letter to a 'Progressive'

I hope all is well with you. I received your letter this morning and read it promptly. This kind of stuff is my cup of tea, as frustrating as it is. Similarly, Shirley and I have friends who claim to be seeking the truth as your friend Bob claims as well. However, the diet they consume, as you astutely pointed out, is clandestinely hostile towards the claim that the Bible is true; the DaVinci Code, the Jesus Seminar, Bishop Spong and the like cite criticisms oft repeated through time under the guise of scholarship. (Isaiah 59:4) The lie is being slickly packaged for consumption (2 Timothy 4:3-5) by those whose presuppositions are supported by those who have been credentialed as ‘knowers.’ This man consumes this stuff because it is what he wants to hear. But I do believe we have a duty to answer the objections raised provided the debate is well above the standard of a fool.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:4-5 NIV

This I believe shows us the imperative nature of operating in the realm of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and staying away from the covetous aspect of argument which seeks merely to be right; this you pointed out. If we capitulate and compromise to win the world’s approval we will be as the world is, fools. If we do not answer with reasoned replies, they will think themselves wise. I will attempt to answer and provide links to articles to answer this man’s questions, I believe they deserve answers since one of His creatures asked The underlying problem is from a number of philosophies which have infected Western culture; Monism, Relativism, and Darwinism. These I will address point by point; feel free to forward if you deem appropriate. It will be then up to the man, when presented with ‘the other side of story’ to investigate and ponder the claims, or to scoff at or dismiss them as mere sophistry.

The fall into the lie is a process, but neither is truth immediately obtained; it must be loved and cultivated before the fruits can be enjoyed. The fruits of truth and love can be enjoyed by all since “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:45 NIV)” but those who do not work the ‘garden’ of our rational experience so provided and nourished by God “perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 NIV).” Harsh words, but they are true. If universalism is true, then Jesus would not have had to suffer and die—end of story.

Relativism is self-centered, it can be nothing but. Christianity denies relativism, but in a worldly man’s mindset any given ‘truth’ presented by the Christian as universal is only the opposing Christian’s personal truth that he or she should keep to him or herself since it lies outside of what is ‘universally’ accepted. The Christian (those [regretfully in the minority] who believe in absolute truth) responds by saying that these truths are not ours but God’s and as such apply to all God’s creatures; it’s not just me. This is seen as arrogant by the relativist who sees us as overstepping our bounds—how dare we say that ‘our’ truth applies to him as well! How do we get past this wall? We don’t; this is clearly the Holy Spirit’s domain. We are only obliged to speak and present the truth. The moral law is universal (Romans 2:14-15) and it is obvious the entire universe is governed by universal natural laws. If we stay within this framework, faith and reason come together as I believe they should be; the unseen world is no less real than the seen and as such should not be treated ‘blindly.’ It is in this tone I begin my work

To 'The Progessive': You raised many objections that deserve an answer. Do not be daunted by the length of this response…

The Bible was written from a ‘pre-modern’ point of view. Those who held this view recognized the existence of an unseen world and the complexity of the seen world around them; they simply did not have the starting knowledge and technology we have today. We must be careful to not look down upon these men as being stupid. I have read many of these men’s writings and in many ways the brilliance of these men outshone the brilliance of the ‘moderns’ even though many held false beliefs about the universe. The problem is not with intelligence but rather with knowledge—so let’s not confuse these two terms. The writers of the Bible were pre-moderns who wrote down the history of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind and the language they employed was ‘pre-modern’ as well. Now if we claim to be so advanced, why do we think pre-modern language to be less than understandable to modern minds? I read Plato for instance and find him quite understandable though I rarely agree with his view. I claim that this is possible.

After the dawn of the ‘enlightenment,’ ‘modern’ man was born. I have no wish to elaborate on the debate between the empiricists and the rationalists; aspects of both views I think are true, yet if either is elevated to an epistemological status higher than ought then contradictions and conflicts with common experience arise—in other words, there is no ‘one’ system that answers all questions. I think that if any one ‘view’ is taken by itself leads to either idealism on one hand or materialism on the other. Modern physics with its basic monistic assumption is doomed from the start, since monism is false—everything obviously is not the same thing. The ancient problem of the ‘one and the many’ rears its ugly head again and again. When physics attempts to solve metaphysical questions it is using the wrong tool, since it is obvious the physical universe had a beginning and the energy contained within it is becoming unusable—enter the problem of the unmoved mover.

‘Modern’ man erected science as its god, much of this due to the natural drive of man towards his own ends supported by the work of philosophers who sought to place man at the epistemological center of the universe. Many of the world’s greatest scientists were men who believed in God and creation. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/316.asp A philosophy called scientism arose of the ‘strong’ variety which claimed that science will answer all questions in time. The view goes further on to claim that the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge. It is obvious to me that this false since it is self-refuting in that it is a philosophical claim about science not a scientific one. Science itself rests upon many philosophical assumptions.

6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment.

8. The existence of values used in science (for example, ‘test theories fairly and report test results honestly’)

Suffice it to say, there are many true and rationally justified beliefs in many fields outside of the realm of science. In the past several hundred years since the rise of modernism, science has failed to give us the answers we thought it would—and so now we are becoming ‘post-modern.’

Pre-modern mysticism is experiencing a revival in a technologically advanced culture which has forgotten its roots. The dialectic materialism of Marx which gave rise to the communist ideal has fallen, Dewey’s optimism is shaken[2], and Nietzsche’s Ideal of the Overman which gave rise to tyrannical Nazism is seen for what it is, a road to butchery and oppression.

Jean Paul Sartre’s existentialism sought to give purpose to man by the assertion that a man can will to give purpose to himself by simply ‘choosing’ a path—it doesn’t matter what choice is made, just choose, this is what makes a ‘purposed’ man. Trouble is, man naturally knows there is something outside of himself, and so this is the conflict. The rugged individualism of the existentialists of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries is giving way to ‘neo-existentialism’ which ironically is more or less socially defined; I think evolutionary psychology is largely responsible for this development, if we are to call it that. >From all this chaos, post-modern man is born a mutt, a ‘Cosmic Orphan’ (according to Loren Eiseley,) a jumbled mass of contradictory ideas dancing though a mind confounded. So what part then of a man’s soul is he to give up?

With the advent of post-modernism, scientism has been demoted to a ‘weaker’ status. But this view (that there are other truths besides scientific ones yet science still reigns supreme with all other disciplines sitting at its feet for confirmation) is beset with serious problems as well. The above list of philosophical assumptions which provide foundation for science to operate cannot themselves sit at the ‘feet’ of science for affirmation—to say they do is absurd. Are we left then with skepticism?

I don’t think it should because the claims of skepticism, local or global, strong or weak, are also beset by the same kinds of problems which plague scientism. Since we already intuitively know that we do know things, the only answer I see is to use the right tools to find the answer to the question you are asking. Some questions are scientific, so use the methods of science to answer them; some questions are philosophical, so use the methods of philosophy to answer them. However, some questions are theological; these can only be answered by the One who reveals Himself since our philosophical and scientific faculties have no ability to reach into the realm of the One; this fact has become quite evident. This has been the frustration of modern man.

See here that I am not claiming the Bible contains the whole of truth to be known. I recognize science as being able to provide answers in the realm of those questions it can address. I see the validity of human endeavors of thought, logic and rational inquiry which we call philosophy—more so, I study it and love it. I am a Christian but was not always so. I am ‘conservative’ theologically and politically but was not always so. I am a creationist but was raised and educated to believe in evolution. I was raised in a Pentecostal home and was taught fideistic and Calvinistic theology; now I proclaim faith and reason to be companionable, that we have true libertarian freedom and that the canon of scripture is closed. At one time I proclaimed to be an atheist; and hated God and His people. Now I love Him and His people. This entire struggle has been endured because I love Truth; I bow to no man but God. But I do not claim to know or have it all; I will die not knowing all there is to know and I am sure I will hold many false beliefs. This is my frustration; in spite of this I am undaunted and driven. Are you truly a truth seeker? I challenge you…

Love is not weak and Christians should not be faint-hearted. The world both hates and despises me for what I am; so be it. Militaristic? Yes, but the sword I hold is a spiritual one. The armies of Islam spread their faith with iron and steel; the sword I wield is one of truth. The crusades of the middle ages were immoral. Evil men proclaiming to be doing the work of God butchered thousands I agree. But, the Christ never called us to any of that; we are called to speak the truth and suffer for it. It is in this way we spread throughout the world, losing countless lives to do it. Fanatical? Perhaps. But if I may make an analogy, ‘what price would you pay for someone you love?’ Would you sell out the one you love to save your own neck? Would you sell out what you knew to be true to save your neck? I would kill and die protecting my family. I can think of no stronger analogy. Knowing the love, grace and mercy of the One who loves us leaves us no choice. I tell you this to show the strength of our love, a love many Christians have forgotten. (Revelation 2:1-7) I tell you that this love is fierce, this love defends the beloved from those who would harm her; this is what the final judgment is all about. Sunnie and I would gladly welcome you as a brother, but we both respect your right to choose whom you will love; since respect is an aspect of love.

Please back up your accusation that Constantine erased certain portions of Bible that supported reincarnation. The thousands of existent texts and consistent scholarship concerning those texts refute you. Old ideas get drummed up again and again. Here is an article on liberal biblical ‘scholarship’ and the revival of Wellhausianism. http://www.equip.org/free/DW035.htm It is a review of a book that revives an old, discredited idea about the authorship of the Pentateuch. Also please state what your criterion for ‘inspired’ would be; without such a definition and evidence your accusation that certain parts of the Bible are non-inspired is meaningless.

Your next point is very confusing to me in that you claim a very high view of science yet you deny the very foundations which make science possible. You claim that God is both infinite and that He evolves. It has been awhile since I took Calculus, but I remember the definition of infinity, there is nowhere for infinity to go, it cannot get bigger or smaller. I remember reading a debate between a Christian philosopher and an atheist philosopher on Bertrand Russell’s Tristram Shandy Paradox (Philosophia Christi, Vol. 4. #2. 2002) in which they argued about the paradoxes of infinity; the Christian clearly won. In short, infinities cannot be built by finite progression, however you slice it. If we have learned anything from the thousands of years of deliberation and the human development of thought it is this—any attribute with the prefix ‘omni’ cannot become ‘bigger’ or more perfect. Here is an article on immutability.

(I am committed to the position that God is immutable, passible, and timeless. This avoids the contradictions raised with God existing in time, and allows true libertarian freedom for mankind.)

If God’s intelligence and/or knowledge increases then indeed there is something “bigger’ than Himself, and so we haven’t reached the end of the matter in any way, shape, or form and are left with a whole chaotic mass of confusing questions. This ‘evolutionary’ view is much like what the ‘revelations’ of Joseph Smith brought us, Mormonism; you can become a god through process of improvement. But in my obviously arrested state of spiritual development, perhaps logic and rationality do not apply as the Eastern Religions teach, and I just haven’t realized it yet. Here is an article on latter-day revelation and the process of canonization. http://www.equip.org/free/DM708.htm The ‘canon’ of scripture has been fixed by God through men for good reason.

In your ‘evolutionary’ scheme of spiritual development, what criterion do you employ to discern what ‘truth’ has been given by God and what obviously (at least to you) is not? And if such knowledge is not, or cannot be, known by special revelation, are you saying then specifics about God can be known by general, or natural, revelation? If truth about God is derived ‘naturally’ then here I will employ an argument against Natural Religion (or Theology) developed by the Scottish skeptic David Hume.[3]

The predominate philosophy in the 18^th century was Natural Theology. Natural Theology supposes that specifics about God’s attributes, character and perhaps even desires can be inferred through natural characteristics found in the world. Take some of the world’s great works of literature, are we to suppose that these words just fell down unto the paper and arranged themselves by chance? So by looking at evidences of design in the universe we infer a wise designer for our universe—the classic design argument.[4] I could go on to cite other examples but I do not wish to belabor the point. (And as a side note—contrary to what many Christian teachers today say, a majority of our founding fathers were in fact deists, and embraced some form of natural theology so to say this nation was established upon Christian theology is less than accurate.) Central to natural theology was the belief that man’s natural faculties of sense and reason could look through nature and logically infer certain things about nature’s Creator.

David Hume in his Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion argued against the validity of these inferences; there are essential four fatal flaws.

1. Natural Theology leaves religion and religious truth merely probable at best. There is no logical necessity in saying the creator has these qualities because we have them. In other words, God may have these qualities but we cannot know that He must by our natural inquiry. In addition, natural theology could never be conclusive, since our knowledge is constantly being revised by new insight and experience, knowledge of God and His qualities are always open to revision.

2. Natural Theology proceeds upon a weak analogy; for the similarities we infer from creature to Creator are far outweighed by the dissimilarities to those qualities traditionally inferred upon the Creator by those who advocate natural religion.

3. In addition, the analogy is weak in that we exist in one small part of a vast universe in which there could be many possible universes. How is it then possible to infer upon the Creator qualities from our own very limited point of view?

4. Negative evidence counts against natural theology; we cannot only consider the positive evidence. There is death and disorder; this is evident and compliant to our experience of this world. The miracle and goodness of birth is opposed by the inevitability and evil of death. How could we infer omni-benevolence upon the Creator of the universe when faced with these experiences? How could we infer an infinite creator when the effect, this universe, is finite? How could we infer perfection upon the Creator when the universe is so obviously flawed? The diversity of effects seems, according to natural theology, to speak against the unity of the cause. We see that nothing is made in this universe is made by mere minds without the use of material means—this speaks against incorporeality. Lastly, when it is evident that human knowledge is improved continually and progressively, how could we infer an infinite wisdom of the Creator?

When the Apostle Paul said, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:18-23 NIV)” he was saying that men have no excuse for not knowing that God exists and that He is very powerful. Nothing is said here about specific qualities of God, as revealed in Scripture, as being specifically revealed in nature.[5] So looking at this world with its ‘dog-eat-dog—survival-of-the-fittest’ morality we are left with some pretty depressing thoughts about its Creator according to natural theology.

Hume went on to delineate four options concerning the relationship between God and men. According to Hume;

1. The notion of God as being infinitely good is disproven by the existence of pain and suffering

2. The notion of God as being infinitely evil is disproven by the existence of pleasure.

3. The notion of the universe as being governed by warring opposites is disproven by the existence of general natural laws.

4. God is neither good nor evil and is indifferent to the affairs of men. This option Hume found to be the most probable.

Furthermore, morality to Hume was one of utility in social convention; it is the social experience that gives us our civil obligations. But Hume saw this as a dangerous proposition; men seemed to need the structure of rational religion. He fear that if men were unchained by the restraints of religion they would lose moral direction and become subjects to superstition and to demagogues. Nietzsche and Nielsen said it well…

‘Whither is God?’ he cried, ‘I shall tell you. We have killed him ‘—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night and more night coming on all the while? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God?... God is dead.. . . And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?" [6]

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me... Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.[7]

This became true with the rise of communism and fascism in the 20^th century. Strong personalities led millions astray into the bloodiest time in our history. Morality simply must have a foundation, and the only reasonable foundation for it can only be found in the existence of a perfect God who both creates and reveals Himself to us. Natural theology, as David Hume argued, cannot give us this; and I agree with him.

The simple fact is that morality exists. Men cannot live consistently and happily with the notion that “it’s all good” because it is not all good. The Christian philosopher William Lane Craig explains this fact…

Turn now to the problem of value. Here is where the most blatant inconsistencies occur. First of all, atheistic humanists are totally inconsistent in affirming the traditional values of love and brotherhood. Camus has been rightly criticized for inconsistently holding both to the absurdity of life and the ethics of human love and brotherhood. The two are logically incompatible. Bertrand Russell, too, was inconsistent. For though he was an atheist, he was an outspoken social critic, denouncing war and restrictions on sexual freedom. Russell admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste, and that he therefore found his own views "incredible." "I do not know the solution," he confessed. (Bertrand Russell, Letter to the Observer, 6 October 1957.) The point is that if there is no God, then objective right and wrong cannot exist. As Dostoyevsky said, ‘All things are permitted."

But Dostoyevsky also showed that man cannot live this way. He cannot live as though it is perfectly all right for soldiers to slaughter innocent children. He cannot live as though it is all right for dictatorial regimes to follow a systematic program of physical torture of political prisoners. He cannot live as though it is all right for dictators like Pol Pot to exterminate millions of their own countrymen. Everything in him cries out to say these acts are wrong—really wrong. But if there is no God, he cannot. So he makes a leap of faith and affirms values anyway. And when he does so, he reveals the inadequacy of a world without God.[8]

I am not saying that philosophy has nothing to say on theological matters; it does. Proper theology and scriptural interpretation should always listen to reason; I am no fan of fideism. What I am saying is that human reason, limited as it is, cannot reach into the realm of God and discern His specific character and attributes. That which we know about God, He has revealed to us in history and has protected it. I believe He has the ability to do this; God reaches out to us and He did this through Jesus and the Bible which testifies about Christ. So now before I go into the old issue of “did God really say that…? (Genesis 3:1)” concerning the special revelation of God to man, I would like to address the basis of your ‘evolutionary’ view of spirituality—the doctrine of physical evolution itself.

Natural selection, variations that occur in species adapting to various environments, happens; this creationist believes this to be true. (Might I remind you that I was raised and educated to believe in evolution as the naturalists teach it.) It is a straw man to say that we do not (though there some who are ignorant) believe this to be true, in that all creatures were created in the same form they are today—a creationist ‘lawn’ so to speak.[9] What this creationist denies is a phylogeny in that all living creatures evolved from a single organism—a ‘tree’ of life so to speak. There is no evidence to support this idea and I follow the subject.

What this creationist believes is in an ‘orchard’ where all creatures were created according to their ‘kinds.’ (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) In Mendelian genetics certain traits are dominate, others are not. This ‘founder principle’ exists in biology where a number of different breeds can be traced back to an original kind. When creatures of a certain species ‘specialize’ certain traits are ‘weeded out’ resulting in an overall loss of information; this can be the result of environmental factors where certain traits are helpful to the creature’s survival or by selective breeding. This ‘information’ problem is serious against the doctrine of evolution which depends upon new information being gained not lost. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp

From the ‘orchard’ point of view, the original dogs, for instance, had all genetic information found in all the breeds of dogs found today—this would be expressed by them being of medium size, medium length hair and so on since all of the traits were present. With specialization however, there are Great Danes, Wolfhounds, Poodles, Chihuahuas, miniature Terriers and so on. Two Chihuahuas cannot breed to make a large dog because the information for that trait has been lost in this breed. Barring legs coming out of the heads of crickets, there are no examples of selection or mutation where useful information was added. When an atheist biologist Richard Dawkins was asked to provide one example, he was stumped. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3907.asp This idea of adding information is central to the evolutionary hypothesis, without evidence they are simply working on faith.

I would like to say a few things about the predominate personalities who champion the doctrine of evolution and about the kinds of arguments they employ. You mentioned Carl Sagan’s assertion that we are all made of ‘stardust’ in his book Cosmos so I’ll start with him first. I have not read this book[10] but have read two other books of his, Billions and Billions and The Demon Haunted World: Science as Candle in the Dark, and I am unimpressed by his supposed brilliance. First of all, his famous statement, ‘The Cosmos always is, always was and always will be’ is a philosophical statement not scientific one; it is admitted by most naturalists that the universe as it is, time, matter/energy and space, had a beginning so Sagan is refuted by his own comrades. Secondly, his statements on the environment in Billions and Billions were both contradictory and absurd. CFC’s, invented during the Weimar Republic, are extremely stable molecules, by his own admission, which do not give up their chlorine for about hundred years. Now chlorine destroys ozone when it comes into contact with it, and it is chlorine that is given up from CFC’s after a long period of time. I am not denying that chlorine can destroy ozone or that CFC’s are a problem, what I am saying is that Sagan apparent didn’t seem to think that his readers would remember what they read twenty or so pages earlier. The way he framed his argument in claiming CFC’s didn’t give up their chorine for a hundred or so years but that chlorine from CFC’s was now destroying ozone merely 60-70 years after they were invented and deployed just doesn’t make any sense. This makes me think he has an agenda and facts therefore are expedient. Thirdly, his ‘baloney detection kit’ in the Demon Haunted World included many good tools for ‘baloney detection’ but excluded those elements of reason that could be used against his faith (atheism is a faith) and in addition frames our (the theist’s) arguments as being typical and ignorant to make us look foolish. Here is an example from a section on logical fallacies…

special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don't understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don't understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion-to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don't understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)[11]

I agree that special pleading is not a valid form of argument but this book is full of this kind of straw man argumentation where we just leave it to a mystery. Secondly, free-will is a philosophically valid explanation for the existence of evil and suffering in the presence on an all-powerful and omni-benevolent God; so this is not a special pleading type argument. The logical argument against the existence of God upon the existence of evil is acknowledged by most philosophers, atheist and otherwise, as being dead.

The debate in the recent literature about the problem of evil has shifted from preoccupation with the logical argument to an increased focus on the evidential argument. Thus William P. Alston (1996) claims that "it is now acknowledged on (almost) all sides that the logical argument is bankrupt, but the inductive argument is still very much alive and kicking" (97). He goes so far as to refer to the logical argument as the "late lamented deductive cousin" of the inductive argument (121). With respect to the contention that "the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God," atheist William L. Rowe (1990) claims that: "No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim" (126 fn. 1). Stephen J. Wykstra (1990) concurs with this assessment, saying that Rowe's atheistic argument "exemplifies the recent turn away from 'logical' (or 'deductive', or 'demonstrative') formulations, construing the case instead as 'evidential' (or 'inductive', or 'probabilistic') in nature" (138).[12]

You may have an valid argument against a Compatibilist and I think absolutely have one against a hard determinist but I am neither of those; I am a libertarian and as I stated earlier, due to the timeless nature of God, His sovereignty and nature remain unblemished by the existence of freewill and evil. Now the argument from evil has turned to the inductive form. An article…

Stephen Jay Gould, the late famous paleontologist, argued in his book The Panda’s Thumb that God wouldn’t have made such an obviously flawed thing so therefore a wise god didn’t create it. This is a theological argument, not a scientific one.

The reason I mention of all of this is to show that scientists frequently use philosophical and/or theological arguments to support the doctrine of evolution under the guise of being ‘scientific’ since they are scientists and also to show that they rely heavily upon their authority as scientists. I already addressed the philosophy of scientism, in which ‘science’ sits in judgment of all things, as being bankrupt. Yet, people listen because they say things people want to hear—theologically. What I am getting at here is our presuppositions; ‘science’ has become a tool to support a certain philosophy, a priori.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is the absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”[13]

In this brutally honest admission, Richard Lewontin tells us about the machine erected to push God out of the world and effectively out of our lives. When we look at the world as it is, with all its evils and catastrophes, with the assumption that this is how God made it originally and called it ‘good,’ the ‘goodness’ of God is not understandable. Hume is then right. If the Bible says it was good in the beginning, that death only entered the world after the Fall (and Jesus confirms this) but the ‘evidence’ shows us that there were millions and millions of years of death, disease and suffering before man even showed up to sin, then the whole of the Bible is false—none of it is worth anything because the foundation of redemption is the fall. (In addition, Jesus is then a liar and therefore could not be God.) If death is the way it is suppose to be, then what are being saved from? Death and suffering is (in the evolutionary system) God’s fault, not ours. This is the conclusion that atheists know better than many Christians.

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science 'to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."[14]

This was the conclusion I arrived at as a young adult, the Christians I grew up around didn’t even believe there own book. All I saw was that religion was a means of controlling me; it was, I thought, at its core false. What then turned me around? Allow me to share a little personal testimony.

As I was growing up, it was common for me to hear Christians declaring that rock music had a causal relation with fornication and that the song Hotel California was demonic in origin. As a fornicating, heavy-metal listening young person, I found those assertions to be very silly and insulting since they implied that I was essentially robotic, to the point of mindlessness. Plug stuff in, get certain stuff out, how elementary.

Trouble is people aren’t that simple. Everything is built upon the foundation we stand on. I was a pragmatic atheist (on primarily emotional grounds) mostly because I didn’t like Christians. (And I didn’t like myself.) Heavy metal was a non-violent vent for my angst; fornicating was just plain fun. Christians seemed profoundly interested in what I did, read and listened to and I had no idea why. The "control -freak" explanation was the only one which made sense. So, I dismissed Christians as mindless charlatans with an innate sick desire to control others who had as well a profound fear of competing systems opposed to Christianity. I saw church as nothing more than a little game to try to break me. What little bit of independence, bravery and cleverness I could muster up, was all I had to be proud of.

(There are many in the world who see us as unthinking, power-hungry, puritanical stoics, who seek to have us suppress all that is human within us, including our imaginations. I boldly state that we give them good reason to think this of us. I understand the worldly frame of mind. We attack without understanding the nature of what we are attacking; all we understand sometimes is that our intentions are good.)

In an attempt to explain further how I came to regard church and Christians in such an unflattering manner, allow me to relate a few stories that really stand out for me. I realize that they are really insignificant poor excuses now, but to the young me, I used them for justification for what I thought.

Some friends of mine and I went to a Baptist church camp. It was a neat location and was a way to get away from my family for a week. We sure spent a lot of time in church however. And a lot of "hell-fire and damnation" was fired at us to scare us into becoming Christian. At the time, I was an emotional wreck and I knew it. By this time I had read every word of the Bible yet I only understood the wrath side of the picture. You survive all the pains and trials of life, only to have God get you in the end. That sucked and I didn’t want to hear it.

This "hellfire" preacher was teaching that after the rapture (which could be any second) there would be absolutely no chance for salvation. (So, you had better do it now.) My hand went up; he didn’t want to be interrupted but I persisted. I told him that I was familiar with only two unforgivable sins; blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (I had no idea what that meant however) and "taking the mark of the beast." I then asked him to provide a Scripture that would verify what he was saying, that it not only mattered what you decided but when. He stuttered. (I knew I had him then.) I then asked him if it was true that Revelation 20:4 suggests there are going to be "tribulation saints." That is, those who would not take the "mark" and were killed for it. (He stuttered again) I then moved in for the coup-de-grace. I said, "If the rapture takes place before the rise of the beast and that all are damned after rapture, as you say, how could you reconcile those two beliefs with what the Bible says in Revelation 20:4?" That man was embarrassed and speechless. A woman very skillfully took over the show. Later, the preacher cornered me alone and said to never cross him again. He said that I was arrogant and didn’t understand that he was trying to do something good. I didn’t bother to defend myself. I was very pleased.

The second experience relates to perception and worship. I grew up in a Pentecostal church. We had an evangelist who I thought was full of himself. Sunday morning church services typically went on for what seemed to be forever, with our relatively conservative pastor. This was an evening service, and Roger, the evangelist, was leading. The service went on for what seemed like hours. Everyone was raising their hands and singing (and there were a lot of "tongues" being spoken) all except me. (I didn’t know this God.) Roger was eyeballing me. So, he poured what I saw as "cheer-leading" on harder. I stood on my convictions. On the service went… Roger keep eyeballing me and my mother noticed it too. She ribbed me and gave me the look, "Will you raise your hands so we can go home!" I ignored her. I didn’t care how long it took and it took awhile…

My education was based upon force of authority, rather than on force of argument; Christian and otherwise. I only understood God to be a wrathful bully. People spoke of love, but they contradicted themselves. There was still a God there who was dangling everyone over hell—a la Jonathan Edwards… No one could explain to me why hell was necessary. The question remained, even though Christianity appears to be cruel, is it true?

I went to a Christian school and I remember attempting to dialog with a teacher about creationism. She was both unable and unwilling to answer my questions. Others explained to me that Adam and Eve were allegory. I knew the implications of this. The advice I received as an adolescent helped to form my temporary belief that Christianity was irrational and that nobody had a corner on truth.

So I then set out to see if I could justify my fledgling atheism. I wrote poems about hopelessness, duality, hell and damnation. I didn’t understand the origins of these "things" called feelings and moral awareness. I developed an intense interest in evolution and behaviorism. In college, I set the curve in my human evolution class. I got A’s in those classes that had the remotest chance to answer my questions; ethics, anthropology and sociology. I never was fully convinced by the humanists’ arguments for the spontaneous generation of morals and matter, no matter how hard I tried.

By the time I returned home from college I had matured enough to not be so openly militant and rebellious. Getting a career was my primary focus in life. My relationship with my parents improved dramatically. I take a lion’s share of the responsibility for our difficulties. They had no idea of what my struggles were, because I hid them. I saw atheism, by then, as being stupid also, so I was in a quandary. I had an openly pantheistic girlfriend for awhile in college; we talked about "ultimate issues" to some extent. It was interesting, but pantheism cannot account for personality, as well as it having a terrible problem of vicious regression in causality. (And the Bhagavad-Gita was ridiculous.) So, I rejected it. Agnosticism was for jelly spines, so back I was to Christianity. Is it true?

I read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I was deeply impressed by his apologetic. There can be neither morals nor moral awareness without God; nor could there be any meaning. I also began to understand God’s love for man, and that was what really got to me. He put it in terms I could understand, and it made sense. The Holy Spirit had never let me go. He drew me by never letting me settle for anything less than the truth. In my subsequent true surrender to God, I found truth. I also found out that I could hold on to the truth and not have to throw away my brain. My life changed profoundly, and it was then my education really began; deprogramming all the bad information accumulated has taken over fifteen years.

After becoming a Christian, I held on to my evolutionary beliefs (and believe me this is very confusing for a guy who likes to have all of his ducks in a row) because it was what I was raised to believe. However I couldn’t reconcile that belief with the Bible—I had the personal witness of the Spirit telling me the Bible is true but yet science was saying it was not. !Aye Caramba!

A friend of mine, who was a ‘young-ager,’ started me on my journey to becoming a creationist by lending me Philip Johnson’s book ‘Darwin on Trial.’ It was a good book which shredded Darwin’s case (and philosophic naturalism as well.) But since negative apologetics is only partially effective my friend introduced me to Answers in Genesis. AiG gave me positive materials so as to build a new foundation for my thinking about ‘scientific’ issues. I came to realize that the observations scientists make aren’t necessarily wrong, it was the framework upon which those observations were interpreted that was. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp It took a little time to deconstruct the framework that had been built over my lifetime and to build a new one, a Biblical one. With this new foundation things metaphysically, philosophically, theologically and scientifically are starting finally to come together to make sense with one another. Scientific observations are indeed compatible and understandable in the Biblical creationist worldview. This is very liberating.

I’m now paying very careful attention to foundations, particularly where the Bible relates as real history to the real world. This is crucially important to young people since they (as I was) are being immunized against the Gospel by evolutionary teaching both in our schools and in our churches. What we believe and accept has a strong impact on our lives whether we realize it or not. I now know that, properly equipped, I have nothing to fear, spiritually or intellectually. I have now come out of the closet of fundamentalism and am engaging the world on their turf. So now you know a little of my history.

Here are a few articles concerning your claim of “incontrovertible DNA proof that humans evolved from apes. Ninety-eight percent of our DNA is identical to our nearest living relative, the chimpanzees.” It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Your notion that creationists slow the spread of knowledge is false and is basically ad hominem. There are many scientists with earned doctorates who will testify that evolution (or belief in) has no bearing upon their professional work. We embrace science and we read your journals and comment on them. I think evolution should be taught alongside intelligent design theory in public schools, let the students decide for themselves. The evolutionists kick and scream at this saying it will stunt knowledge. I ask, ‘what are they afraid of?’ Besides, from what I’ve heard of surveys taken from students on their scientific knowledge in the public schools, under paradigm of evolutionary curriculum, are woefully deficient in basic scientific knowledge. It seems the educational establishment itself impedes the spread of knowledge.

Your accusation that belief in God contributes to human suffering is poorly supported. The system that brought the greatest suffering and loss of life to mankind was communism, which is atheistic.

I have been circumcised and have no memory of it. So I hardly think it child abuse or mutilation since it works fine—both my wife and I enjoy sex and have two kids.

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Colossians 3:11 NIV

The original purpose of circumcision was a outward sign of making a binding covenant with God.

This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. Genesis 17:10-11 NIV

Female circumcision is not instituted by God; it is used as a means of controlling women by damaging their capability of enjoying sexual pleasure. This supposed helps them to keep their ‘honor.’ This is evil.

No religion requires it, this is a cultural practice. I’m not a cultural relativist, it is absolutely wrong. If you are however, you have no right to condemn it, since it is only your own cultural sensitivities that are offended.

Enlighten me—what are these new and larger perspectives of the eternal truths? I think you have no idea what you are talking about and are just reciting lofty platitudes.

I think it is you who have not researched the Bible. I have researched its origins, history and authorship and believe the ‘conservative’ view is best supported. You cite an encyclopedia, an article by the Time Life editors and the New World Translation (which is joke) as your sources? It appears to me you only accept that which you want to hear.

The 66 books of the Bible, written by 30+ authors, in several different languages, over 1500+ years is extremely unified. They spoke of Christ and Jesus spoke about them.

God spoke to women in the Bible; there were blessed leaders and prophetesses. Exodus 15:20, Judges 5, 1 Samuel 2:1-10, Luke 1:42-55, Micah 6:4, 2 Kings 22:14-20, Luke 2:36-38, Acts 21:9

Women were the first to witness the empty grave and the first to see the risen Christ.

Philippians 4:3, 2 Timothy 1:5, Romans 16:1-2,6,15, Acts 9:36, 16:14;18:26, Luke 10:42, John 11:5, Proverbs 31:10-30.

Women did not have equal standing with men in Roman society; they were disposable. So this teaching was very radical indeed…

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:25-33 NIV

Those that teach, like Susan B. Anthony for example, that the Bible and its teachings denigrate women know nothing of what the Bible says.

Your objection to God not having a female equivalent to Jesus is absurd. Jesus is unique and it should be evident of what that quality requires.

Jesus knew that what He did and said would be recorded. Why did He then need to command it? The reason Jesus never wrote a book Himself, is because such a book would be raised up as an idol onto itself, since as men tend to be idolatrous in general.

Archaeology and the Bible http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/arch.asp

Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp

The genetic (or substance) view of sin requires that Christ had to have born by a virgin else He would have been genetically under the curse of original sin. Man and woman were made in the image of God, but after the fall Genesis 5:3 records that Seth was born in Adam’s image which had been marred by sin. Sin entered the world by Adam (Romans 5:12) and now all Adam’s offspring or seed is sinful at conception. (Psalm 51:5) But this view has a hole in it in that I do not believe sin is a thing or has any substance—rather it is rebellion, a relational problem. I think it is better understood that Adam’s ‘seed’ lacks the quality of innocence and/or selfless sacrifice and/or perfect obedience. (But now we’re getting into deep theological/philosophical topic…)

I think there are basically three reasons why Jesus had to have been born by a virgin; one is genetic (in that a lineage was cursed,) one prophetic and the other (also being prophetic) served as a sign. Genealogies in the Bible are patriarchal; the ‘seed’ of Abraham, the ‘offspring’ of David and so on…Jesus Christ’s was legally descended from King David through Joseph. (Mathew 1:1-16) Jesus was the biological descendent of King David through Mary. (Luke 3:23-38.) Jesus couldn’t have been biologically descended from Joseph and been eligible to sit on King David’s throne since Jehoiachin’s lineage was cursed by God in that none of his ‘offspring’ will sit on the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:17-30) So Jesus inherited His legal right to the throne through His adoptive father Joseph. Jesus could be called “God’s Son” because God made a Y-chromosome de novo in Mary’s ovum, a miracle.

The lineage traced through Mary was highly unusual for the time; but this point is crucial—the first Messianic prophecy, “and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." (Genesis 3:15 NIV) denotes that it is the ‘offspring’ or ‘seed’ of the woman that will be able to do this, destroy the work of Satan. I think Jesus had to have born by a virgin else this prophecy wouldn’t have been fulfilled.

Lastly, the virgin served as a miraculous sign. What would be so special about an ordinary birth? In the book of Isaiah written sometime between 740 and 690 B.C it was prophesied…

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14-15 NIV

The Virginal Conception of Christ, Historicity, Midrash theory and alleged pagan derivation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4262apol_v2-1994.asp

Christian philosopher William Lane Craig’s conclusion on the apologetic value of affirming the possibility of miracles…

The material shared in this chapter and the next does not, I must confess, admit of much practical application in evangelism. I've never encountered a non-Christian who rejected the gospel because of an overt objection to miracles.

Nevertheless, this section is extremely important, because the presupposition of modern biblical criticism has been the impossibility of miracles in history, so that a conservative approach to the Scriptures necessitates a prior defense of the possibility of miracles. Thus, the material in this section is critical to a reform of biblical scholarship, without which we evangelicals cannot win in the theological community.

Moreover, I've been surprised to find how often Deistic thinking underlies the flowering dialogue between science and religion on the contemporary scene. For example, in a recent conference at Notre Dame on "Science and Religion in the Post-Positivist Era," Arthur Peacocke claimed that modern cell biology has "radically undermined" the credibility of the virgin birth because it would require God's making a Y-chromosome de novo in Mary's ovum-in other words, it would have to be a miracle! Similarly, the stern remonstrances one often hears from theologians and physicists against inferring a supernatural cause for the origin and order of the universe often conceal a presuppositional bias against miracles, since such acts of God are essentially miracles on a cosmic scale.

In addition, however, I do think that people whom we talk to about Christ do sometimes have covert problems with miracles. They do not formulate their misgivings into an argument; they just find it hard to believe that the miraculous events of the gospel really occurred. Insofar as we sense this is the case, we need to bring this presupposition out into the open and explain why there are no good grounds for it. Show unbelievers that they have no reasons for rejecting the possibility of miracles and challenge them with the thought that the universe may be a much more wonderful place than they believe. In my own case, the virgin birth was a stumbling block to my coming to faith-I simply could not believe such a thing. But when I reflected on the fact that God had created the entire universe, it occurred to me that it wouldn't be too difficult for him to create the genetic material necessary for a virgin birth! Once the non-Christian understands who God is, then the problem of miracles should cease to be a problem for him.
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p.154-155 (Chapter 4 makes an excellent case for the miraculous contra Hume and Spinoza’s objections. You should read it.)

The statement you cited from the Bible scholars at Harvard University ‘there is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses—or by any one person’ is a flagrant lie. There are many biblical scholars who attribute authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses. Wellhausianism has been discredited except by those seek to suppress the truth. (Romans 1:18-20) http://www.equip.org/free/DW035.htm

The ‘dating game’ and ‘indisputable’ fossils millions of years old in rocks billions of years old. http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp

Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

I once bought into the lie of evolution largely based on these dating methods; it is the doctrine’s major selling point. No one told me these facts are based upon assumptions.

Jesus experienced loneliness as a man, but that was in context of Him as a man. God is complete in relationship, being a trinity of three persons in one being in eternity—there is no relational defect and the Bible confirms this. God has no need of us, yet wanted to make us. God is worthy of worship, not because He commands it, or that He is all-powerful, but because He is worthy of it. Worship is not groveling or self-depreciating or mutilating, those that think this do not understand the character of God. God is good and is love. Love cares for the beloved and so when that love is received it is given in return—this is worship.

I agree we have a responsibility to care for ourselves, others and the world. But what do you mean when you say we are to become more Christ-like; I know what it means to me but what does it mean to you? Jesus honored His Father through complete obedience even to death in the hands of sinful men. The only way to honor the Father is to honor His Son, Jesus. So then if we are to be Christ-like, we should honor the Father by honoring His Son.

"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. John 8:49 NIV

Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. John 5:22-23 NIV

Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me. John 12:26 NIV

Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. Luke 9:23-24 NIV

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. >From now on, you do know him and have seen him." John 14:6-7 NIV

Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him. John 9:37-38 NIV

Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." Matthew 14:33 NIV

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:16-20 NIV

Saying the ‘devil-made-me-do-it’ is a cop-out. As one who believes in the true libertarian freedom of man, we are responsible for our beliefs and actions. Yet, I cannot atone for my own sins. (Proverbs 20:9, Jeremiah 2:22) But Jesus came to fulfill all righteousness and so by doing redeem us from the clutches of sin and death. (John 1:29, 1 John 3:4-5, Ephesians 1:7, Romans 5:18-19, Jeremiah 23:6, Isaiah 45:24)

The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8:6-8 NIV

Satan is God’s tool, created free as we are, and limited, as we are as well. If you ask why God made Satan who does evil, why then did He make us, who do evil as well? Simple answer is for love. True love requires freedom—freedom includes the possibility for evil which we and Satan have actualized. This is an outline from a class I taught on Satan.

2. Satan in Zechariah 3:1, where after the Exile he would hinder the reinstitution of the divine worship, asserting that Israel is rejected by the just judgment of God and is not worthy of the renewal of the priesthood. But the filthy garments are stripped off the high priest, and he receives festal garments instead, with the declaration that his sins are taken away. The vision expresses that the restoration of the priesthood after the Exile is a victory of the gracious God over Satan. It also foreshadows the restoration of the nation Israel as a high-priestly nation in the future Kingdom age.

There are no scriptures which confirm Satan can read our minds or control us against our wills. He can however speak to our minds, accuse us and tempt us to evil.

The Hebrew/Christian concept is completely different. Man is a unity, not a union of parts. Sin is something wrong with the whole man, not just his body or human nature. Salvation is the redemption of the whole man, lifting his entire being into the orbit of grace. The body is not sin-bearing but essentially good. Sin is not a substance but rebellion. Deriving from this is the substance concept of reality and salvation in contrast to the relational or religious concept. Following logically from the dualism in Platonic philosophy,. sin is interpreted genetically-an evil inhering in the flesh and propagated as the physical body is propagated. Great concern is given to the substance of the soul. Sin is in that substance, sub-rational, essential to humanity, real. If it be granted that sin can be removed, in the Greek way of thinking a virtual operation would be required removing, quite literally, something. Then the debate about the sin of mankind, and freedom from it, is conducted in a framework of thought foreign to the Bible. This stands in direct contradiction to the Hebrew/ Christian interpretation. In Hebrew thinking, sin is always a religious "malfunction." It is a wrong relation to God. It is rebellion on the part of responsible manhood. It is alienation, a moral disorder…. The inadequacy-even danger-of the above positions lies exposed in the next logical step, It is the contrast between themagical versus moral interpretation of salvation. This means that a sub-rational, psychological mutation defines cleansing from sin. The problem here is that men come to expect a substance alteration of the soul in salvation which occurs below the level of rational life and which, apart from personal involvement, changes the impulsive reactions of the self. Anger and pride and all other normal human emotional equipment is said to be removed, so that responsibility for discipline and proper channeling of the emotions is considered a suppression which denies what God ought to do.
The moral interpretation stresses the full participation of the self in every step in grace, strengthening rather than weakening moral integrity and taking responsibility for the ordering of all human impulse and powers around a central and controlling love, Nothing human is despised or rejected but made to serve a new master.

A Theology of Love: The Dynamic of Wesleyanism, Mildred Bangs Wynkoop. P. 49-50

Ontological trichotomy, a recent revival of Gnostic thought in some Christian circles, undermines a concept of the unity of personality so basically assumed in Hebrew thought. It raises no barriers to-in fact it actually suggests and encourages-a virtual depersonalizing of the self. If man is only the sum of so many entities, he is simply an aggregate of selves, a split personality, a double mind; not a responsible, valid, centralized self. Any pluralistic concept of personality destroys the foundation of biblical holiness which is characterized by love, and which is a wholly personal quality capable of being experienced, truly, only by a unified person.
It has always been the most profound conviction of Wesleyanism that the Bible speaks to the moral relationships of men and not about sub-rational, nonpersonal areas of the self. Sin is basically self-separation from God, not in measurable distance but in moral unlikeness and spiritual alienation. Holiness is moral to the core -love to God and man-qualities of the self in relation to the person of God and of men.

A Theology of Love: The Dynamic of Wesleyanism, Mildred Bangs Wynkoop. Pp. 50-51.

Love is the gospel message. Christian love, revealed by God in Christ, is the correction of man's limited, selfish, selective, perverted love. It stands against any human concept of love projected into a theory of God's nature and His way with man.

It is precisely this unlimited, impartial, indestructible love that needed to be "revealed" because the best in human love has been limited. The very nature of sin is love's perversion which makes the self the object of its own dedication. Could the dogma of particular election as understood by some theological traditions be the projection of faulty human love into the very nature of God? The gospel was not born in human philosophy but in God's heart revealed in Christ. This Wesley declared.

A Theology of Love: The Dynamic of Wesleyanism, Mildred Bangs Wynkoop. P.18.

Humanity's sinful state of being is its lost relation to God. This way of conceptualizing original sin makes it possible, when coupled with prevenient grace, to maintain the completeness of the Fall while at the same time maintaining that humanness was not lost…The Protestant Reformers attempted to explain the human situation by arguing that a "relic" of the imago remained after the Fall. But as Brunner correctly criticizes this, it says both too much and too little. Too much, because it indicates that there remains in our nature an undamaged spot; and too little, because it forgets that even in our sin we bear witness to our original relationship to God.
Grace, Faith and Holiness, H. Ray Dunning. P.297

I included these to provide a little glimpse into what I think the nature of sin and what the nature of love. These differ from the Calvanistic/Compatibilist understanding which you may have had pounded into your head since say you come from a Christian background.

To your next objection I ask this question, “Does a magistrate force his will on a criminal, who committed a crime worthy of punishment, by sentencing the criminal to prison?” It seems a little inconsistent to first complain about the evil that men do, and then complain when something is done about it! There are so many examples of this liberal tripe. This reminds me of the ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow and what he said in his Address to the Prisoners in the Cook County Jail (1902) …

There are people who think that everything in this world is an accident. But really there is no such thing as an accident. A great many folks admit that many of the people in jail ought to be there, and many who are outside ought to be in. I think none of them ought to be here. There ought to be no jails; and if it were not for the fact that the people on the outside are so grasping and heartless in their dealings with the people on the inside, there would be no such institution as jails.

So if God were only nicer, wiser or even more just! What a wonderful world it would be! If only He would have made us from ‘better’ stuff, would we then be good? Evil must then be God’s fault! I’ll let C.S. Lewis answer this one…

Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will-that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings-then we may take it it is worth paying….

When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is to ask, as somebody once asked me: `Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong? The better stuff a creature is made of-the cleverer and stronger and freer it is-then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so; a superhuman spirit best-or worst-of all.

Freedom requires hell (a prison) because we are not automatons. If God were to force every free creature to Himself, it would make a hell of heaven. Contrary to your thinking, hell protects your freedom; you do not have to be with God. As C.S Lewis said, there are two kinds of people in the end, those who say to God, ‘thy will be done,’ and those to whom He says ‘thy will be done.’ Everyone in hell chooses to be there. Hell is unspeakably awful because all hope, love and pleasure is from God. As Dante, is his great work of literature, put over the gates of hell, ‘Abandon all hope ye who enter here,’ so it is I agree. Hell is deprivation of all that is good, and so is the terror of it. This is just. As men are in revolt against God on this world, there in the otherworld, as free beings, they would revolt as well. God incarcerates the rebels and criminals to protect His beloved, much like the same way the State incarcerates those who are a danger to other citizens in this world. I fail to see how this is wrong or unjust.

He had willed with his whole heart that there should be no reality and no truth, and now even the imminence of his own ruin could not wake him. . . . With eyes wide open, seeing that the endless terror is just about to begin and yet (for the moment) unable to feel terrified, he watches passively, not moving a finger for his own rescue, while the last links with joy and reason are severed, and drowsily sees the trap close upon his soul. C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength, ch. 16

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder. NIV, NKJV, NASB, NRSV, Young’s Literal Translation.

EXODUS 20:13 - How could God command people not to kill, and then, in Exodus 21:12, command that murderers be put to death? PROBLEM: In the Ten Commandments, God prohibits killing when He says, "Thou shalt not kill" (KJV). However, in Exodus 21:12 God commands that the man who strikes another man so that he dies should be put to death. Isn't it a contradiction for God to command that we not kill and then command that we do kill?

SOLUTION: A great amount of confusion has arisen because of the misleading translation of the sixth commandment. The Hebrew word used in the prohibition of this commandment is not the normal word for killing (harag). Rather it is the specific term for murder (ratsach). A more proper translation of the command is provided by the Nxjv and NIV: "You shall not murder." Exodus 21:12 is not a command to murder, but a command to carry out capital punishment for capital crime. There is no contradiction between the command for men not to commit murder, and the command that the proper authorities should execute capital punishment for capital crimes.

Your accusation is that God breaks his own command by killing the unjust. God cannot attack His own image, I agree. But what part of us comprises our image, our physical composite? But God is not a man (Numbers 23:19) made of physical parts contra Brigham Young and Kenneth Copeland. So then the spirit in us, that which controls our physical parts, is that which is eternal—we will never die. Banishment to hell ensures that God will never have to attack his own image—I don’t believe in annihilation as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do. We get what we decide; eternal life with the Creator, or eternal separation—which is hell.

God is no respecter of persons, He shows no favoritism. (Acts 10:34-35, Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25) God had to reveal Himself to us through history and Christ; through the Jews was the way He chose to do it. (John 4:22, Romans 3:29-30) And now as result there is no difference between Jew or Gentile (Romans 10:12-13) all may come to the Father through Jesus who was a Jew descended from David who was descended from Adam as we all are.

Now we come to the meat of it in your statement… “God did not create man per se, quite the opposite.” Now the creature is the Creator—a classic example of existentialist theology…

Crossan: Well there's been no puff of smoke yet, you noticed! So as of now, I'm one up! All right, when I say Jesus was human and divine, "divine" is for me an act of faith. It's not a statement of fact as "Jesus was human" is. That is open to anyone in public discourse. "Jesus is divine" is a statement made by Christians. It means that I, the Christian speaking, find God in Jesus. I do not find God somewhere else. Somebody else may find God somewhere else, but I do not. That's what it means to be a Christian.

John Dominic Crossan, Will the Real Jesus please Stand Up: A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan. P. 48

John Dominic Crossan does not believe the Bible is historically true. He calls himself a Christian however and ‘a la Sartre’ he chooses Christianity as a path so giving to it meaning. Faith and reason are then divorced. I ask, ‘Was man here from the beginning?’ Your science refutes that. The ontological and cosmological arguments demand first cause, you cannot provide that. Your statement (as well as Crossan’s) is essentially atheistic—if not, then man is God. Do you know this for a fact? Is this your larger truth? If so, you haven’t proven your point, since all you’ve made are dogmatic blind-faith declarations much the same Dr. Crossan likes to do.

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe

Since you believe in the anthropic principle, how then can you say we created God knowing that we are contingent? The atheist mathematician/philosopher Bertrand Russell asked the question, ‘why does the universe even bother exist?’ He did not have an answer. You have testified against yourself.

The metaphysical violation of basic principles in your next paragraph is quite ignorant. How can something [sic] that doesn’t exist will itself to exist? It is nothing—nothing cannot will anything—nothing is nothing. Your next run-on sentence has no coherence, but from what I gather from what I think you were trying to say is that general revelation supercedes special revelation—God could not protect His Word and that creation is ‘larger’ or more important than God’s Son, Jesus Christ. I cited Hume’s argument against Natural Theology—refer back if you’ve forgotten.

Matthew 10:34-36 is a prophetic passage as Jesus paralleled what was said in Micah 7:6. This is truth, and it did happen as Jesus said it would. The purpose of Christ’s coming to earth was to reconcile man to God. But the result also brought division between those who were for Christ and those who were against Him. The emphasis of shall be fails to prove the point of divine command since it is obvious from the passage’s context that it is a descriptive prophetic declaration. Shall be doesn’t necessarily imply a voice of command. In this case, a true prophetic declaration was made that did happen. Not by the power of Christ, but through the knowledge given Him by the Father, and then He accurately stated what He knew was going to happen as ‘it shall be.’

Many false teachers and heresies arose. Those who loved the truth had to separate themselves from those who loved the lie.[24] Wars were fought throughout history for the freedom to worship the truth. Atrocities were committed, families were divided and the struggle continues today. The Gospel truth stands for freedom and equality—and this Christian is no pacifist nor am I a murderer. My government has the right to send me into battle (Romans 13:1-6,) and I would discharge my duties with deadly ferocity if called to do so.

You claim %20 of the world’s population embraces Christianity—I would call that number high. To be a Christian is more than a name, it is a personal relationship with Christ. Many call themselves Christian because they had Christian parents or live in a ‘Christian’ country, but lack that which is crux of it, personal relationship with God. So Jesus as recorded in Scripture said…

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. Matthew 7:13-15 NIV

You have concluded that since only %20 of the world’s population embraces Christianity then the Bible lacks the “comprehensive precision, elegance or sophistication of ‘God’s’ other work, the creation of the cosmos.” Scripture itself confirms few will find the gate to life. How does your assertion work against the authenticity of scripture work again? Besides, millions upon millions embrace a view that material reality is an illusion.

“Ultimate truths do not change.” According to you we created God, yet we change all the time, this is evident. So if we define ‘ultimate truths’ then ultimate truths change.

“I suspect that a Superior Being would have superior means of communicating with us.”

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:6-11 NIV

How great a means of communicating Himself to us by sending the Son! Jesus was a man experiencing the same trials, temptations, pain and suffering as us. Jesus did not act as “typical cult leader,” because in the span of a week the multitude went from praising Him[25] to calling for His crucifixion[26] because He did not tell them what they wanted to hear. After the crucifixion, the bulk of His followers were the eleven. They were unbelieving,[27] scared,[28] confused.[29] If that were the result of a “typical cult leader,” that would have been the end of it. But Jesus rose from the dead physically,[30] and opened their minds.[31] Those men set out and changed the world[32], and most of them paid with their lives. Belief does inspire fanaticism, Muslims are a great example. Men will die for what they believe in. Christianity is unique to all other belief systems in this respect: The Apostles were in the position to actually know whether or not what they were saying was actually true and actually suffer for sticking to it—unlike Muhammad.. Men will not suffer and die for what they know to be a lie. God revealed Himself to us in a way that allows us to choose freely—this is the perfect way since if we were to actually see the Father as He is, as sinful men, we would die.

And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Exodus 33:19-20 NIV

It is only by Christ we can see the Father. These scriptures I have already cited.

Christianity does not require reading ability—to say it does is ignorant. What it requires is relationship with Christ. People who cannot read are not necessarily stupid or disconnected.

Since eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), is it a lesser abomination than homosexuality?

I’ll list the two verses each in seven different English translations along with the transliterated Hebrew and lexical definitions. I’ll have some commentary after, but it should be oblivious that this objection equates apples with oranges.

To`ebah is used in the sphere of jurisprudence and of family or tribal relationships. Certain acts or characteristics are destructive of societal and familial harmony; both such things and the people who do them are described by to`ebah: "These six things doth the Lord hate; yea, seven are an abomination unto him:... a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,... and he that soweth discord among brethren" Proverbs 6:16-19. God says, "The scorner is an abomination to men" Proverbs 24:9 because he spreads his bitterness among God's people, disrupting unity and harmony. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Lev 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. NIV

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. NKJV

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. NASU

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. KJV

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. RSV

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. NAS

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ASV

And all that not have fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all move in the waters, and of any thing living that which is in the waters, shall be an abomination they

Wªkol 'ªsher 'eeyn- low cªnapiyr wªqasqeset bayamiym uwbanchaaliym mikol sherets hamayim uwmikol nepesh hachayaah 'ªsher bamaayim sheqets heem

sheqets (sheh'-kets); from OT:8262; filth, i.e. (figuratively and specifically) an idolatrous object:

OT:8262 shaqats (shaw-kats'); a primitive root; to be filthy, i.e. (intensively) to loathe, pollute:

Lev 11:10 But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. NKJV

Lev 11:10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales--whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water--you are to detest. NIV

Lev 11:10 But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you, NASU

Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: KJV

Lev 11:10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. RSV

Lev 11:10 But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers, that do not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you, NAS

Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you, ASV

Notice first that all the English translations are unanimous and consistent with each other. Secondly, notice that the Hebrew words translated abomination or detestable are different in the two verses; to`ebah and sheqets. Thirdly, notice the underlined it is 18:22 and to you in 11:10. Now it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the two ‘abominations’ in verses 18:22 and 11:10 are contextually and referentially different. The abomination is (absolute) in 18:22, and is to an Israelite (relative) in 11:10.

Homosexual apologists argue that to`ebah refers only to homosexual sex in an idolatrous context (temple prostitution) and not to a loving homosexual relationship. To`ebah is used in context to idolatry but also ‘To`ebah is used in the sphere of jurisprudence and of family or tribal relationships. Certain acts or characteristics are destructive of societal and familial harmony’ as described in Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words . Besides, the Hebrew language has particular words for temple prostitutes; ‘No Israelite man[33] or woman[34] is to become a shrine prostitute.’ [35]

As you can see, the male (qadesh) and female (qedeshah) temple prostitutes are differentiated so this is not unclear as to what it is saying. The Bible, contrary to what many people believe, can be very specific. And if to`ebah only refers to temple prostitution as the homosexual apologists say, why is it not then used here? They would love for the language to be that fuzzy, but it isn’t. Furthermore, by the same reason these apologist attempt to say that there is no longer any law against homosexuality, the same reason could be used to decriminalize bestiality and incest. ‘But these are not accepted by society yet,’ you say? This Christian would say it is ludicrous of man to believe he has the authority to create law. The universe does not conform itself to what a man declares to be true or lawful; to believe that it does is delusional[36] and patently absurd.[37]

Since homosexuality is abomination, this law is not temporary. It is absolutely wrong. So, anything said in New Testament couldn’t change that fact. But, lo and behold, the teaching in the New Testament confirms that homosexuality is wrong.[38] The attempt by homosexual apologists to change the Greek word that is translated natural[39] in Romans 1:26-27 into meaning ‘according to societal standards’ is baseless. Christian apologist Dr. James White addressed this aberrant translation of phusikos, ‘There isn’t a lexicon on God’s green earth that says that.’ From my three Greek lexicons, phusikos is properly translated as ‘natural,’ they agree with each other and with Dr. White’s statement.

Lastly, the Bible is God’s will and law revealed to us. The Creator defines law then revealed the law to us. To say that law is determined by man ‘according to societal standards’ is idolatry.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:18-32 NIV

So homosexuality occurs in animals… There are many directions one could take on this argument. Essentially, what you are arguing for is ‘what is is right’ since all animals observed apparently do it. Am I wrong? Are you merely an animal? From a Darwinist point-of-view, that is all you are. Ever think about the fact that animals live in a fallen world as well as you as a result of Adam’s sin? That what is now is not what was meant to be.

Would species survive, those who require sexual reproduction that is, if all sex were homosexual exclusively? It is hard to think that they would survive. Bisexuality is promiscuity, do you disagree? But promiscuity (in that sexually reproducing species desires both same sex contact and opposite sex productivity in reproduction) is in this framework the only way for sexually reproducing species to survive in this instance. Do you embrace promiscuity?

It is slippery slope you are on there Bob. The animals were never accorded the honor of being created in God’s image. Though I believe higher animals do have souls and aspects of rationality and self-preservation, I do not believe they have the same image, privilege, and God-consciousness we do. Are you really the equivalent of a worm?

(A common objection to the dichotomous view of man (that man is both spiritual and material) is the problem of animal souls. We simply do not want to give them one because we seem to think that we must give them one that is the same as ours. I do not understand why we must. As there are many kinds of animals, why can there not be different kinds of souls? We cannot deny the self awareness and consciousness of others in higher animals, so they must get this awareness from somewhere. Do we say then that consciousness can arise from material means or that material means can sustain it on its own?[40] We must if we deny animals some kind of immaterial soul. Man is made in God’s image, so only man can be God-aware. There is no threat here to our place in the grand order of things. There is no evidence for an afterlife for a non-human animal and there is no reason to believe they are moral beings as we (and angels) are. I simply see no necessity for saying there can be no other kinds of souls. After all, are not angels different in nature from us?)

Sexual sin plagues the human race. What defines then sexually inappropriate relationships from your point of view? Sexual contact with children, from my point of view is wrong, whether from homosexual or heterosexual offenders. How do you defend your position which is essentially baseless? What is integrity? What is is right. From my point of view, all you have is a shadow of that which is right.

Concerning reincarnation, I agree with Sunnie—God is not in the recycling business.

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Hebrews 9:27-28

The Bible’s authenticity has many witnesses—the apostles suffered and died attesting to it, biblical scholars have tested it and people like Sunnie and me attest to the Gospel’s power—it has the power to change lives.

Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." John 4:13-14 NIV

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' Matthew 19:4 NIV

For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Matthew 24:38-39 NIV

if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 2 Peter 2:5-6 NIV

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 20:11 NIV

it will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.'" Exodus 31:17 NIV

“But the earth could only be thousands of years old—what about red-shift and the problem of ancient starlight?” You say.

I’ve already included links to articles about the problems with radiometric dating. It turns out that ancient starlight is as big a problem for ‘long-agers’ as it is for us ‘young-agers.’

Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang

Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement

A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp

The Hubble Law http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/hubble.asp

Doppler toppler? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/doppler.asp

Using the guiding principle of big-bang cosmology, scientists do not understand how stars form either. What is masterful work of propaganda they’ve pulled off!

I think this is best summarized by Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics statement, "The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level." (Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist, Feb. 1998.)

In summation, I reject the supposed necessity the separation of faith and reason. The Wesleyan quadrangle (Reason, Faith, Experience, and Tradition) governs how I reason my faith. As a student of philosophy, I am familiar with all major systems of metaphysical and epistemological belief; and I’m scientifically literate as well. I think Christianity is most consistent with reason and provides the best explanation for our predicament.

Return to Home

[1] J.P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. P.147

[2] The optimism of the first Humanist Manifesto, which Dewey signed, was not expressed in the second Humanist Manifesto signed by many of world’s leading humanists in 1973. That optimism which expressed mankind’s inherent ability to solve the world’s problems with ‘progressive’ thought was ‘toned down.’

[3] It may seem odd to you that a Christian would use an argument from someone hostile to Christianity and ‘skeptical’ overall, when I am not. I do this quite a lot actually and I hope it will become clear why later on.

[4] Richard Dawkins, author of the well written book The Blind Watchmaker, argues against an intelligent designer eloquently. However clever it was, I was not convinced since it is basically counter-intuitive to common experience. However, I think the design argument, though very powerful in some examples, is one of the weaker arguments for the existence and character of God.

[5] However, all men have a moral nature stamped upon their hearts by God. (Romans 2:14-15) This says nothing of the world external to themselves.

[6] Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Gay Science," in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. W. Kaufmann (New York: Viking, 1954), p. 95

[7] Kai Nielsen, "Why Should I Be Moral?" American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (l984):90

[8] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith. "The Absurdity of Life Without God" (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984) p.66

[9] “Before Charles Darwin, most people believed that God created all living things in exactly the form that we see them today. This is the basis of the doctrine of Creation.” “Darwin’s work supported the view that all living things have developed into the forms we see today by a process of gradual change over very long periods of time. This is what is meant by evolution. Many people find that the theory of evolution does not conflict with their religious beliefs.”

Natural History Museum in London, England. “Origin of Species” exhibit next to bust of Darwin.

[10] I have read Robert Jastrow’s Red Giants and White Dwarfs, where the same kind of assertion was made.

[11] Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. P.213.

[12] http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/probevil.htm#FN1

[13] Richard Lewontin (Harvard Geneticist) “Billions and Billions of Demons”, The New York Review of Books, Jan 9, 1997. P.31

[14] G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. '79, p.30

[18] ibid

[19] ibid.

[20] It means basically partner in crime.

[22] ibid.

[23] ibid.

[24] 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

[25] Luke 19:35-40

[26] Mark 15:13-15

[27] Mark 16:14, John 20:25

[28] John 20:19

[29] Luke 24:19-27

[30] Luke 27:37-43, Acts 1:3, 1 Corinthians 15:6

[31] Luke 24:45

[32] Matthew 28:18-20

[33] OT:6945 qadesh (kaw-dashe'); from OT:6942; a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry: KJV - sodomite, unclean. (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

[34] OT:6948 qedeshah (ked-ay-shaw'); feminine of OT:6945; a female devotee (i.e. prostitute): KJV - harlot, whore.

[35] Deuteronomy 23:17 NIV

[36] Romans 1:18-24

[37] Job 38:4

[38] Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7-8

[39] NT:5446 phusikos (foo-see-kos'); from NT:5449; "physical", i.e. (by implication) instinctive: KJV - natural. Compare NT:5591. (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.) NT:5446

fusikos, fusikee, fusikon natural a. produced by nature, inborn b. agreeable to nature c. governed by (the instincts of) nature: 2 Peter 2:12 (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 2000 by Biblesoft)

[40] I’ve already said why I think this is unacceptable.

Stephen Jay Gould, the late famous paleontologist, argued in his book The Panda’s Thumb that God wouldn’t have made such an obviously flawed thing so therefore a wise god didn’t create it. This is a theological argument, not a scientific one.