Thursday, August 17, 2017

The Most Self-Absorbed Generation?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It has been said that every generation has a dim view of subsequent generations, but seldom with good reason. Some of this frowning is based on rejection of cultural traditions, changing etiquette, new methods of socialization, and other less consequential areas. More importantly, however, is the way morality has declined, as have critical thinking skills, in younger generations. This is very apparent in the group called the Millennials.

I'd better reign in for a spell and make a couple of points. First, sometimes we just have to say that when discussing a people group, generalities are necessary. Second, while stereotypes exist for a reason, I'm not saying everybody in younger generations (or whatever group I'm talking about) behave, think, believe, or whatever according to their age, ethnic group or demographic. People can't be pigeonholed so neatly, you savvy?


The Millennials are the most narcissistic generation, celebrating sin and denying science
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
A recent sermon called "Lovers of Self" inspired this here article. In fact, I listened to it a second time and took notes. Before I give you the link, I'm going to get the bit in my teeth and run off in my own direction.

Now, I don't cotton to putting handles on generations. Beginning in the 20th century, generations were given labels and time periods that are imprecise. The "Lost Generation" refers to people who "came of age" during World War I, followed by the "GI Generation" (also called the "Greatest" by some) because they lived during World War II. This was followed by the "Silent Generation". I'm tagged as a member of the "Baby Boomers", a group name that I loathe. "Generation X" follows, and I reckon they were low on ideas for names by then.

Of course, "Generation Y" (the Millennials) follows, and that's where I'll stop the list because they are the main subject under discussion. Let's backtrack a bit first.

Sexual promiscuity and experimentation (as well as drug abuse) of the 1960s and after were actually rebellion against God's standards of morality. Someone might object and say that they were innocent back then. Not hardly! Also, the 60s were not just peace, love, and grooviness, but rebellion against "squares" and "the establishment" was not just sexual, but included domestic terrorism and other forms of violence. Seeds were sown for later generations.

Sin does not spontaneously begin in a generation. It began with Satan's pride (Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:12-19), and he appealed to Eve's pride (Gen. 3:6) and then Adam, bringing death and sin into the world (Rom. 5:12). There have been no "good" periods in history, but nowadays, sin has been rapidly increasing. Seems to me that the violence, stupidity, and false beliefs from previous generations intensify as time goes on, and bad behavior from the younger ones feed back into older ones to some extent. Especially in secularized cultures.

The Millennials seem to be leading the charge to embrace postmodernism and the destruction of the family unit, and to reject morality — especially biblical morality. While demographics for professing atheists are rather tenuous (including the fact that some "atheists" do not know what atheism means, as some even believe that God exists), it appears that atheism increases among Millennials. (Due to the narcissistic nature of both groups, this is hardly surprising.) This rejection of morality is seen in the celebration of abortion, homosexuality, transsexualality, and other impairments that are both mental and spiritual in nature.

In Paul's second epistle to Timothy, he wrote a list of things of how people would be in the last days. The top of the list in 2 Tim. 3:2 is lovers of self. This is a primary characteristic of Millennials which I believe far surpasses that of previous generations. Millennials are the most secularized generation, and Americans in this age range reflect the intolerance and totalitarianism of Europeans. They support socialism and globalism as well as the moral and spiritual deficiencies already mentioned. It's ironic when people will call someone a "fascist" because they dislike him or her (or a particular group), but have no idea what that word means. (It's also ironic to be called a fascist by a Brit who should know what fascism did to Europe and the rest of the world.) Millennials are primarily leftists as well as deniers of their Creator's authority. They do not tolerate people expressing, or even holding, views that disagree with theirs. Notice the leftist tantrums thrown when elections and votes do not go their way. There are complaints, tears, rioting, burning of dumpsters, irrational complaints to and by the secular press — and an observer can find Millennials in the thick of it.

Hatred of the Christian faith is another characteristic of Millennials, since they are confronted with the reality that they are sinners and God makes the rules, not them. That hurts their pride. I've noticed that this age group especially hates biblical creation science, and will fight red in tooth and claw to believe in the pagan religion of evolutionism, which is, in turn, foundational to the religion of atheism. Darwin requires huge amounts of time, so long-age uniformitarianism is also defended against contrary evidence. Children are born with a belief in the Creator, so evolutionary indoctrination is accelerating. A young earth as well as the Genesis Flood, which was God's judgment, are denied outright as well as ridiculed. Interesting that Scripture seems to warn us about those things as well in 2 Peter 3:3-6. We are also told about the coming Judgment that will be by fire (2 Peter 3:7).

Another aspect that I've seen regarding the Millennials is a profound absence of logical thinking (which seems to be common among secularists). Interesting that Darwin's devotees will call biblical creationists "science deniers" because we reject evolution. That is irrational, and based on the equivocation of science with evolution. No, we use science every day. There are many examples of logical fallacies from the hands at the Darwin Ranch (over yonder by Deception Pass) which I've documented many times elsewhere. Unfortunately — tragically — far too many Christians are unable to engage in critical thinking, and are buffaloed by obstreperous atheists and fundamentalist evolutionists who assert their presuppositions as if they were proven facts, and have a terrible view of knowledge itself. Know what and why you believe, people, and how to present it (1 Peter 3:15). The world does not need uninformed, feckless professing Christians who cannot understand their own faith.

I am sorry to say that lack of critical thinking is not only a characteristic of Millennials, atheists, and leftists. Professing Christians show a lack of logic in many ways. Some will jump on a bandwagon and either love or hate a person because it's trendy, and someone they like told them what to think. Pastor Dour has a sermon based on tradition and opinion, and his followers believe what he says, not checking his source material or the Bible. Professor Liberalwhiskers starts using selective citing to denigrate Scripture, saying the Bible is unreliable, and people believe him because he has his doctorate. Doctor Mystuff claims to be a Christian, but teaches that evolution is true, there was no Genesis Flood, evolution is a fact, and Earth is billions of years old. People believe him because he's a "scientist", and put their Bibles on the shelf while they slide into apostasy, and even side with atheists against those of us who actually believe the Bible. Happy Heretic makes people feel good, and twists Scripture to "prove" his points. People buy his books that have no gospel in them.

Meanwhile, biblical creationists are trying to encourage Christians to learn critical thinking skills and spot logical fallacies, as well as proper apologetic methods. Reasoning abilities apply to being able to biblically discern false teachings, and encourage people to require evidence instead of blindly following the declarations of those in error. My own skeptical nature and developing thinking skills prompted me to ask my Christian school teachers, "Where does it say that? How do you know...?" Made them work, and it helped my own doctrinal discernment. Come on, Christians! We need to think and to believe our Bibles — and put what we read into practice (James 1:22).

Want to know who the real science deniers are? Those who redefine marriage from what God ordained, and also assert that a transgendered "man" can "give birth", and call it a miracle. What ineffable twaddle! Gender "reassignment" is denial of science. Listen up, old son. A vote, court ruling, or anything else cannot change the reality of marriage, and bodily mutilation, hormones, social approval of perversion or anything else cannot make a man into a woman, or vice versa.

God made you. We are created in God's image. Someone can be angry about how they were born, but it's utterly senseless to say that they "feel like" the opposite sex. You were born the way you are, and have no way of knowing what it feels like to be what you are not. Apparently, that is too difficult for Millennials and others who rebel against God to understand.

A whole heap of repentance is in order. People are going to a terrible eternity, and we need to stand for the gospel message — beginning from the first verse of the Bible.

I strongly recommend the sermon that was the impetus behind this article. It's free, and called "Lovers of Self" by Dr. James White, and runs about 45 minutes. You can get that at this Sermon Audio link. You can listen online or download the MP3. If you click the download button, it will ask for you to sign up. Click "maybe later" and it will commence downloading.
 

Saturday, August 12, 2017

A Variation on the Question of Cain's Wife

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the most common questions in biblical creation science apologetics is, "Where did Cain get his wife?" I'll allow that it's a fair question, especially to people who are unfamiliar with having this kind of material presented in more than a cursory manner. On the other hand, we get folks visiting The Question Evolution Project that want to ridicule us and waste our time with insincere questions that they could easily look up themselves on biblical creationary sites. Those people inspired this graphic, and now I have an excuse to show it off:



However, I do not believe that the question that I awakened to this morning was intended to mock or waste time. But if so, it was interesting and I hope my answer will be useful to the enquirer and other readers. 

Corey asked,
I'm sure most of us will agree that a 4.5 billion year old Earth or a 70 million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex is such a shot in the dark based on assumptions that you may as well say any figure and believe it. My interest is to ask what people think about this: Cain said, 'I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.' So who were these people that could find him that didn't know who he was?
His question was more in depth than the one about Cain's wife, noting that there were other people on Earth as well, and they might be on the prod about Cain slaying Abel. What follows is an expanded version of the reply I gave him.

There are many articles related to the question, "Where did Cain get his wife?", but unfortunately, I could not find any that specifically addressed your concern. Many links would give you bits and pieces, but that's tedious. (I thought I could easily find a link for you, then I realized that I had heard it the subject in a sermon/podcast by someone somewhere maybe in the last month. Not helpful.) 

Remember that Cain was a liar and a murderer (Gen. 4:8-9), had been confronted, and punishment was pronounced (Gen. 4:10-12). Scripture does not tell us if he was trying to get sympathy out of God or trying to be manipulative in his complaint (Gen. 4:13-14). Even so, God marked him so that he would not be killed by someone else (Gen. 4:15). I should add that we have no idea about the "mark of Cain", but it was specifically for the man himself and not his descendants (who were probably wiped out in the Genesis Flood). Yes, some sidewinders take that verse out of context to justify white supremacy.

I think the central question, related to the one about where Cain got his wife, is the origin of these other people. Cain took his wife and newborn son, and built a city (Gen. 4:17). It's reasonable to think that there must have been people around to put it to good use. When Cain said, "Whoever sees me..." would have contained a grain of truth. The Bible is not as linear in its narratives as our modern sensibilities may prefer; only four people were named at this point, and we don't learn about others until after Cain lit a shuck out of there.

When we read "the begats", we may tend to neglect certain aspects. Genesis 5:4 tells us that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters —

"Wait, Cowboy Bob. You're telling us that Cain married his sister?!? I admit my sis is kind of cute, but I ain't touching her!"

Yes, I'm saying Cain married his sister, or another close relative. God told Adam and Eve, and therefore mankind, to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). They were genetically perfect. (Just between us, the perfect people produced the woman that Cain would marry, and since they were perfect, whatcha wanna bet that she was a "hot babe", especially after Adam's apparently joyous outburst at their first meeting in Gen. 1:22-23?) God said, "...for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:17). Some owlhoots say that the Bible is not true or that God was lying, because when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they did not drop dead on the spot. Sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin (Rom. 5:12-14); the more precise translation of God's words is, "Dying you shall die". The death process began, and people did eventually die — as we well know.

So, there were people, and they had long life spans. Lots of people appeared from the first couple and their offspring as time went on. They married close relatives until God said, "All right, cut it out" much later, in Exodus (correction, Leviticus 18:6-18 and other verses). In addition to variations in people, genetic degradation was more pronounced, and genetic entropy was increasing.

Ever notice that people complain about close relatives getting hitched up and making babies in early chapters of the Bible, but don't bat an eye when Darwin, Einstein, and others in more recent (and far more degraded times) married close relatives? Just a thought.

So, we don't really know certain things related to Corey's question. Cain may have been using hyperbole in his complaints to God, or his concerns about retribution may have had some merit. The children of the first parents would have, by necessity, married close relatives. Genetic degradation was beginning and increasing, and God put a stop to marrying close relatives later.
 

For additional reading, and I encourage people who want to know more to search the sites recommended below:

I hope and pray that the materials are helpful to all y'all.


Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Unbelievers Use Word Games to Reject the Bible

It is common for people to use tropes and exaggeration to make a point, even when the original meaning has changed or been forgotten. I referred to my current employer as the Thieves Guild because they cheat employees out of their pay. People can pick up the meaning even if they are unaware that the term came from various fantasy stories, and is used in role-playing games. My wife likes to put peanuts outside for the blue jays, nuthatches, and titmouses. A few minutes ago, she did this, and told me, "I had 500 blue jays out there!" Uh, no. She was using exaggeration to add color and make her point.

Writers of the Bible used expressions that were not meant to be literal (such as sunrise and sunset, words that are regularly employed by many people who know full well that the sun does not actually rise or set). Some owlhoots are playing the "Gotcha!" game by saying that phenomenological language means the Bible has errors. This somehow gives them license to insert different meanings into the text so they can justify their beliefs.


Mostly made at Glass Giant
We expect atheists to contrive various excuses to claim that the Bible is untrue, but there are professing Christians who commence to badmouthing the Bible so they can justify deep time, theistic evolution, and other things. In a 2005 debate with Dr. John Crossnan, Dr. James White said something better than I have done: "In my experience, those who argue against the authenticity of the gospel accounts always do so in defense of a preexisting commitment to a particular religious or anti-religious viewpoint." In this case, people are denigrating Scripture so they can believe things that it doesn't say. They claim to believe the Bible, but like atheists, they reject its authority.
Denis Lamoureux seeks to resolve perceived contradictions between science and Scripture by persuading that Scripture is not inerrant, but is infallible in doctrine, and he reasons that the phenomenological language defense (as he terms it) fails to recognize the impact of ancient science upon the text. This is in contrast to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, which argues that phenomenological language does not invalidate the inerrancy of the Bible. Lamoureux describes himself as a “literal non-literalist,” but his work exhibits a certain naïveté about lexical semantics (along with a number of other hermeneutical issues undergirding his analysis). The problems with Lamoureux’s analysis can be seen, for example, in his analysis of the mustard seed motif in the gospels, and a wholly inadequate understanding of the idiomatic nature of hyperbole. But, more telling is his failure to recognize the impact that ancient science might have on the terminology used to describe natural phenomenon. This problem is best demonstrated by the impact that ancient theories of biology on the semantic domain of the words translated “heart” in the Bible. This being the case, his arguments against the inerrantist position loses much of its force.
To read the rest, click on "Phenomenological Language and Semantic Naïveté".