Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Despair in an Atheistic Worldview

I know of someone who attempted suicide, became a cripple, and now blames God for his condition and other problems. He also hates biblical creationists. The Christians worldview is the foundation for most of Western civilization. Because of that, he has his wheelchair and gets his needs met. Most importantly, the God he rejects has offered him salvation and eternal life.


Atheism and evolution can offer nothing to deal with death and suffering.
Credit: RGBStock / Sanja Gjenero
Now think of the large-scale tragedies in life. There are wars, hurricanes, earthquakes, diseases, and more. In an atheistic worldview, there is no reason to grieve or even provide assistance for others, since death is just another aspect of the human experience. Evolutionists believe that death is a means to developing current lifeforms. The old, infirm, sick, depressed, and others have a duty to die and get out of the way for the fit to move forward. The religion of Secular Humanism is atheism dressed up and looking respectable like, but it is deceitful and inhuman; people will get no meaning or comfort from them.

The biblical worldview — beginning from the first verse — is the only one that comports with reality. God's Word helps us understand human experience, including death and suffering, and helps us to have compassion for others. Don't disunderstand me, old son. Christians do not know everything, and we certainly do not understand everything. God reveals many things to us, and we trust him by faith.
Evolution requires death. At its core, Darwin’s postulate appeals to the power of death to remove those less able to survive so that the “more fit” can take their place. Natural selection, in this Darwinian sense, toils mindlessly on, removing individuals, populations, and even entire species. Whether something—or someone—lives or suffers, Darwinism offers only the cold machinations of time and death. Anything more would require existential purpose, after all, and that cannot be allowed.
To read the rest, click on "Tragedy in a Godless Universe".


Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Evidence for the Resurrection without the Bible?

It is a fair question to ask if there is evidence for Jesus, especially his Resurrection, from non-biblical sources. Is there corroborating evidence from various historical accounts? Maybe some forensic evidence? However, such questions can often an attempt to demand evidence but the inquirer is not interested in biblical information.


People who insist on evidence for the Resurrection without the eyewitness testimonies in the Bible show an anti-Bible bias.
US Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Shane A. Cuomo
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by the US Department of Defense)
Some folks don't seem to ponder on some things, and forget that almost instantaneous satellite news didn't exist back then. We're talking about an event that happened over 2,000 years ago. Another is that Jerusalem was a jerkwater town in the Roman empire. Other information may have existed, but it's turned to dust by now. More than those details, however, is that the Bible is historically reliable. We get names, dates, details, eyewitness accounts, and more. People don't seem to have felt a need to bring in more information. Dr. Jason Lisle points out that giving other manuscripts the superior position degrades the Bible.

There may be charges from skeptics, saying, "The Bible is biased!" So? They say that like it's a bad thing. Does that automatically make it untrue because people want to give accounts of what they saw, experienced, and investigated? There would be very little knowledge in the world, because people who write and give speeches usually are biased! "I want to convince you of something, but I'm remaining unbiased". Ain't happening, Zeke. Insisting that we "leave the Bible out of it" is an anti-Bible bias.
J.T. from Singapore writes:
I was wondering if you guys could write an article about the historical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection itself, but not using the Bible as the primary source of evidence (which after going through some of the articles on your website, the eyewitness accounts of the disciples and the credibility of that accounts seem to make up the main bulk of the argument for resurrection).

If indeed Jesus’ resurrection happened, and he was seen by a few hundred people, surely there must have been other written accounts (e.g. scrolls, parchment, etc, and not including the Bible) in which these eyewitness accounts are documented. It would be really great if you could direct me to these historical evidences (if any).

This question has been one of the topics that my friends and I were discussing, and so far we could not find any other sources that correlate with the Bible on Jesus’ resurrection.

Thank you, and hope to hear from you soon!
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
To read Shaun's response, click on "Proving Jesus’ resurrection without the Bible?" Also, Dr. Lisle has a series in progress. You may like to see "Origin of the Bible: Part 3 – Accurate and Divine", and search the site for the other "Origin of the Bible" articles.



Wednesday, September 5, 2018

The Gospel is Incomplete without Creation

When discussing Creation, atheists and other anti-creationists will ridicule it since they do not approve of viewpoints that do not include Darwin. It's who they are and what they do. It is indeed unfortunate that many professing Christians will file Genesis under "nice story" or "allegory" (and even say that God used the Big Bang for creation — which shows their ignorance of both Genesis and evolution.) In reality, Genesis is essential to a proper understanding of the gospel.


Genesis is very important for a proper understanding of the gospel.
Credit: Unsplash / Aaron Burden
No, we are not saying that believing in creation is essential to salvation, but it is a gospel issue. If you read the Bible carefully, you will see that creation is proclaimed all the way through to the end (see Rev. 14:6, 3:14, for example). What we believe controls what we think, and therefore, what we do. Christians need to have a high view of Scripture, which is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16 NIV). Rejecting creation leaves the gospel incomplete.
Many believers think creation is an irrelevant issue, but the opposite is true. There are few things more important to our faith, because if you believe the Genesis account is not true, then nothing in Scripture is dependable. Once you embrace the idea that the early chapters of Genesis are not historically accurate, then everything in the Bible is subject to personal preference. If God’s Word is not a God-inspired record of God’s words, then it’s nothing more than man’s words—and, therefore, just as viable as a Hollywood movie script, a New York Times bestseller, or a gossip piece on the evening news.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "The Gospel Starts with Creation".




Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Demons and Secular Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Materialists contradict themselves by claiming that there is no God, spirits, or anything supernatural, and then they try to explain the soul and their version of free will (which is impossible from an evolutionary worldview). Ironically, atheists have their own miracles of sorts, but they deny God. 

Sure, we see some self-styled ghost hunters on television attempting to obtain electromagnetic, infrared, and other readings of supposedly haunted places. Those do not amount to much. Can secularists ride the trail and scientifically study demons, which they believe do not exist? Kind of difficult with their materialistic presuppositions and bad logic, such as, "Since there are some fakers, there are no spirits at all". I can show you some angry atheopaths that have blasphemed each person of the Trinity, and are demonically possessed.

Materialists deny the existence of spirits, but attempt to study demons anyway.
Credit: Pixabay / Pete Linforth
The Parkland school shooter, Nikolas Cruz, said he had a demon telling him to kill and destroy. His account sounds like a case of mental illness. From a Christian perspective, we need to consider the possibility of demonic influence, but I'll allow that it is unlikely in this case.

A study of Ouija boards was done by Thomas Hoffman. You know, that thing you scoot around on a board with an alphabet that also has symbols as well as a yes and no? Many people claim to have contacted spirits. This scientist wrote it is all in the minds of the users. What pusillanimous drivel!

I've told my account elsewhere of living in an apartment complex and hearing the teenagers across the hall messing with a Ouija board. They didn't know I was there. I went outside and prayed with authority, and shut the wicked thing down. Then I heard them wondering why the thing stopped. I explained why, and also explained the gospel to them.

A woman's daughter and a friend were playing with one of those boards, and the woman was invited to join in. As time went on, they learned the name of the person that the spirit was impersonating, how he died by suicide, where he had lived, and more. They contacted some of his relatives online and verified the story. As more time passed, the spirit did not like the woman's current boyfriend, and she was physically assaulted by an unseen power, knocked backward in her chair to the floor. They ended Ouija involvement at that point, but she felt a presence for quite some time after that.

My interference was not something in the minds of those teenagers, and people like Hoffman would be hard pressed to explain it away. Also, he would not be able to explain how previously unknown people and facts were learned from a distance, or the force that assaulted the woman. Mere dismissal is not an explanation, old son.

"What does a demon look like, Cowboy Bob?"

Whatever it thinks will be the most influential, and not in red pajamas with horns and a pitchfork! I heard a story about demons that took the forms of the rock stars in the group Kiss, because that was someone's focus in life. Others can be the stuff of movies, with fangs and glowing eyes. What I think is worse is that they can be beautiful, like their master (2 Corinthians 11:14, Ezekiel 28:17). Despite all this, I fully believe that most people will not actually see a demon or angel.

Studying demons and angels can be fascinating and even helpful, but Satan likes a couple of things. One is for people to believe that he does not exist. Another is for people to become so obsessed with studies of angels and demons, they drift away from their Creator who gave them life. Those who have had demonic activities, whether through direct occult involvement or demons pretending to be can test the spirits: "Who is Jesus Christ?" (1 John 4:1-3).
One cannot make predictions about what a mind will do. Secular scientists mock belief in angels and demons, but they have their own occult beliefs.

Science cannot study what it doesn’t believe is real. Secular cosmologists believe dark matter and dark energy are real, but cannot see them. They believe angels and demons are unreal, but then have to account for things that defy natural explanations. Let’s see how they do.
To finish reading, click on "Can Science Study Demonology?"


Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Intellectualizing God out of the Bible

Some folks spend too much time in secular edjamakation centers and get into a habit of intellectualizing too many things. That is, they commence to pondering the minutiae of many things, and making a mighty great mess of it all instead of starting with the plain intent. A certain tinhorn named Dr. Jordan Peterson does that very thing with the Bible — especially Genesis — and unfortunately, he has many followers.


Jordan Peterson is dismissing Bible believers and replacing the meaning of Scripture with weird Jungian psychology and atheistic philosophies.
Credit: Freeimages / Sar Castillo
I'll make no apology that he's not the kind of guy I'd like to have lunch with. From excerpts in his books it's easy to see that he's condescending and rejects the God of the Bible. He labels people who believe in creation, the global Flood, even the historical account of the Mosaic writings as fundamentalists. Like so many other labels, it has become vague and has many connotations nowadays, and is primarily used to stir up negative emotions.  Peterson doesn't tell us how he defines a fundamentalist. But then, he's smarter than you and me, so he prolly don't need to.



Looking down from his high horse, he dismisses fundamentalists outright. Apparently, he categorizes those of us who believe the Bible are stupid jaspers, and he is superior to us because he's a (pseudo) intellectual. He argues from atheistic and evolutionary presuppositions, including the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. Jordan emotionally manipulates his audiences with assertions, smug superiority, and implicit ridicule of those who disagree with his pronouncements about Moses and Jungian psychology. That's just plain weird, old son. I'll take the clear meaning of God's Word (with the help of scholars who actually believe it when it comes to the difficult parts) instead of accepting the say-so of a disbelieving "scholar" any time.
We recently listened to a lecture series on the psychological significance of the biblical stories by Dr. Jordan Peterson, professor of psychology at Toronto University. It has taken a long time to distill the hours of lectures down to a form that can be examined in something as short as this article. It was a daunting task! However, the first lecture alone has over 2.5 million views on YouTube, indicating that Peterson’s lectures have a real audience, so it is worth talking about them here. His lectures are generally admired by his devotees, in much the same way that faithful churchgoers regard the sermons of their pastor; however, we found them intensely tedious, rambling, and hard to follow.
To read the rest, click on "Is Genesis psychology or history? A response to Jordan Peterson".



Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Would Paul the Apostle Debate Modern Evolutionists?

Speculative questions can be as useful as a hole in a milk bucket, as you can spend a lot of time working at them, but not much get accomplished. You get a "what if" and a "yeah, but" added now and then, and folks get a mite overwrought.

On the other hand, if handled properly, though, thought experiments can be interesting and productive. Uncle Albert Einstein liked them, after all. So, let's see if we can make use of the question about whether or not Paul the Apostle would debate modern evolutionists if he rode into town today.


If the Apostle Paul were here today, we can wonder how he would have dealt with evolutionists. He did that very thing before.
Made at Break Your Own News, background image St. Paul Preaching in Athens, Raphael, 1515
Paul was enthusiastic, to say the least. He would reason, discuss, debate, and so on at the drop of a hat, and he'd drop his own hat if nobody else did. Okay, the last part is an exaggeration, but I don't reckon it's too far afield.

However, how would he deal with evolutionists? Would he try to "out evidence them" with piles of facts, hoping that if he was the best orator with the biggest prairie schooner-full of evidence, people would realize that they need to repent and bow to Jesus? That'll be the day! As I study on it, I believe one of the biggest problems with evidence-only apologetics is that the method not only appeals to the pride of the sinful man, but the pride of the apologist who is doing the presentation. We are supposed to be glorifying God, not ourselves, and Scripture clearly tells us that unbelievers are blinded and under the control of Satan. An even bigger problem is that by doing this, we are actually agreeing with unbelievers that the Bible is not true!

Now, don't be getting vexed. I'm not saying that there is no place for evidence, but it needs to be presented properly. Look at Paul in Acts 17-16-34. He was making his argument to the pagan evolutionary philosophers, just like we do today. Western society has been hijacked by materialistic philosophies, postmodernism, atheism, and evolutionism. How are we supposed to follow 1 Peter 3:15, "...ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you"? We sure as shootin' can't be an expert in every philosophy or every science view that is in vogue.

We have to believe the Bible, first and foremost. We presuppose that Scripture is true, and then we can present evidence in the proper framework that honors God. Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the others did the same thing. Also, the Bible is self-affirming.
If we jump back to Paul and consider his missionary journeys, sermons, and epistles, he saw a great number of people and surely encountered a great number of beliefs. 

. . .
In the greater context, we find Paul forced into a debate with Epicureans and Stoics. In fact, because they disagreed with him, they take him to Mars Hill (the Areopagus) to defend his views in front of the whole crowd of philosophers. So Paul masterfully begins his defense, which has gone on to become the basis for creation evangelism.
I'd take it mighty kindly if you'd read the rest of this article. To do this, click on "If Paul Were Around Today, Would He Argue Against Evolutionists?" Also, you may want to hear this short podcast of Scripture on Creation, "Creation's Role in the Gospel".

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Genesis as History: Short Form

There are times when we need to ride up to yonder hill and get the view from up there. That is, a broad view or big picture. Biblical creationists maintain (with a little help from Occam) that the basic approach is true: Genesis is written as history. Some owlhoots read all sorts of things into the text in order to work in long ages and evolution.


People wonder if Genesis is meant to be taken as history. Yes, it is.
Creation of the World III, Mikalojus Konstantinas Ciurlionis, 1906
I have long wondered why some professing Christians insist on compromising with atheistic, ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies. It is also an inconsistent message to say that we believe the Bible is true from cover to cover except the early chapters of Genesis. Those, we have to interpret according to man's wisdom. Oh, please! So when do we start believing the Bible, and when do we stop? Can we trust John 3:16-17, or is that just allegory? By the way, even if the first few verses of Genesis were allegorical, that does not mean they are untrue and that there was no history in them, you savvy?

Some go as far as to say that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others in the Bible were unaware of science. Reign in there, pilgrim! First, Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17), so that is an indirect attack on God's integrity by calling him a deceiver. Second, Jesus is God and created all things (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16). This is essentially saying that Jesus is not God — you are an antichrist (1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 1:7). If you want to deny six-day recent creation, go ahead. But do not attack God in your efforts to compromise with eisegesis and bad hermeneutics.


We have many reasons to believe that Genesis is written as history. We can examine how scientific evidence supports this (you may want to see my review of the video Is Genesis History?). Also, we can demonstrate in great deal how the days of creation were meant to be taken as literal days. But let's get that view from the hill, shall we?

The early chapters of Genesis contradict ancient history as portrayed in public schools, television, and movies. For example, our culture insists humans evolved from ape-like creatures, while Genesis says we were made in God’s image. Culture says the earth formed over eons, but Genesis 1 says it took God just six days. Is it possible to believe both the Bible and evolution’s history? Many try. Some say early Genesis doesn’t convey real events and that God never intended for us to take Genesis 1–11 as history but as poetry. How well does this idea work?
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Is Genesis 1–11 Actual History?"