Wednesday, December 30, 2020

Darwinism and the United Methodist Church

My father was a pastor in the Untied Methodist Church (misspelling intentional) for fifty years, but for some reason, he never accepted evolutionism to my knowledge. He had liberal theology and some old-earth views, but some owlhoots in the denomination were far too liberal for his standards.

Compromise on creation leads to rejection of the authority of Scripture. The United Methodist Church is very liberal and promotes Darwinism.
Original image before modification: Wikimedia Commons / San906 (CC0 1.0)

The UMC states that it has 12 million members, so it is not surprising that members have a variety of views. (One adult Sunday School class I attended was conducted by someone who was not even a member of that church, and was thought to be an agnostic. Good church decision making there, huh?) One of the first observed problems with compromise on creation is rejection of the authority of Scripture.

Years ago, I was giving creation science presentations to churches, and one of them was a UMC. That pastor believed in biblical creation, but one old boy refused to shake my hand or even look at me after the service. While the denomination is infested with Darwinism and liberalism, it is so large that many member believe in creation. Most of those in power, however, do not.

The United Methodist Church’s opposition to both creationism and intelligent design was reviewed. It was concluded that the membership is generally in support of the creation worldview, but the high-level leadership, especially the bishops, in general, support the Darwinian worldview and oppose the creation worldview. According to its website, the church’s official policy is that all life, including humans, evolved from a common ancestor by the accumulation of mutations selected by the survival-of-the-fittest mechanism called natural selection.

 To read the rest of this paper, see "A history of the United Methodist Church’s opposition to creationism and intelligent design".

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

Christmas — Relatively Speaking

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

For a short time, there was a series of captioned pictures often called "Unimpressed Astronaut" where the image was condescending about, for example, sky diving. There are many comparisons that people make, and getting some perspective can be a good thing at times. 

Many things are relative in comparison. The birth of Jesus, God the Son in the flesh, is unique. False gods have nothing like it.
Adoration of the Shepherds, Giorgione, ca. 1505

We had the winter's first serious cold spell, reaching low temperatures of two degrees Fahrenheit (almost minus 17 Celsius). It was cold for us, especially since winter did not hit our area all that hard until the week of December 17, 2020. People in Montana and other states would be saying, "That's cute". So would many in Canada, eh? Or Siberia, such as in this two-minute video:

So, some things that may seem like a big deal to one person are not all that impressive to another. Indeed, what is considered poverty level in these here formerly United States is almost luxurious to poverty in places like India — relatively speaking.

Postmodern philosophy uses relative morality, which is self-refuting. Indeed, the apostle Paul slapped down the idea of people comparing themselves with each other (2 Cor. 10:12). It is not uncommon to have misotheists say, "I'm a good person. I don't do this or that, and I've done all these wonderful things...and I'm better than a lot of Christians!" Assuming that the professing atheist (who was lying earlier in a comments section) was being honest, so what?

Original image: Unsplash / Jared Rice

When a misotheist accuses a creationist of "lying about evolution", ask why, if that is true, would it be wrong according to an atheistic worldview. After all, we're just bundles of chemicals, meat machines, doing what biology dictates. We're doing what we think improves our survival and comfort. The atheist is actually appealing to an ultimate standard and is not being consistent with a postmodernist or materialist "truth is relative" philosophy!

On a superficial level, people say that gods have powers above mere mortals, then equate Yahweh with those other ones. Not hardly! Look at mythology and see that those gods were capricious, spiteful, lusted after humans, deceivers, and more. For the most part, they didn't care about humans who were simply trifles for their amusements.

There is nothing relative about the importance of Christmas, and nothing like it in mythology, either. God the Son humbled himself and left his glory behind, humbling himself and taking on the form of a man. Mary the virgin conceived and gave birth to Jesus. His humiliation went further, to death on the cross. He was bodily raised in glory three days later, and he sent the Holy Spirit to indwell believers. We are waiting for his return and the blessed hope, not an eternal dirt nap. No mythological gods had anything like that to offer. Neither does the hopelessness of atheism.

Nothing relative about it, nothing remotely similar with any of those false gods. They don't love us, nor do they want our repentance. It's simple, because they don't exist. We have excellent reasons to celebrate Christmas!

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

Genesis Flood was Global

Pardon the awkward title, but Blogger, a property of the leftists at Google, was not allowing the previous one to publish. Since they keep destroying my work now, I keep backing it up so I can eventually post something. Even if I have to change titles and publishing times.

There are professing Christians who believe that the Genesis Flood was a local event. Worse, some say it was allegorical. Mayhaps they were not taught well, have not seriously read the Bible — or fully believe it. Denying the global Flood has serious repercussions.

Professing Christians who believe the Genesis Flood was mythical, allegorical, or local have serious problems to address. Biblically, none are options.
Credit: Pixabay / Jeff Jacobs

To be blunt, by denying the global Flood, they not only have a problem with biblical authority, they are also calling God a liar. It is referenced several times in Scripture. Bible authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit affirmed the global Flood, as did Jesus who is God the Son. If they were mistaken or dishonest, professing Christians have serious problems with who to trust for their salvation.

It is clear that the Flood was global, even without in-depth studies of Hebrew and Greek words. In addition, we see that the Noachian Flood was catastrophic. An explanation of the original languages is helpful in this area, but again, much can be learned by reading the Bible. Creation science emphasizes what is observed in geology. When old-earth assumptions are stripped away and the evidence is seriously considered from a Flood geology standpoint, things make a great deal more sense than an allegorical, mythical, or local Flood.

I have had the privilege of speaking on creation and evolution in 35 countries, and I have found that most Christians have never considered the biblical and scientific evidence that Genesis 1–11 is literal history and teaches that the creation is only about 6000 years old. I have also found that most Christians accept the claim made by the scientific majority that the earth is billions of years old. I have further found that whether Christians accept the millions of years or not, the vast majority have never considered Noah’s flood and its relevance to the question of the age of the earth.

To read the rest of this informative article, see "Noah’s Flood: a Historical, Global Catastrophe".

Blogger, a Google Property, Refuses to Let Me Publish My Post

There are professing Christians who believe that the Genesis Flood was a local event. Worse, some say it was allegorical. Mayhaps they were not taught well, have not seriously read the Bible — or fully believe it. Denying the global Flood has serious repercussions.


Thursday, December 10, 2020

Secular Truth and Biblical Morality

One of the purposes of presuppositional apologetics is to prompt people to consider their own worldviews and assumptions. Angry misotheists have told me that creationists are lying about evolution, so I ask them if that was true, what would be wrong with it?

Secularists attempt to inoculate people with their versions of truth to make them immune to contrary information. Such a worldview is incoherent.
Original image source: Unsplash / Jared Rice
Responses to questions like that invariably involve changing the subject and attacking me, distraction, circular reasoning, or even outright refusal to answer the question. Evolution is a cornerstone for atheism, so if we were lying, we would be doing that with the view that it brings us happiness and helps our survivability.

Also seen are comments on posts that show scientific geological reasons to believe in the Genesis Flood, but atheopaths refuse to actually read the material and ridicule biblical creationists. In essence, we're wrong because atheism. This is based on hardcore presuppositions of deep time and naturalism.

As Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Dr. Jason Lisle, and others have stated, "Atheism is incoherent and lacks the preconditions of human experience". Only biblical Christianity can provide a consistent worldview, including morality and ethics. When a secularists complain about something they consider wrong or immoral, they have to stand on the biblical worldview. After all, according to naturalism, we are just bundles of chemicals and there is no right or wrong!

Refusal to consider evidence that disputes someone's narrative is contrary to science. If evidence is wrong, show us why instead of labeling creationists as "science haters" and global warming skeptics as "climate deniers". We have some tinhorns that want to essentially vaccinate us with their beliefs so we will resist facts that may turn out to be true and their narrative proven false. This includes the Wuhan COVID-19 narratives.
How does a materialist gain the right to combat misinformation from a Darwinian process?

There’s a lot of talk about vaccines right now as medical researchers race to test one that works against SARS-CoV-2. Gayathri Vaidyanathan, speaking in a news feature in PNAS, is looking for another vaccine: “Finding a vaccine for misinformation.”

It’s a worthy goal to combat lies. Vaidyanathan, a science writer who specializes in sustainability science, distinguishes between mis-information, which involves not knowing the truth, and dis-information, which involves the intentional spreading of falsehoods. In this age of rapid social media, both are certainly problems. Readers must be on guard everywhere.

I really hope you're read the rest of this at "Fact-Checking Requires Biblical Morality".


Wednesday, December 2, 2020

Poor Excuses for Rejecting Creation

So often with various kinds of conversion experiences where people get all worked up about something — then the excitement cools. Books are untouched on the shelves, no interest in lectures (videos or otherwise), but they have a smattering of knowledge.

When encountering people who claim to be former creationists, their arguments are usually weak and show their lack of knowledge. We must be ready.
Image source before modification: Pixabay / Spencer Wing
This is especially sad when someone believes in Jesus Christ but then falls away (Matt. 13:18-23). In a similar way, someone can become excited about biblical creation science but get discouraged and distracted by philosophies, intimidated by militant atheists, harassed by college professors, teased by friends, and so on.

There are some who claim to be "former creationists" that have saddled up to ride with the Old Earth brand (or even with professing atheists), but when they have discussions with knowledgeable creationists, it is discovered that they only had superficial knowledge of biblical creation science.

Worse, their theology (which is intertwined with it) is also frequently weak. They repeat boilerplate objections, and sometimes mix bullets in their chamber: mythology, atheism, evolution, old-earth pseudoscience, philosophy, and more. We are often subjected to ill-conceived opinions and prejudicial conjecture. All of these are intended to justify their rebellion against the authority of God's Word.

The article linked below seems as if we are joining a conversation after it began, and we are getting a reply. Several subjects are touched on here, and I suggest that you read it not only for the individual segments, but the overall part about how skeptics do not do their homework, and it is important that we do ours. Primarily, stay in the Word and get good biblical teaching. Second, keep up with what is happening in creation science, which also keeps us informed about evolution and fake science news.

Take a look at "Theology made me reject creation", if you will.


Wednesday, November 25, 2020

Theophilus the Biblical Apologist

Some people claim that biblical (young age) creation is a recent phenomenon, but that is contrary to most of church history and to the Bible. Theophilus of Antioch was an apologist who believed the creation account in Genesis and defended the truth of Scripture.

Recent creation is taught in God's Word and is found early in church history. Theophilus argued  against paganism and upheld biblical authority.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos / Janaka Dharmasena
Theophilus was a former pagan who converted to Christianity, then he wrote a long apologetic to a pagan named Autolycus about the truth of the Bible. He obviously knew paganism and the Scriptures, and affirmed the authority of God's Word — beginning from Genesis. We need to do the same in our own increasingly idolatrous and pagan cultures.
In the second century, after the original disciples of Jesus had died, the fledlging Christian church was beginning to grow and expand into a hostile Greco-Roman world, and accusations were brought against them by unbelievers. These accusations came from a number of people, one of whom was Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia. Pliny wrote a letter (AD 111–113) to the Roman emperor Trajan (AD 98–117) to give a multidimensional complaint about Christians. One of Pliny’s concerns was that Christians had become a social threat by their failure to worship the Roman gods. Because of this, Christians were accused of atheism, since they practiced a religion not approved by the state. . . .

Into this hostile environment, a number of Christian apologists rose up to answer the many accusations against the Christian faith (i.e., Justin Martyr, 100–165 AD; Tertullian, 155–220 AD). However, someone who is often overlooked for his apologetic response to the accusations from unbelievers is Theophilus (Θεόφιλος, friend of God), bishop of Antioch (died 181 AD).

Read the rest of this interesting article at "Theophilus: Second Century Creation Apologist".

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Meditation with the Proper Focus

It may be surprising, but everyone meditates in one form or another. It manifests itself in different ways, whether obsession in how to cheat and win an election, activities of favorite sports times, how much an atheist hates God that destroying "religion" and attacking Christians is an all-consuming goal, proving dust-to-Darwin evolution is true, television, sitting there woolgathering, and more. Some seek more formal types of meditation.

Many people seek meditation as a relief of stress and to seek balance in their lives. Improper meditation often does more harm than good.
Credit: Pexels / Gantas Vaičiulėnas

Much of what is used for meditation purposes involves Eastern religious practices. Some versions want the meditator to empty the mind and think of nothing, but that is actually dangerous because (some folks balk at this truth) people are opening themselves up to demonic influences. No, I'm not saying you'll become possessed necessarily, but demonic influence does happen through opening that door.

The word mindfulness is often used regarding meditation, but not in the sense of paying attention to where you set your keys after you came home. Secular psychologists advise meditation and the occult form of mindfulness, but their advice has proved to be harmful for many people!

The Bible frequently talks about meditation, but people confuse helpful and necessary biblical meditation with Eastern occult forms. Some spurious counselors even have "Christian devotional meditation" that has a smattering of Christian and a heapin' helpin' of mysticism. The most important thing is to meditate on the truth of God's Word and aspects of our Creator's glory and majesty, but without the vain repetition of pagan practices.

People with depression who have been taught mindfulness and meditation do not always get better. Why not?

Depression is skyrocketing among young adults during the pandemic, Live Science reports. It is essential, therefore, to learn what kinds of therapy work, and which do not. Some commonly-prescribed cures may be worse than the disease.

Mindfulness is the art of paying close attention to your thoughts. Meditation, as taught by secular psychologists, often includes mindfulness. Clare Wilson at New Scientist announced, “Mindfulness and meditation can worsen depression and anxiety.”

To read the rest, visit "Object of Meditation Matters".


Wednesday, November 11, 2020

Believing Despite Evidence for an Old Earth?

While some areas of the Bible are subject to differing interpretations and even disputes, I reckon we can agree that our understanding is the problem; God is not a deceiver. While we walk by faith and not by sight, we are not conflicted by evidence.

Christians must believe the infallibility and authority of God's Word, but there is no conflict between it and actual science regarding the age of the earth.
Credit: Pixnio / Maysam Yabandeh
To quote the great theologian Chico Marx, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Except in cases of obvious miracles, the Bible does not contain claims that are not contravened by observed scientific facts. Yet some people think the earth appears to be old but through some kind of fideism, they believe the Bible anyway. 

Yes, we need to cling to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, but we don't need to rustle up a conflict where none exists. When someone says that the earth "looks old", what is their point of reference? The so-called scientific evidence for deep time is fraught with problems and is inferred — nobody knows the age of a planet to use for comparison purposes. In reality, there are many factual evidences for recent creation. As y'all have probably heard before, we don't have to turn off our minds to be Christians.
Some within the creation community make the claim that they would believe God’s Word about the age of the universe even if all the evidence pointed otherwise. Trusting God, no matter what, is certainly a good thing. However, then they claim that He intentionally made the universe “look old.” Did God make an old universe but describe a young one in Genesis just to test our faith?

The article is short, but I think you'll get something out of it. To read the rest, see "Believe Anyway". 

Friday, November 6, 2020

Internet Debates with Atheists are Seldom Useful

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Christians are supposed to be ready to give reasons for the hope that is in us, and many feel they are witnessing for the faith in various online forums. However, one has to discern when time is being wasted.

Made at Pablo, quote source is here
As I have stated several times in the past, the word debate is used very loosely. Nowadays it can mean a screaming match, a structured exchange of points and rebuttals, an exchange of comments in various online forums, and all sorts of things. Let's consider internet activity.

Minerals-to-mocker evolution is a cornerstone of atheism and for other rejections of the authority of God's Word. Although what is presented as scientific evidence is based on faith, assumptions, redefining words, circular reasoning, and poor research, evolutionists prefer to defend it no matter how foolish it looks. That is because admitting that evidence supports the Bible is infandous.

Readers of my other sites may recall that I have dealt with atheists who demand proof that God exists. That'll be the day! God is holy and infinite, our Creator and Redeemer, and professing Christians should never allow The Mighty Atheist™ to put God on trial. (This is a problem that I have with the Intelligent Design movement.) Sinful humans are in to position to use their corrupted "wisdom" to decide if God exists and is worthy of worship! No, they should be accepting the evidence that they have been given (Rom. 1:18-23), humbling themselves, and repenting.

One atheopath was asking questions and I gave some answers about creation and other things. Then he attacked with, "But you still can't prove your [G]od exists". That jasper did not want answers, but only to waste my time and to troll.

Note as well that when given any sort of evidence to consider, they refuse to read articles, watch videos, and so on. This is often packed into the genetic fallacy where they reject something from a creationist source, and use the loaded term, "valid scientific journal", which is a kind of ad hominem and a disingenuous redefinition that means they require something that cannot happen: creation science presented in a secular scientific journal

Elsewhere, I encountered the atheist mentioned again and asked, "What constitutes proof in your eyes?" The answer was, "[W]hat proof do you have, and I will evaluate it". As I have said, they have all the evidence they need. Let me add that these misotheists are not going to coerce God into making an extra effort to jump through hoops and accede to their demands. Also, if they want scientific or empirical proof that God exists, they are committing the category error. That is, God is Spirit, and the Creator is not made of the creation. Someone once asked, "What color litmus paper would you use to test for God?"

There was a time when most professing atheists were not only honest enough to admit that they believed there is no God (or gods), but would at least tolerate people who did not share in their disbelief. Today, mockery and ridicule of Christians and creationists are militant.

I have mentioned one Page of angry atheopaths whose only purpose is to share Facebook posts to their own Page for the purpose of ridicule. (The owners of Pages shared from usually are given an electronic notification of these shares.) An Admin at The Question Evolution Project shared a post about vestigial organs, and the atheopath Admin acted in the usual manner of mocking without reading and showing herself to be a great fool again:

Used under federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
If she was well-read on her own evolutionary mythology as well as real science, she may not have made such ridiculous remarks. Also, biblical creation science organizations have taught extensively in videos, books, articles, and such about how vestigial organs/structures no longer please Papa Darwin.

Another hatetheist joined in with an exceptionally dishonest comment. It contained truth, but was designed to mislead others and make creationists look foolish:

Used under federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
He ignored the fact that doctors did remove the appendix (as well as tonsils and adenoids, by the way) because they were allegedly evolutionary leftovers — and caused real or at least potential harm for the patients. Hail Darwin, blessed be! He has hindered medical science many times.

Such bigotry and hatred, along with utter irrationality, are reasons I do not spend time seeking out dens of misotheists. There are times when I may encounter someone who has genuine questions, that is a different matter and I will trust the leading of the Holy Spirit to know whether or not I am wasting my time.

Let me show you these selected examples of visceral hatred from an individual:

Used under federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
Have you ever noticed that no other professing atheists chastise the greatest offenders? I believe it's because they tacitly approve of such actions. If a professing Christian acted in such a manner, other Christians are likely to rebuke him and say he or she is being dishonoring to the Lord.

Also, I can't help but puzzle and puzzle and puzzle until my puzzler is sore about their extreme hatred. They hate us because they hate God who lives within us, that's a biblical fact. I think they are pricked in their spirits because biblical creation science offers convincing and compelling evidence against universal common descent evolution and affirming recent creation. That would ultimately mean that God is the Creator and he makes the rules!

Let's saddle up and ride to another county.

There is a site called Revolution Against Evolution that is censored on Fazebook. Every once in a while, a link or site is censored. If I want to share something, I can couch it in my own material. That's the story now, and we'll go to a link that inspired my own article (above).

Dr. Jerry Bergman essentially resigned from engaging with professing atheists online. They are obstreperous, and use a prairie schooner-full of logical fallacies. Stay on topic and discuss the material in a civil and rational manner? Ain't happenin', Hoss.

Unfortunately, although Dr. Bergman has given creationists and Intelligent Design proponents a great deal of excellent material, I have problems with his approach. He needs to be less hesitant about affirming the Bible and learn how to use presuppositional apologetics.

He debated an atheist, who cleaned his clock. Not because of evidence, but a presuppositionalist is unlikely to have fallen for distractions, manipulation, and poor logic. Bergman clearly knows the science aspects of what he was presenting, but needed to learn about worldviews and countering logical fallacies.
I now rarely involve myself in internet discussion rooms with Darwinists (many of whom are, in Stephen J. Gould’s terms, “Darwin Fundamentalists”) because, in the vast majority of cases, they end up viciously attacking, or at the least making fun of, all Darwin critics (and, not uncommonly, all theists).  Feedback from critics is enormously important and is a key to how science functions (called peer review), but I have found critics present very little helpful information on these chat rooms or web sites—although occasionally very useful criticism is provided.  Much more common are cute putdowns and a flow of hateful derogatory sarcasm (note the comments about Darwin skeptic “Charlie Wagner,” below).

You can read the rest (I recommend just skimming the comments of hatetheists, they are common boilerplate material) by clicking on "Why I No Longer Debate Darwinists in Internet Chat Rooms". You may also like some other articles by Dr. Jerry at this link. Oh, and that "goosebumps are vestigial" canard? Here's a quick answer:

Thursday, October 29, 2020

Christians and Voting for Political Leaders

Those of us who live in countries where we can elect our political leaders must keep a few things in mind. Especially Christians. Elections are not supposed to be about personalities, speaking voices, the nicest hair, and other irrelevant things. Choices should be about who can get the job done.

Who will Christians vote for to occupy the White House requires serious consideration.
White House image credit: The White House, modified at PhotoFunia
We should remember that many countries do not allow a choice. In the United States, we are in a constitutional republic and use a democratic process to select our leaders. Unfortunately, many people believe things when a politician seeking power will say things the gullible people want to hear. Christians must prayerfully consider what they are doing, as it is for the glory of God and what is best for the country.

It is distressing that some Christians are sanctimonious, judging the morality of a candidate based on what they have been told by the mainstream media. Many accusations are made, but we don't see them proven — or even credible. Has God forgiven you for your past sins (whether in the distant past or five minutes ago), and will he forgive you for what you will do in the near future? Yes. Perhaps you should allow the Holy Spirit to convict other people. 

We are not choosing a spiritual leader when we vote for a president or anyone else in authority. For that matter, the Bible instructs us to submit to those in authority and to pray for them. Paul wrote about that while in a Roman prison. Not imprisoned by a Christian government, but one run by pagans.

I have to interject something here. I am not fond of Billy Joel, but something struck me. In the song Only the Good Die Young, he asked about Virginia's mother "...never cared for me, but did she ever say a prayer for me?" When we judge someone, do we bother to pray for them? We would also do well to keep well in mind that we are voting for a platform, which is a set of policies. One party is on record for hating God and supports many things that the Bible opposes, the other wants to do away with abortion and support our freedoms. Do not "think" with your emotions or what you have been told to think by the leftist media. Take God with you in the voting booth. Remember, there is no perfect candidate (nor is there a perfect party) because all are humans who have sinned. Just like you and me.
As many Christians are considering who to vote for in the presidential voting, we should remember what the act of voting is—and what it is not. At first glance, voting appears to be the act of approving a candidate’s personal shortcomings. In other words, some think voting for a candidate is an affirmation of a candidate’s character flaws. Voting is not that kind of action. Instead, voting is the deliberate act of preferring a candidate who supports a set of policies over an alternative set of policies. To illustrate this approach, I submit two things voting is not.

I hope you will read the rest of "Two Things Presidential Voting Is Not". Since this subject is so urgent, I have some more material to present.

I’ve read quite a number of articles on whether Christians should vote, how Christians should vote, and so on. There are so many differing ideas. I come from a country (Australia) where voting is compulsory. Australia doesn’t have the type of constitutional protection America has where there is a special emphasis on free speech, freedom of religion, and free exercise of religion as written in the first amendment. I do praise the Lord for the freedoms that have been enjoyed in this great country.

When my wife and I became naturalized citizens many years ago, we were thrilled to know we could then choose to vote and contribute to who would be elected to shape what happens for those living in this nation.

Please read the rest of "The Bible-Believing Christian’s Privilege to Vote & Pray". Finally, some in-depth material can be found at "God, Creation, and Government". 

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Christians and Space Alien Stories

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As many Bible believers know, the Christian life can sometimes be like walking through a minefield. We have to stay close to God to lead us through it. This involves getting into the Word, prayer, receiving solid biblical instruction, and more. We also must keep in balance. While many pleasures are not inherently sinful, we need to be careful about what we allow into our minds. How about science fiction?

Can Christians like science fiction involving space aliens? The answer is not clear-cut.
Credit: Pixabay / JavierRodrigues
Some Christians seem almost fearful that if they do anything that is not spiritually edifying, they will dishonor Christ. This can be truth out of balance because of the need of building up faith and godly wisdom, and focusing on those things is important — especially for a new Christian. (I'm all in favor of going a mite overboard for a while in that area.) I'm listening to classical music while writing this. While it's "secular", it's not harmful to my spiritual life. Savvy?

By necessity, biblical creationists read and watch material supporting metaphysical naturalism and evolution. Some even read material from atheists, but those people tend to be grounded in the faith and use those things for ministry purposes.

"Why were you watching Stargate SG-1 earlier, Cowboy Bob?

Research! Always looking for material. (Actually, I tweaked a line from Sam Diamond in Murder by Death.) Besides, the Stargate shows are currently my favorite science fiction. 

The science fiction category is extremely broad, including speculative and cautionary stories, fantasies about the far future, monsters, and more. Unfortunately, many presuppose evolution and atheism. In the Stargate SG-1 series, there are numerous snide remarks disparaging "religion", but those are not usually upfront. One premise of the series is that certain aliens pretend to be gods, obtain fanatical following, then use their power to enslave people and gain more power.

There is a fallacious presumption included that since there are evil beings pretending to be gods, there are no gods at all — especially the Creator God of the Bible, who generally goes completely unmentioned. Also, the false "war between reason and religion" is often implied. The most blatant caricature of religion was in the episode "Icon". In this one, the team reached a world where sensible people had to contend with "religious fundamentalists" who were loyal to the false gods that used the Stargate. People were awaiting the return of those gods who would reward the faithful. Sound familiar?

Harry Harrison was a noted science fiction author who wrote the often hilarious Stainless Steel Rat series as well as the Deathworld trilogy. Every once in a while in SSR, there would be remarks like, "Sure is good that we're free from the shackles of religion!" The second Deathworld novel was originally titled The Ethical Engineer. This one was a blatant attack on Christianity disguised as a dialogue between the main character and a religious nut. I was tempted to write an article on this novel, but it was long, tedious, and irritating. Besides, it's the same boilerplate tripe that we hear from fundamentalist atheists on a regular basis, and therefore has been refuted many times.

When referring to science fiction, stories of spaceships and aliens often come to mind. Prominent in these are atheistic humanism and evolutionism. Darwin's disciples operate under the presuppositions that since life evolved on Earth and since there are possibly a septillion stars in the universe, then life must have evolved on planets out yonder as well. These stories are usually based on Big Bang cosmogony. Indeed, the Time Lords of Doctor Who were the "oldest" and "most advanced", which assumes evolution, deep time, and the Big Bang.

Can Christians believe that space aliens exist? It's not a salvation issue, but there are serious theological problems with that view, akin to those found in theistic evolution. Can or should Christians indulge in science fiction? More specifically, when it involves extraterrestrial life?

Well, I've drawn inspiration from such stories, including Star Trek:TNG episodes. (If you've a mind to, you can read "Science Fiction and Genetic Engineering" and "Engineered Nanobot Evolution".) This whole shootin' match about Christians, entertainment, secular pursuits, and stories with space aliens is complicated. Wisdom, a biblical foundation, and Spirit-led counsel are necessary.

The following article deals with the aliens issue. I hope you'll read the letter and response (it's actually shorter than what you just read here), and note that there are several articles linked in the text and at the end for further investigation.
Throughout life, there have been preachers who state sci-fi is evil, or Satanic. My father just told me not to worry, Star Wars and such is all in good fun. I enjoy movies with a critical eye and know when the writers are putting in a political or anti-biblical agenda.
I honestly don’t see why there can’t be Christian science fiction. I’m unsure as to why your team have the view that aliens or extra-dimensional beings would be a result of an evolutionary act. There are Christians, here in Oklahoma who believe any of that sort of stuff is actually angels/the fallen ones…I’m not so sure about all that!
To read the full article (a letter and reply), visit "Is otherworldly science fiction biblical?"


Wednesday, October 14, 2020

The Two Basic Worldviews

Not so long ago, we would hear people pontificating about two kinds of people, such as, "There are two kinds of people: those who believe the Bible, and those who do not".* It may come as a surprise to some people to learn that there are only two worldviews.

We all have a worldview, which is like spectacles through which we interpret information and live our lives. Essentially, there are only two.
Original image before modification: Freeimages / Kenn Kiser
Most people have probably not made a study of their worldviews, but they are the basis of how we live our lives, our presuppositions, our epistemology, and so on. Atheists presuppose there is no God, so their misotheistic spectacles impact how they live their lives and interpret evidence. The same with Christians. There are variations within worldviews of course, such as biblical creationists who are Christians, or professing atheists who are not entirely unreasonable. Essentially, there are only two worldviews.

Picture two people in a living room. A man puts on green-colored glasses, and a woman puts on red-colored glasses. Everything the man sees has a green tint while everything the woman sees has a red shade. The couch may be brown, but to the man it will be a greenish-brown. The chair may be white, but to the woman it will have a pinkish-hue. Everything is colored by the glasses the man and the woman wear. That’s what happens with a worldview.

To read the rest of this short but informative article, visit "Only Two Worldviews".

* My favorite send-up of these things came around when the fad was fading, "There are two kinds of people: those who divide people into two kinds, and those who don't".

Thursday, October 8, 2020

The New Testament Affirms Created Kinds

If you study on it, languages can be tricky things. Using the wrong word, or using the right word but being misunderstood, can cause a passel of confusion. Translating a language is challenging enough, but factor in different cultures from long ago and the situation becomes rather intricate.

Mostly made at Pablo

The English language has, I believed, devolved over the years. (Read some of the classic literature from the 18th and 19th centuries and you'll see that the eloquent prose from days gone by stands in stark contrast to much of what is available today.) This may be the case for other languages. Most of the New Testament is translated from Koine Greek, which was very precise. While I can say that I love my wife or love good food, the word love is the same but with different meanings. Koine Greek had four words to describe love.

Digging deeper, wording made a great difference. Sorry I can't find something to back this up (maybe someone can add a comment), but I heard a talk where the questions that Paul asks in 1 Cor. 12:29-30 use wording that indicate a negative answer: "Are all prophets?" The "no" is built in. 

Christians know that Jesus is God the Son and he is the Creator. The word translated created in Colossians 1:16 is not as simple as we may think. It actually has a structure that indirectly refers back to Genesis and the created kinds. Yes, biblical creationists believe that the kinds remain in place, but we reject the fixity of species. Indeed, speciation is a part of God's engineering. We are told that our Creator upholds all things by his power — he did not tell his creatures to go into all the world and turn into something else.
The opening chapter of Genesis makes a significant and scientifically accurate statement concerning the fixity of created kinds. During the creation week, we repeatedly read the phrase that every type of living thing was created “after its kind.”

While there is observable variation within plant and animal kinds, we don’t see one fundamental kind evolving into another, nor do we see any evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Interestingly, we see the Creator’s upholding of fundamental, creation-based principles reaffirmed in the Greek text of the New Testament.

To finish reading, see "New Testament Upholds Created Kind Stasis".

Thursday, October 1, 2020

Christians Must Stop Being Defensive

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Since this post will undoubtedly get many people angry, timorous Christians can stop reading now. Is there anybody left? Great! I have some blunt truth for both of you.

Just recently, I had a crisis of — what do I call it? Not of faith. The reasoning of online village atheists is childish, full of logical holes and excuses so I'm not going over to the darkness. It's also a great time to be a biblical creationist, as we already had a passel of evidence and reason to support special creation and refute the Bearded Buddha's evolutionary machinations.

But I wanted to give up. More than once.


Christians and creationists are marginalized by secular elitists. Problem is, too many of us take it. The truth is on our side, and we must go on the offense.
Charge of the Rough Riders at San Juan Hill, Frederic Remington, 1898
This may seem a strange time to tell y'all this, but it's in keeping with the rest of the article and the one linked below. When everything's looking good with faith, reason, and evidence, why should I want to quit? Because of professing Christians. Because of lazy Christians. As I have said before, my goal is to glorify God and help equip the saints to stand on the Word of God. Why should I waste my time researching and writing when religious people "fight" evolution through captioned pictures, or fight each other over trivial matters? 1 Peter 3:15-16 is not just for doctrine, but for faith and presenting reasons that we believe. 

This child thinks that although mediocre "Christians" have been around from the get-go, it's getting worse now in the Western world. Many of us don't fight back against worldly philosophies, liberal theology, and leftist government in Western countries. In stark contrast, the church in persecuted countries is growing — they take the faith seriously and pay dearly for living it.



We hear and read about heroes of the faith that did not back down, make admiring noises, and then fill our minds with worldly pleasures. Do we really wonder why we get horsewhipped in discussions with atheists and evolutionists? There are pastors and teachers who try to build up other believers and equipment for the fight. We can try to learn.

If you want to stand on the sidelines and offer plates of cookies and group hugs to enemies of God instead of contending for the faith (2 Cor. 10:4-5, Jude 1:3, Eph. 6:11), you can at least pray for us who are in the battle. However, we are all called to contend for the faith. When we are lazy and uninformed, Satan's handmaidens walk all over us.

Expect persecution if you're going to stand up for the Word. None of this "God wants me to be happy" nonsense. The Christian life is not easy, so that's probably why we have so many CINOs (Christians In Name Only). We were told persecution would happen (2 Tim. 3:12, Mark 4:17, Acts 11:19, Rom. 8:35), and it comes in many forms. Is your commitment to the approval of man, or the approval of God?

In addition to praying for those on the front lines and giving financial contributions (no, I don't want your money), get into the Word and know your doctrine (applicable instruction). Some people think that doctrine is almost a dirty word or reserved for Bible scholars, but that's not true. Romans 16:1, 1 Timothy 4:6, Hebrews 6:1 and others indicate that laypeople as well as elders know doctrine. Otherwise (as is too often the case), professing Christians are deceived by false doctrine (Eph. 4:14, Acts 20:30) and bad philosophies. Biblically illiterate religious people who operate by emotions and take verses out of context sicken me. That's right, I said it! 

Learn about creation science. No, not to be an expert, but a good working knowledge is important when dealing with evolution. (I have no advanced degrees, but I'm writing posts and articles. You savvy that?) We can also refer honest enquirers to those ministries that are more likely to answer their questions if we are unable. There are thousands of articles, books, videos, and so on available. Many of those are free. Use them.

Why is biblical creation important? I'll let you head on over to the creation science ministries that are linked in many of these articles for more details, but know this: evolution is foundational to atheism, and Genesis is foundational to all major Christian doctrines.

Many of us in biblical creation science ministries try to encourage people to learn how to think. There are many resources on this site that are helpful (as well as on Piltdown Superman, such as this one). It is extremely useful (and I think it's even fun) learning to spot and how to avoid using logical fallacies. I saw one brilliant author and teacher debate a famous atheist about evolution. The atheist cleaned his clock. Not because of evidence, but because the Christian didn't call him out on the many logical fallacies employed, and he did not use a biblical apologetic.

When we catch atheists and evolutionists in fallacies and bad science, they become incensed. I reckon one reason is that these owlhoots are used to dealing with timorous Christians who are in awe of The Mighty Atheist™. But they are full of malarkey, man, and hate it when knowledgeable people stand up to their bullying. Proper use of the Word of God and apologetics shuts their mouths (Rom. 3:19). Not literally, since they resort to invective and distractions, but their worldview is shown to be fundamentally flawed and they have nothing cogent to say.

As Christians, we are attacked, intimidated, and marginalized by secularists. Why? Because of a faulty understanding of "being loving"? More likely, it's because of the things discussed above. We have the truth on our side, and we are on God's side! The Creator of the universe became a man, died on a cross for our sins, bodily resurrected, ascended, and the Spirit indwells all believers. And you're afraid of God's enemies?



It's time to stand, fight, and win. Be bold, not pusillanimous. We may not see the results immediately or even in this life. Meanwhile, people are wise in their own eyes and going to Hell while we hide our lights under bushels. Part of loving God is with our minds. Not everyone is a genius, but we are called to use what we have been given. We are most definitely not called to, as one preacher said, "Go ye into all the church and wait until I come and get you". After you read the article linked below (yes, I'm asking a lot, but this is important), get your armor on (Eph 6:10-20).
The Apostle Paul took on the greatest philosophers and thinkers in Athens and other cities of the Roman world. While staying humble and acting in love, he and the other apostles were unashamed (Romans 1:16) and bold (Acts 4:13, 31). Their churches helped launch a philosophical and cultural revolution that changed the world. There have been many ups and downs in the interim, but Biblical worldview holds its own even today centuries after the scientific revolution and 161 years after the Darwinian revolution. The academic consensus belittles “evangelical Christians,” but so did the Stoics and Epicureans in Paul’s Day. Numerous also-rans for philosophical dominance have come and gone, often attacking Christianity as part of their strategy. The Bible is an anvil that has broken many hammers.
Today, “evangelicals” are marginalized by the so-called “elites” of our culture as a voting block or political category that opposes science. With Yoda Complexes in gear, secularists try to psychoanalyze these strange people who don’t follow the “consensus” of scientific or political thought. But Christ followers have equal rights in the marketplace of ideas. If they had the courage of their convictions, they could turn the tables and analyze the secular mindset. In fact, they are in a better position to do so, since they have a necessary and sufficient cause for the origin of the universe and life with all its specified complexity and functional excellence. Why be shy about it? Why let the secularists dictate the terms of the discussion? Why not go on offense?
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest at "Christians Need to Stop Retreating and Take the Lead in the Marketplace of Ideas". Please pray for this ministry and the others who are seeking to edify God's people.



Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Matrix-Illusion and True Knowledge

Occasionally, apologists encounter discussions that all of reality is imaginary, as envisioned in several science fiction stories. (In one,our reality was the result of another being's dream, and it was waking up. They had to lull it back to sleep.) Sometimes the self-refuting Boltzmann Brains thought experiment is used. Another concept is drawn from The Matrix. How do we experience reality?

The study of knowledge and the reliability of our senses lead to many discussions. Only the biblical presuppositional method is coherent.
Credit: FreeDigitalImages / Stuart Miles
Presuppositional apologists will often ask unbelievers how they know what is real, and how they can account for their epistemology (the study of knowledge). How can we know that what we perceive through our senses is real or are we in a Matrix-like reality? Atheists appeal to their senses, but even without those imposed Matrix-illusion scenarios, this is not reliable as a universal principle. For example, someone with a mental illness or other altered state of consciousness may "see" and "experience" things that do not actually exist. This indicates using the senses to define reality is insufficient, and therefore cannot apply to everyone everywhere.

Presuppositional apologists show that the biblical worldview explains the necessary preconditions of human experience. Unbelievers resort to viciously circular arguments, inconsistency, and arbitrary assertions that fall apart upon serious examination. One angry atheist was unable to explain or defend his worldview, and was content to irrationally say something along the lines of, "It works for me".

Some classical or evidential apologists (the differences between the two are too subtle to discuss here) dislike or even oppose presuppositional apologetics. This is unfortunate, because evidentialists are disregarding the Bible that they are claiming to defend. Essentially, the condition of the unregenerate person (both spiritual and intellectual) is ignored and appeals are made to their pride: the unbeliever is judging Almighty God who is holy and righteous to determine if God is worthy of praise and worship!

Dr. Jason Lisle had a pair of articles where he was responding to an article by Dr. Richard Howe which was in turn an attempted refutation of Lisle's views. It did not go well for Howe. The articles linked below are lengthy, but note that one stands on the Word of God, the other uses logical fallacies. You can learn about logic, philosophy, and how presuppositional apologetics operates in a biblical manner.
Seven years ago, I participated in a written debate followed by a panel discussion on the topics of apologetic method and the age of the earth.  It was a strange combination of topics, and yet I argued that the common thread between both was biblical authority.  Namely, if a person has a high view of Scripture, taking it as his ultimate standard and interpreting it exegetically, he should employ a presuppositional approach to apologetics and should be a biblical (“young-earth”) creationist. 
. . .
One of the problems I see with Howe’s philosophy is that it is ultimately unjustified.  That is, if all knowledge begins with sensory experience, then how do we know that sensory experience is basically reliable (true to reality)?  This cannot be proved by sensory experience since this is the very issue in question.  And if it is proved by some other standard, then sensory experience is not truly the foundational beginning of knowledge.
If you're ready to begin, get comfortable, maybe get each article for your ebook reader (this service has a download button to convert into several formats), and get ready to work both your mind and spirit. How do I Know that I Know? – a Response (Part 1) and How do I Know that I Know? – a Response (Part 2).

Thursday, September 17, 2020

Theistic Evolution and Bad Theology

It is difficult to drill down deep into the minds of theistic evolutionists (or their deceitful oxymoronic moniker "evolutionary creationists"). They claim to believe God's Word, but elevate atheistic interpretations of science philosophies into the superior position. This causes tremendous biblical problems.

Theistic evolutionists are known for bad theology and deceptive practices, but there are some issues that some people may not have raised before.
Credit: Freeimages / Ramasamy Chidambaram

Why do they want to do this? I think it's to appear intellectual and not like one of those st00pid dumb Xtian fundie creationists that actually believe the Bible. They tell us that the Bible doesn't mean what it says, and even twist it to suit their evolutionary ends. (Indeed, TEs saddle up with atheists and ride for the Darwin brand, ridiculing biblical creationists together. Sure, that really convinces me that they have a high regard for Scripture.) In addition to tap-dancing around troublesome verses, TEs also have serious problems with having a consistent theology. I agree with others, they are more like Deists than anything else.

We have seen in the past how theistic evolution requires adherents to reject the authority of Scripture, it interferes with worship, helps them give support and comfort to the enemies of God, requires suffering and death before sin, and more. The article linked below is adapted from a chapter in a book, and it brings up some excellent points. If evolution were true, Neanderthals and other humans before God blessed Adam and Eve (TEs say they were not literal people) and gave them souls (Bible reference, please?), then just when did sin enter the picture?

Strange as this question might first appear, a logical consequence of ‘old earth’ and theistic evolutionary viewpoints is that the world was rife with sinful thoughts and actions for hundreds of thousands of years of ‘prehistory’, long before the biblical Adam and Eve existed. The following extract from Evolution and the Christian Faith explores this much-overlooked subject.

Over the years, much of the theological debate between historic special creationists and believers in a billions-of-years-old earth has been over the issue of death. Was there death in the world before the Fall? And if so, what kind of death was it, and to which creatures did it apply? These are important questions, but there is a related question that seems to be neglected almost completely. If, as many theistic evolutionists argue, human beings are descended from hominid ancestors—which, going backwards in time, were progressively less human—when do they envisage that sin itself entered the world? For the New Testament is unambiguous: sin came into the world through the historical rebellion of Adam and Eve.

To read the rest of thought-provoking excerpt, click on "Sin before the Fall of Adam?" By the way, I am using the Blogger platform which is owned by Google. It was acceptable before, but they have changed the interface, which is now dreadful. I am seriously considering moving to a new company for my writing needs.


Labels

Stat