as to be able to get a wide range perspectives, however this book does a good job of making those perspectives available.<br />
I am also very glad to see the debate between William Lane Craig and Michael Tooley available in print, I wish there were more of these types of resources available.<br />
In all I would recommend this for an individual who is learning about the topic of evil, its not overly heady, but does give a good basis of comparison.<br />
While no one volume could possibly cover all points of this ever changing and hotly contested topic it's a good book, in true InterVarsity Press form this book is well thought out with highly credible contributors to create a very timely book.<br />
There are a number of recent situations that have occurred where the question of how to reconcile God and evil or pain. This topic is certainly needing a few more good in depth studies but I am happy to say that this book does a good job of giving well thought out answers to the questions.<br />
<br />
We must be mindful of overstating or over expecting any single volume to cover all sides of an argument. The most we should logically expect is that a volume worth reading (and buying) will have a good coverage. I firmly believe that this book qualifies.FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-12889221946651168642013-02-13T12:20:00.000-08:002015-04-28T12:37:53.022-07:00<br />
Feeding America One family at a time<br />
<br />
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvG6qg8j54A&feature=share&list=UUsroi4rRBMwrs9CIpJP4jiw&index=2<br />
<br />FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-29482672820942740072011-08-18T11:47:00.000-07:002011-08-30T06:42:28.211-07:00Postmodernism and its effects on art, culture and just about everything else. (How Universal Truth really exists)<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzJPMZ7ahGuufR_msdD_U0Fc25j_QBzKf-dhqEoAHr49n65pej08_t_vY7S5_9ZtpM9xeBJjKLvK0v39Lz5ul2Shxco7wsXaLdQxgXt2QlbNiFsKXEkW2bSiKyhxcHG8HmtMevvk2jTNg/s1600/postmodern.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzJPMZ7ahGuufR_msdD_U0Fc25j_QBzKf-dhqEoAHr49n65pej08_t_vY7S5_9ZtpM9xeBJjKLvK0v39Lz5ul2Shxco7wsXaLdQxgXt2QlbNiFsKXEkW2bSiKyhxcHG8HmtMevvk2jTNg/s320/postmodern.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>This word Postmodernism has had a great many definitions attached to it, from the ideas of architecture, literature, music, art and philosophical thought. Many have taken the term to attempt to describe themselves in a pious and intellectual “I’m smarter than you, so deal with it” mentality. C. Boundas defines Postmodernism as “a particular set of philosophical, intellectual or epistemological allegiances, positions and strategies, or, most generally of all, as a periodising concept akin to ‘postmodernity’.” [1] This still really doesn’t tell us what it means. Breaking it down we see two basic words, “Post” and “Modernism”. To truly understand what a Postmodernistic perspective on the 20th century looks like we really need to have a grasp on what Modernism itself is, then we can move to the “Post” portion of the era.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"> Going back prior to the Postmodernism movement we see Modernism which is a name given to the movement that dominated the arts and culture of the first half of the twentieth century. This was found in response to the Enlightenment that caused a great scientific revolution during the 16th and 17th centuries. Great thinkers of that time like Kepler, Newton, and Galileo just to name a few began to study the natural world and in its studies found various scientific truths like the Law of Gravity, the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
Nietzsche, for better or for worse, is one of the most influential philosophers of the last 100 years. He railed both against the traditional morality of religion especially that of Judaism and Christianity and against the morality based upon a purely rational foundation, especially the morality of Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that both sets of morality limited the individual. He believed in pure freedom, the freedom to express one’s self no matter what the cost is to others. In later <em>Meditations</em> Descartes attempted to rationally deduce [<em>sic</em>] the existence of God from his own existence as a thinking thing and to show that God is perfectly good and hence no deceiver. ‘So what?” you say. Well, if we can be certain that we exist and if we can be certain that God exists and if we can be certain that God is no deceiver, we can also be certain that our sensations must truly represent an external reality. If they did not, we would live in constant error and ignorance, like Plato’s prisoners in the cave, and this, surely, a good and gracious God would not allow.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
The open-minded 18th-century thinkers believed that virtually everything could be submitted to reason: tradition, customs, morals, even art. But, more than this, it was felt that the ‘truth’ revealed thereby could be applied in the political and social spheres to ‘correct’ problems and ‘improve’ the political and social condition of humankind. This kind of thinking quickly gave rise to the exciting possibility of creating a new and better society. [2]</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
Jumping ahead to the 20th century finds the period of high modernism stretching from 1910-1930, we see great literary giants like T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Virginia Woolf, Gertrude Stein, and Franz Kafka. Amidst this era of literature a new mindset was being explored by many of these writers. Including a movement away from apparent objectivity, a blurring of specific literary genes, becoming more poetic, and prose-like, a great example being Edger Allen Poe, there was a moving away of clear-cut moral positions. This type of literary mindset however fell out of favor until the 1960’s due to the tensions generated during the decade of the 1930’s with the political and economic crisis therein. </div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">The distinction between Modernism and Postmodernism is summarized in this way; Modernism gives great prominence to fragmentation as a feature of twentieth- century art and culture, by a deep nostalgia for an earlier age when faith was full and authority intact. Postmodernism by contrast found the fragmentation an exhilarating, and liberating phenomenon, sympathetic of our escape from the claustrophobic embrace of fixed systems of belief. In a word, modernists lament fragmentations while post modernists celebrate it. [3]</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
This postmodernist celebration of fragmentation also came with a rejection of ‘high’ and ‘popular’ art that was praised in the modernist view, in favor of more excessive and gaudy art like that of Andy Warhol, or M.C. Escher and Salvador Dali. This view was put in vogue when Jean-François Lyotard published <em>The Postmodern Condition: A report on Knowledge</em> (Manchester University Press, 1979) Lyotard’s view was that “metanarratives” like Christianity, or Universal narratives such as “truth”, “knowledge”, “right” or “wrong” have no basis, and that the best we can hope for is “mininarratives” which are provisional, contingent, temporary, and relative, and which provide a basis for the actions of specific groups in particular local circumstances.[4] In this type of thinking we are opening ourselves to the idea that there is no solid universal truth, and that truly the idea of truth itself is fluid, Lyotard’s attitude focuses on the banality as he sees it of “the dialects of Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject or the creation of wealth”. He goes on to make statements in the same piece of writing delegitimizing notions of Enlightenment rationality, universal progress, objectivity of science, and political and intellectual programs such as those of Marxism and psychoanalysis. These stories are often described as ‘totalizing’ – in the final line of his book Lyotard declares ‘let us wage war on totality’[5] Fredric Jameson argues that the beginning of the early 1970’s witnessed another reemergence of postmodernism in literary and cultural production, as well as in philosophy and in everyday life. Its affect has weakened our sense of historicity, as well as the rise in small group politics and a new centrality of the image and information technologies. He also notes that within postmodernism the modern ‘self-autonomy’ of the aesthetic, something that was spoken of greatly in the work of Immanuel Kant, as well as the modernist dichotomy of high and mass culture, have come to an end.[6] While many may disagree with his perspective it has become one of much debate in philosophical circles.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
The perspective of a neutrality or apathy in universal truth is self evident in the perspectives of recent news stories about legal issues like same-sex marriage[7], and abortion funding from the federal government.[8] Weather the news stories are true or not is not of importance, since as we have established within postmodernism the truth is a relative thing to begin with. But the fact that these are even thought of as potentially ok is a statement as to where we as a country sit in the eyes of divine truth.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
When we lose the idea that there is an ultimate reality we then must be forced to wander about in a center-less universe guided by moral relativism. The real question here is does moral relativism really exist, or are their truly absolutes, example is it always wrong to lie? Well some may say yes lying is always wrong, but what if you are lying to a robber when he asks if you have a gun in the house and where is it. But to have a moral law there must be a moral Lawgiver that is an ultimate authority that has the power to decide or direct that which is right all the time and that which is wrong all the time. In terms of ultimate right or wrong I have to say there are many times where there is a gray area, this is not to say that all things are relative but there are many situations where we must chose what is the “right way “in that situation, it is not wrong to lie to the robber to protect your family but it is wrong to lie to a teacher to protect your grade.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
I think that we must be open minded to certain amount situational relativism, and realize that sometimes we focus too much on the action that we lose the context of the matter. However I believe there is a moral yard stick that some people measure in feet and some people measure in centimeters, meaning that the greater good must be measured and that sometimes there are situations along the way that take place that may not be “right” but they get us to the greater good at the end of the stick. Murder is wrong, if we murder one man we are called a murder but if we murder a group who happens to wear a different uniform we are called a war hero. It’s the greater good that must be measured, now the ends do not always justify the means as Machiavelli thought, but we do need to see that even in scripture God called for the murder of troops or even one man to fulfill His call on this earth (the greater good). Ethics in definition is the study of the “Higher Good”; the biggest problem with Ethics is that we are trying to place a Higher Good on a world that has fallen and lives in a state of “lower or lesser evil is the best route.” This leaves us with the need to differentiate between what could be good or not, good however is a varying term that can’t be quantified. It may feel good to take a drug that alters your mind like Huxley did in “doors of perception” but we also know that he didn’t view God as the ultimate good. He viewed Humanistic good or pleasure as the judge. In this same light we see that rape may cause pleasure for one but not for the other in that we view it as wrong or bad. So again it comes down to the “greater good” and our reasonably to that situation.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">While this method of thinking has some of its roots in Postmodernism there has to be a greater good or ultimate law giver to be able to see the need for laws to begin with. Or for reality to have real meaning, but Lyotard’s perspective is that language is a self-contained system and that the ‘disappearance of real’ nullifies this and when we claim that something is true we are not measuring it against some external absolute standard, but by internal rules and criteria which operate only within that designated sphere and have no ‘transcendent’ status beyond that. He goes on to explain that they have restricted applicability, just like the rules which govern moves in a game. Thus, “Knight to King’s Rook Four” might be a winning move in a chess game, but would carry no weight at all in a football game.[9] Since as Postmodernist agree we all live in a ‘language game’ there are no transcendent realities but rather self-validating social identities that we seek or live in.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
This moved its way into the educational system through the theories of the “open classroom” with the inclusion of different voices and perspectives in understanding as a moral and politically correct goal. Clayton Dumont Jr. of San Francisco State University put it, holding to an “unquestioned correctness” of epistemological desire, one acts as impediments to viable multiculturalism.[10] However the real question then must be brought to the table and that is to what reality or lack of reality if you will are we to all look to in order to find this “politically correct goal”? Therein lays the big question that swirls in the minds of philosophers every day. To whom do we base or reality? The humanistic Atheist says that we base our reality on ourselves and what we think is right, as is stated in the Humanist Manifesto II: “We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.” [11]</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">In actuality what we see is the core of a belief that attempts to put man as the center or in the place of God, by attempting to take out the core idea of a supreme or master designer of not just our universe but also our lives. Postmodernism is a never ending sidestep of responsibility, the view that morality may be true for you but not for me, and always based on perspective makes for a judge free society. But also makes for an anarchist worldview.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
Fortunately there seems to be a bit of a light at the end of this tunnel, in that we have had some thinkers that have come along and with the writing on the wall have seen what moral relativism leads to as well as a need for more globalization, we seem to be coming to an age marked as “post-postmodernism” thinkers like Alain Badiou, Michael Hardt, and Antonio Negri. While they are attentive to the central lessons of postmodernist thought, their work is distinctive in that it marks a return to many of the categories stigmatized by postmodernism, including totality, universalism and truth.[12] This move while not a complete reversal of the ideas of postmodernism nor an attempt to revert to prior ideas of Modernism is a step in the right direction, at least in the minds of many in the current field of Continental Philosophy.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
The moral side of life has always had a problem with this type of apathy, in that we can’t have our cake and eat it too, while still yet denying that the cake belongs to us, or that it is in fact a cake at all. This is the postmodernist view, but to those who can clearly see, smell and taste cake it is most certainly cake, regardless of the language used or even the type of frosting. In the real world of life, there are situations that just seem to defy the need for relativistic thought patterns, and these types of logical thoughts are what seem to be making a comeback.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">So as with many ideas that flourish for a time and then seem to be let go, Postmodernism is as it started, a mindset that was desiring to break itself from the mold of its predecessor and attempt to spread its wings and fly, much like one sees a child move into adolescence and attempt to pull away from the ideas of Mom and Dad, trying to say “I know more than you, and I can do this on my own.” From that point they look at good as though it is bad or stifling, they look at right as though it is only “right for right now” and they look at truth as “someone else’s” truth. Only to later in life return to the ways they were taught before, understanding that in the end there really is a “reason” for the order of life, and there is a plan if we just open our minds to the idea that God really has a plan for us, and walk in it.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">Postmodernism is that angst filled teen, but praise God he is on his way into young adulthood and again returning to his senses.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[1] Protevi, John. <em>A Dictionary of Continental Philosophy</em>. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Pg. 458-459 Print</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[2] "Modernism." <em>Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe</em>. Web. 17 Mar. 2011. <http:></http:>.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[3] Hawthorn, Jeremy. <em>A Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory</em>. London: Arnold, 1992. Print</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[4] Barry, Peter. <em>Beginning Theory: an Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory</em>. Manchester : Manchester UP, 1995. 86-87. Print.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[5] Protevi, John. <em>A Dictionary of Continental Philosophy</em>. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Pg. 459-460 Print</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[6] Jameson, Fredric. <em>Postmodernism, Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism</em>. Durham: Duke UP, 1991. Print.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[7] "Poll Majority Favors Gay Marriage." <em>Politico</em>. 18 Mar. 2011. Web. 18 Mar. 2011. <http:>.</http:></div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[8] "Taxpayer-funded Abortions in the Federal Health Care Bill?" <em>PolitiFact</em>. 17 Mar. 2011. Web. 18 Mar. 2011. <http:></http:>.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[9]Barry, Peter. <em>Beginning Theory: an Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory</em>. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1995. Pg. 92. Print.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[10] Clayton W. Dumont Jr<em>. Toward a Multicultural Sociology: Bringing Postmodernism into the Classroom.</em></div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><em>Teaching Sociology:</em> Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), pp. 307-320</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[11] <em>Humanist Manifesto II.</em> [S.l.]: British Humanist Association [19--. Print.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">[12] Protevi, John. <em>A Dictionary of Continental Philosophy</em>. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Pg. 461 Print</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><strong>Bibliography page:</strong></div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><ul style="list-style-type: square; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 25px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 0px;"><li>Barry, Peter. <em>Beginning Theory: an Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory</em>. Manchester : Manchester UP, 1995. 86-87. Print.</li>
<li>Dawkins, Richard. <em>The God Delusion</em>. Boston [Mass.: Mariner, 2008. Print</li>
<li>Dumont Jr<em>., </em>Clayton W. <em>Toward a Multicultural Sociology: Bringing Postmodernism into the Classroom.</em> <em>Teaching Sociology:</em> Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), pp. 307-320</li>
<li>Geisler, Norman L. <em>Christian Ethics</em>. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989. Print.</li>
<li>Hawthorn, Jeremy. <em>A Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory</em>. London: Arnold, 1992. Print</li>
<li>Hitchens, Christopher. <em>God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything</em>. New York: Twelve, 2007. Print.</li>
<li>Hitchens, Christopher. <em>The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever</em>. London: Da Capo, 2007. Print.</li>
<li><em>Humanist Manifesto II.</em> [S.l.]: British Humanist Association [19--. Print.</li>
<li>Jameson, Fredric. <em>Postmodernism, Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism</em>. Durham: Duke UP, 1991. Print.</li>
<li>McGrath, Alister E., and Joanna Collicutt. McGrath. <em>The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine</em>. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007. Print.</li>
<li>Politico. "Poll Majority Favors Gay Marriage." 18 Mar. 2011. Web. 18 Mar. 2011. <http:>.<ul style="list-style-type: square; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 25px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 0px;"><li>PolitiFact. "Taxpayer-funded Abortions in the Federal Health Care Bill?" 17 Mar. 2011. Web. 18 Mar. 2011. <http:></http:>.</li>
<li>Protevi, John. <em>A Dictionary of Continental Philosophy</em>. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Pg. 458-459 Print</li>
<li>Witcombe, Christopher L. C. E<em>.</em>. "Modernism." Web. 17 Mar. 2011.</li>
</ul></http:></li>
</ul>FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-23632029774293999552011-05-25T15:27:00.000-07:002011-05-25T15:27:41.651-07:00It's the end of the world and we know it..... So how do you feel?It's the end of the world as we know it.... Michael Stipe was a bit ahead of his time with the '80's hit....<br />
Six o'clock - TV hour. Don't get caught in foreign towers.<br />
Slash and burn, return, listen to yourself churn.<br />
Locking in, uniforming, book burning, blood letting.<br />
Every motive escalate. Automotive incinerate.<br />
Light a candle, light a votive. Step down, step down.<br />
Watch your heel crush, crushed. Uh-oh, this means no fear cavalier.<br />
Renegade steer clear! A tournament, a tournament, a tournament of lies.<br />
Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline.<br />
It's the end of the world as we know it.<br />
It's the end of the world as we know it.<br />
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.<br />
<br />
So the end didn't come like the billboards said it would, I can't say I'm not surprised. And I know what some are saying, see there goes those crazy Christians again. I think that even in many of the staunch atheist circles, this is recognized as loopy.<br />
The question that is raised through all of this is kind of interesting however. If we look at this situation from a sociological experiment perspective, we have to ask what does the world think of the idea that the Rapture may one day take place? It would seem that many don't care or hold it with loose conviction. Another question would be, are the quips out there pointed at Harold Camping and his idea or at the general thought of the rapture itself? <br />
So I pose this question:<br />
<br />
Do you believe that the Rapture is real? <br />
<br />
And a follow up, <br />
Do you think it will happen in your lifetime?<br />
<br />
Now this perspective brings another idea into mind, while the Bible does say that we may not know exactly when it will take place, it could happen soon. Knowing the way God works sometimes, it would be just like Him to send the rapture sooner than later. Just to spite those naysayers who are laughing. Hear me out I'm not saying God is spiteful, he just has a sense of humor that is not to be trifled with, just look at the duckbill platypus. <br />
With such thoughts of end times in mind, we really need to seriously think on the condition of our hearts. It may be illogical to try to think you can figure out the time through numerology or timelines but we do know that the Bible says be prepared both in season and out, for it will happen when we don't expect it. So I encourage the dialog to change from when will the rapture happen to a more introspective thought line of if it really did happen next week or next month or in a year from now will I be ready and if not, what can I do to change my life?FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-64608172019279672542011-05-23T13:33:00.001-07:002011-05-23T13:33:31.870-07:00Say it again SamSo what's the deal here, I mean we see all this press about the New Atheists, which I have to say is a bit of a misnomer, considering most of what they are spewing are old rehashed or outdated arguments. <br />
Take Hitchens book Portable Atheist, it's a mashup of clips from men of old that spout the antiquated musings of premodern England. Now there are a few that have a bit more current statements but still nothing that really changes the course if you will. Dawkins book God Delusion really was nothing more than sophomoric belly aching, and whining that even most right minded Atheists said wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Stenger while a bit more scientific in his approach still lands himself in s bit of science fiction with his view on "life force" referring to ESP and chi (not chai) along with psychics (listen I can't make this stuff up, read for yourself in God: The Failed Hypothesis- pg 85) keep in mind all these guys endorsed his book too.... <br />
I really was hoping for a bit more from Sammy Harris, but when he makes comments like, "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." as well as this gem: Saltman: Are you a Buddhist practitioner?<br />
Harris: I’m a practitioner, but I don’t really think of myself as a Buddhist. Buddhism can be distinguished from other religions because it’s nontheistic. But I think Buddhists have to get out of the religion business altogether and talk about what the human mind is like, what the potential for human happiness is, and what are some reasonable approaches to seeking happiness in this world.<br />
Saltman: How did you come to Buddhist practice?<br />
Harris: I came to it initially through a few drug experiences. I had a brief psychedelic phase around twenty years ago that convinced me, if nothing else, that it was possible to have a very different experience of the world. I began reading about mysticism and contemplative experience, and it led me to Buddhist practice — Dzogchen practice, in particular.<br />
Saltman: So you see Buddhist meditation not as a religious practice, but as something that can yield results.<br />
Harris: Clearly, there are results to any religious practice. A Christian might say, “If you pray to Jesus, you’ll notice a change in your life.” And I don’t dispute that. The crucial distinction between the teachings of Buddhism and the teachings of Western religions is that with Buddhism, you don’t have to believe anything on faith to get the process started.<br />
(note the key is Harris has a clear opposition to faith, but he is cool with mysticism, just don't call it religion)<br />
If you want to learn Buddhist meditation, I could tell you how to do it, and at no point would you have to believe in God or an afterlife.<br />
(Buddhism teaches reincarnation, and that seems plausible to you?) <br />
Whereas if you’re going to be a Christian and worship Jesus to the exclusion of every other historical prophet, you have to accept that he was the Son of God, born of a virgin, and so on. <br />
(but to follow the path of Buda to the exclusion of all other prophets is ok.??.)<br />
And I would argue that those beliefs are unjustifiable, no matter what the results of Christian practice are. <br />
(yes he did say "no matter what the results are", some scientific method at work there, for sure)<br />
The fact that you prayed to Jesus and your life was completely transformed is not evidence of the divinity of Jesus, nor of the fact that he was born of a virgin, because there are Hindus and Buddhists having precisely the same experience, and they never think about Jesus.<br />
(I know of no Hindu or Buddhist who has had "precisely" the same experience as Christians, each religion is so diametrically different from one another there isn't the same experience, there is no salvation, through faith in either of those, or trust in an eternal everlasting life.... So no Sammy you're wrong)<br />
(Parenthetical statements are mine) <br />
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/369/the_temple_of_reason?page=1<br />
<br />
I have to say Sammy seems really conflicted! <br />
<br />
Bottom line here at least at this point, and don't get me started on Dawkins and his incredulous meme theory. I mean really let's think logically about this, for him it's ok to have memes, bodiless, essenceless, little mental critters that can infect someone and create a belief system in them, like a virus but to him the Holy Spirit is complete fairy tale stuff..... Ya sure.... <br />
Dawkins is a nominal scientist but a horrible theologian, but I said don't get me started, so I'll stop.<br />
<br />
Bottom line, while we see all these supposed great thinkers, these "brights" as Dennett calls them really seem to think as long as they shout loud enough and try to sell enough books, which by the way I have to say the fact that one can get a book on the best seller list needn't prove it's accuracy, remember Joel Osteens been there, and currently Chelsea Handler is there (twice). But the evidence I want to ask them is, what good are you doing by all this whipping in the wind, have you built any wells in Africa lately like Bloodwater Mission, have you feed any orphans like Compassion International, have you pulled underaged prostitutes off the street like my friends in Myanmar? By the way all in the name of this as Dawkins put it, "oppressive, violent, degenerate god." and really Sammy you would choose rape over religion.... It pains me to think you would say that to a woman who was raped, but look into her eyes and see if you really truly still believe this, then look in the eyes of that little child who never had fresh drinking water and take that from him, who wins in your world?FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-30341709232566383882011-05-16T11:22:00.000-07:002011-05-16T11:41:33.819-07:00Biblical Einstein...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOrAjRoeBdc96hbhqaGM732OQlcIl_uUHbFvtJCt6tsdoAIramUxT8yda0_fQVHju4BevolyzpfNynGnDeXmKfMZIWTleFi3fg7v2t9MNILktwcYl03iFXERWIVzRoUa0a2eOlqNLLJXkm/s1600/einstein.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOrAjRoeBdc96hbhqaGM732OQlcIl_uUHbFvtJCt6tsdoAIramUxT8yda0_fQVHju4BevolyzpfNynGnDeXmKfMZIWTleFi3fg7v2t9MNILktwcYl03iFXERWIVzRoUa0a2eOlqNLLJXkm/s200/einstein.jpg" width="200" /></a></div></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
I'm reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, again, and my mind is being blown away by the Biblical/Scientific idea of relativity.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Einstein’s theory of general relativity gives us an interesting perspective of space-time and what is called geodesic, basically the view of the earth is curved and if we were to view an airplane in the sky, while it looks like (from the perspective of the earth) that the plane is flying in a straight path it is actually flying in a geodesic curve following the earth. Hence the reason that it may appear to fly over the curve of a far off mountain, while in the plane one still feels the sensation of straight line flight, but the farther from the earth you move the more evident the geodesic curve becomes. </div><div class="MsoNormal">Light rays follow the Geodesics in space-time. Meaning that as gravity diverts or bends the rays of light when they pass by the sun it may appear that ray is moving in a straight three dimensional line when really it is following a two dimensional curve.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Time likewise slows the closer to a great mass like the Earth you are. If you look at the earth from the plane cars on earth appear to move slower than if you are sitting the side of the road. There was also a test done called the twins paradox that states if two twins were to go and one lived at sea level while the other moved to a high mountain when they met again the one at higher elevation would have aged slower. It would be very small but if one were to be sent on a spaceship for a long trip, when he returned he would have aged much slower. </div><div class="MsoNormal">In this same perspective we are able to confirm Einstein’s theory of general relativity, by seeing the rays of a distant star while appearing to be in a straight line actually curve as they travel closer to the gravitational pull of the sun. Therefore the perspective of the star we see is really only a past representation of the light that has passed the sun. We don’t see the star as it appears today, but rather the light that originated many years prior due to the speed of light and the distance traveled. </div><div class="MsoNormal">If we were to look therefore at the earth from the perspective of a definitively far off distance then what would look to us like a day would rather appear in a shorter time frame. Therefore the Biblical “a thousand years is as a day in the eyes of God” Psalms 90:4 would be a scientifically accurate biblical perspective of the portrayal of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4P-i3F2OxKM1eXjMMS4l-uoprodm0cwwl0HD3a5-f6-oa2Y8Kfw" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4P-i3F2OxKM1eXjMMS4l-uoprodm0cwwl0HD3a5-f6-oa2Y8Kfw" width="200" /></a>Time and again we see science match what has been spoken of in the Bible, for so many years people have attempted to “outsmart” it but only to walk directly back into its truths. </div>FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-46204873180227188612011-04-22T15:47:00.000-07:002013-04-01T22:36:37.900-07:00Can we REALLY trust the Resurrection Story?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYRN7UrrzjBlQljZGF3gxyt7HctZsmmYfLz9ILBIxlPdTXD0-l8MoAUXhF41nH0ucK5im3YOWIcrYbEZ4ZmoSmwUsiGjx7ZOikxFlhtEtsqQQ0vHx2YU_Yo9x1e2UO_Eem615HEXhEIk6T/s1600/resurrection.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYRN7UrrzjBlQljZGF3gxyt7HctZsmmYfLz9ILBIxlPdTXD0-l8MoAUXhF41nH0ucK5im3YOWIcrYbEZ4ZmoSmwUsiGjx7ZOikxFlhtEtsqQQ0vHx2YU_Yo9x1e2UO_Eem615HEXhEIk6T/s1600/resurrection.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
Basically the story of the resurrection of Jesus has some major flaws from our modern believability perspective and commercial appeal. The Gospel writers had the idea all wrong, if they were going to make up this story about a resurrection it should have looked totally different if they wanted it to be easily accepted by everyone. <br />
There are 7 basic points raised by New Testament Scholar and historian N.T. Wright as to the perspective of the Christian Resurrection story verses the Jewish traditions. Remember the people of the time of this situation were Jewish and this idea of Jesus as the Messiah was not only THE single most radical thing to happen in their history, this includes a burning bush, parting of the Red Sea, world-wide flood, plagues of hemorrhoids (1 Samuel 5 look it up) but it was also challenging everything they had believed up to this point. Their heads must have been swimming at this new idea of a Resurrected Savior.<br />
Here they are in short (I recommend reading the entire book noted at the end of this)<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">The 7 points:</span><br />
<br />
<ol><li> No first-century Jew, as far as we know, believed there would be one person raised ahead of everybody else. So this is a radical innovation that the Christians believed this.</li><li>The early Christians believed that the Resurrection would involve the "transformation" of the physical body, but of within the Jewish perspectives some thought it would be the exact body we have now all over again others spoke of a luminous body like a star. But Paul tells us of a solid substantial yet transformed body that would never feel pain suffering or death. This was QUITE new. (not the Resurrection of Judaism)</li><li> The early Christians believed that the Messiah himself had been raised from the dead. The Jews never thought the Messiah was going to he killed.. So this was definitely different.</li><li> In Judaism the idea of "resurrection" was thought of as a return from exile (Ez. 37) Christian documents view it quite differently.</li><li> Early Christians thought of it as something that we could contribute to. So we can anticipate His new world. Clearly not a Jewish custom.</li><li> In Jewish custom the resurrection was not a "main" doctrine, but it is for sure in Christianity. So it's move to the focal point is of particular interest to historical scholars </li><li> Early Christians had no variance on the belief of what happened after death, Jews had a few, pagans had many but Christians held only to the resurrection.</li></ol><br />
These specificities make the Christian claim unique. And in so doing put more validity to their authenticty.<br />
<br />
So what do we say from here, if the Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) wanted to make it easy to believe the resurrection they would have changed a few things.<br />
<br />
<ol><li> They wouldn't have written their stories from such different angles. While they all tell the same story they present it from compellingly different perspectives. Different words are used but the heart of the story is still the same, so it is evident that they didn't simply copy each other. Their stories were genuinely seen from the perspectives of 4 different Writers. </li><li>There is almost no allusion to the Old Testament in the resurrection narrative, its common in other areas of the Gospels but not here. This would indicate that the story went back much further to a time when it was simply told without postulating or reflective glorification, basically it stood on it's own.</li><li> The fascinating inclusion of women in the narratives.Hear me out I'm not being sexist (its history folks) If they were to have made this up, they would have NEVER used women to discover the empty tomb. At the time women were not allowed to even give testimony let alone the confirmation of such a great key piece of doctrinal truth. The writers would have had some other much more respected individuals find the tomb empty. Maybe Timothy or better yet James, his brother comes across the empty tomb as he goes to pay his respects to his brother. (see I could do this) ABSOLUTELY NOT a woman with such a scandalous background as Mary Magdalene. But thats what happened and yet this is common in ALL four gospels. They would have been fools to make that part up!</li><li>From a pastoral perspective, we want to draw in our audience and make it relevant to the listener so in all other resurrection thoughts it would have been logical to make this allegorical and refer to our own future resurrection, that would have fit with the literary and poetic writings of the time. Yet when this was written it was simply put in all four gospel accounts that "Jesus is raised- therefore He really was The Messiah!!" </li></ol><br />
<br />
So in all of this we see such apparent lack of a good publicist, and bad customer research to make this story more palatable, what can be said to defend why it has lasted as long as it has?<br />
Beyond saying "well because Jesus is who He said He is." We see two very evident things that must have historically occurred:<br />
<br />
<ol><li>There MUST have been an empty tomb that had to be accurately identified for people say "yep thats where he was, those people are telling the truth", beyond what we simply read about in scripture many more people must have visited it for the story to continue to propagate, and think, this tomb wasn't hidden or far off so many must have come, towns folk, leaders of state, "doubting Thomas's" of all types must have seen it. this would have been "THE site to see". for that matter it really still is, people from all around the world visit the spot every year. </li><li>There MUST have been appearances of the risen Jesus. Though it says there was in scripture, many people had to be able to corroborate this fact otherwise it never would have taken off. let me give you an example. If I said hundreds of people were at my house last night all you would have to do is ask my neighbors and they would tell you "no there was no one here last night" and you would know I was lying, but if hundreds of people said "ya, I was at his house" and not only that but they all could accurately describe specific events that took place then there is credibility to this story. </li></ol><br />
The thought that it was mass hysteria or visions of a ghost was easily put to rest by simply visiting the empty tomb. Plus remember in Jewish culture they had NO REASON to believe that one would be raised from the dead so to see a risen Jesus would have to contradict their root system of belief and had to be so evidently factual and obviously really HIM for 1000's to believe it and change their lives and history forever.<br />
<br />
Based on the evidence historians from both religious and secular backgrounds (how one still could be after this I'm not sure) agree that the evidentiary historicity of the Resurrection is accurate.<br />
<br />
During this season, when so many people go to church to get their yearly Jesus fix, but remember that when He came here, He came not to just give us another day to do something special but he came to change the hearts of man for all time. This is a time to do what many of the Jews of that time did, think long and hard about the evidence before you, they were challenged they had questions, remember this was literaly the SINGLE GREATEST CHALLENGE to their faith they had EVER seen, Jesus was claiming to be THE Messiah, the one they had all been waiting for, if he was that would change everything FOREVER, and it really had, there is clear evidence that this is true, and it can be backed up and verified by men much smarter than I, has to this date stood the test of time. If you still have questions or want to know more read your Bible, and to get the full historical textual evidence read The Resurrection of the Son of God, by N.T. Wright.<br />
<br />
Have a blessed Easter,<br />
Randy Chase<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on:<br />
N.T.Wright's dialogue with Antony Flew.<br />
Flew, Antony, and Roy Abraham. Varghese. There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne, 2007. Print.FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-84223531214754445682011-04-05T07:02:00.000-07:002011-04-05T07:02:21.877-07:00Over thinking and Rabbit trailingSo I have always wanted to be a blogger, you know the glamorous life of the elite, the name in lights, notoriety, the fame, the fortune, all this and more that comes with being a blogger..... or was that being Charlie Sheen?? Winning!!!<br />
I never can remember, but until then I will attempt to make this happen, you see my problem isn't that I don't have really interesting and engaging things happening all around me, or that my life is such a wreck that I can't seem to find the front door. Really what it boils down to is that I just don't think to type it all down, you know so that the huddled masses can linger and awe over the revelry of my life. Plus I just think I "over-think" it a little to much. Now not in the same way that my wife does, see she will think and think about a situation and may end up worrying about it (but only a little... love you hunny) but then when she does whatever it is she has thought about it turns out spectacular (check out her blog and you will see what I mean <a href="http://thrillofthechases.blogspot.com/">http://thrillofthechases.blogspot.com/</a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px;"> </span>).... me, well I just over think things and then it just seems to get lost in the abyss of my mind.... what was I saying??? oh ya, back on track, I think that may be another problem, I rabbit trail more than Peter cottontail. It ridiculous really. Maybe its a good thing I am typing this stuff down that way I can look back and get myself on track.<br />
<br />
Its like when I speak somewhere (rabbit trailing as we speak) I rarely use notes, for the most part I will think and pray about what I am going to share and then I will just get up and deliver, now in my mind it normally comes off pretty well. There are the few occasions that I listen to myself afterward if someone taped it and think.... "Where was I going??" And other times that I have listened to myself and gone "wow that was really good"<br />
<br />
So now that I am going to work a little harder on FOCUS and try this blogging thing again, since I have had this blog for like 2 years or more.. and rarely use it.<br />
<br />
(in my best super hero voice) <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">I will use this space for GOOD, not evil. For lifting up not tearing down, and hopefully one day when I am gone, they will look back on my life and say.</span>..... <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">where was I again... oh well.... till next time. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">here comes randy cottontail</span>... hopping down <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">the bunny</span> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">trail.</span>......<br />
<br />
<br />
Check out my other blog, <a href="http://365tea.blogspot.com/">http://365tea.blogspot.com/</a> (its a blog about tea, I have posted a bit more on it)FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6628957083561068358.post-44662014802933328412011-01-01T17:27:00.001-08:002011-01-01T17:27:36.174-08:00Happy New Year!!<div class="MsoNormal">Dear 2011,</div><div class="MsoNormal">So I will be honest, I thought your predecessor 2010 went by WAY to fast, do me a favor and lets try to slow things down a bit. Now I know some others are probably saying just the opposite but this conversation is between you and I, so you can deal with them later. I would like to see some changes in my life this year, I am trying to lose weight, I have done a good job so far but I am not able to get into my 195 fighting weight that I wrestled at in 8<sup>th</sup> grade, I would like to get back to that, (but without all the other 8<sup>th</sup> grade drama). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also am going to be graduating this year (super excited about that) with that comes some plans of teaching more. As you know I have been teaching now for 2 1/2 years and I love it, but I really want to teach more in the field that is dear to my heart (not that CPR isn’t… there are many jokes to be made here). My heart is to teach on the subject of Philosophy, World Religions, and Apologetics. </div><div class="MsoNormal">I look forward to the fun that is going to happen this year and plan on having a very eventful 2011, this blog will follow me all the way so don’t forget this conversation, I will come back to it at the end of the year and see how we have done. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Until then,</div><div class="MsoNormal">Live Well, Bless Better </div>FaithAndKnowledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00442379235730342366noreply@blogger.com1