Saint Lucy
Feastday: December 13Patron of Blindness
Lucy's name means "light", with the same root as "lucid" which means "clear, radiant, understandable." Unfortunately for us, Lucy's history does not match her name. Shrouded in the darkness of time, all we really know for certain is that this brave woman who lived in Syracuse lost her life in the persecution of Christians in the early fourth century. Her veneration spread to Rome so that by the sixth century the whole Church recognized her courage in defense of the faith.
Because people wanted to shed light on Lucy's bravery, legends grew up. The one that is passed down to us tells the story of a young Christian woman who had vowed her life to the service of Christ. Her mother tried to arrange a marriage for her with a pagan. Lucy apparently knew that her mother would not be convinced by a young girl's vow so she devised a plan to convince her mother that Christ was a much more powerful partner for life. Through prayers at the tomb of Saint Agatha, her mother's long illness was cured miraculously. The grateful mother was now ready to listen to Lucy's desire to give her money to the poor and commit her life to God.
Unfortunately, legend has it, the rejected bridegroom did not see the same light and he betrayed Lucy to the governor as a Christian. This governor tried to send her into prostitution but the guards who came to take her way found her stiff and heavy as a mountain. Finally she was killed. As much as the facts of Lucy's specific case are unknown, we know that many Christians suffered incredible torture and a painful death for their faith during Diocletian's reign. Lucy may not have been burned or had a sword thrust through her throat but many Christians did and we can be sure her faith withstood tests we can barely imagine.
Lucy's name is probably also connected to statues of Lucy holding a dish with two eyes on it. This refers to another legend in which Lucy's eyes were put out by Diocletian as part of his torture. The legend concludes with God restoring Lucy's eyes.
Lucy's name also played a large part in naming Lucy as a patron saint of the blind and those with eye-trouble.
Whatever the fact to the legends surrounding Lucy, the truth is that her courage to stand up and be counted a Christian in spite of torture and death is the light that should lead us on our own journeys through life.
In Her Footsteps:
Lucy is the patron saint of the blind. Braille is an important means of communication for those with visual impairment or blindness. Support the teaching of braille in schools and learn about it yourself by calling your local chapter of the National Federation of the Blind.
Prayer:
Saint Lucy, you did not hide your light under a basket, but let it shine for the whole world, for all the centuries to see. We may not suffer torture in our lives the way you did, but we are still called to let the light of our Christianity illumine our daily lives. Please help us to have the courage to bring our Christianity into our work, our recreation, our relationships, our conversation -- every corner of our day. Amen
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=75
domenica 19 dicembre 2010
Nicholas of Myra
Nicholas of Myra
was born in Asia Minor during the third century in the Greek colony of Patara in Lycia in the Roman province of Asia- today Antalya, Turkey — at a time when the region was Hellenistic in its culture and outlook. Nicholas became bishop of the city of Myra. He was very religious from an early age and devoted his life entirely to Christianity. According to legend, Nicholas was said to have rigorously observed the canonical fasts of Wednesdays and Fridays, even when an infant, by abstaining on those days from his mother's breasts. Nicholas is said to have been born to relatively affluent Christian parents in Patara, Lycia, where he also received his early schooling.
As the patron saint also of sailors, Nicholas is claimed to have been a sailor or fisherman himself. More likely, however, is that one of his family businesses involved managing a fishing fleet. When his parents died, Nicholas received his inheritance but is said to have given it away to the poor. So was St Nicholas a working, albeit wealthy, man who complemented his day job with caring for his congregation, or was he a full-time bishop? The impressive list of deeds of Nicholas seems to point to the latter. This does not mean, however, that his appointment to priest or bishop meant a complete rupture with his former life. More likely this was a gradual process.
Nicholas's early activities as a priest are said to have occurred during the persecution of Christians under the reign of co-ruling Roman Emperors Diocletian (reigned 284–305) and Maximian (reigned 286–305) In the Eastern Empire Galerius (reigned 305–311) continued the persecution until 311 when he issued a general edict of toleration from his deathbed. Nicholas survived this period, although his activities at the time are uncertain.
Following Galerius' death his surviving co-ruler Licinius (reigned 307–324) mostly tolerated Christians. As a result their community was allowed to further develop, and the various bishops who acted as their leaders managed to concentrate religious, social, and political influence as well as wealth in their hands. In many cases they acted as the heads of their respective cities. It is apparently in this period that Nicholas rose to become bishop of Myra. Judging from tradition, he was probably well loved and respected in his area, mostly as a result of his charitable activities. As with other bishops of the time, Nicholas's popularity would serve to ensure his position and influence during and after this period.
The destruction of several pagan temples is also attributed to him, among them the temple of Artemis. Because the celebration of Diana's birth is on December 6, some authors have speculated that this date was deliberately chosen for Nicholas's feast day to overshadow or replace the pagan celebrations.
Not only was Nicholas intolerant of pagans, he was also intolerant of Arianism. Nicholas is listed as a participant in the First Council of Nicaea. There according to legend he became so angry upon hearing the views of Arius that he rushed over to the heretic and gave him a tremendous box on his ears, sending him to the ground.
Nicholas is also known for coming to the defence of the falsely accused, often preventing them from being executed, and for his intercession on behalf of sailors and other travelers. The popular veneration of Nicholas as a saint seems to have started relatively early. Justinian I, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire (reigned 527–565) is reported to have built a temple (i.e. a church building) in Nicholas's honor in Constantinople.
Propers for Nicholas - Bishop of Myra
http://ohioanglican.blogspot.com/2010/12/nicholas-of-myra.html
was born in Asia Minor during the third century in the Greek colony of Patara in Lycia in the Roman province of Asia- today Antalya, Turkey — at a time when the region was Hellenistic in its culture and outlook. Nicholas became bishop of the city of Myra. He was very religious from an early age and devoted his life entirely to Christianity. According to legend, Nicholas was said to have rigorously observed the canonical fasts of Wednesdays and Fridays, even when an infant, by abstaining on those days from his mother's breasts. Nicholas is said to have been born to relatively affluent Christian parents in Patara, Lycia, where he also received his early schooling.
As the patron saint also of sailors, Nicholas is claimed to have been a sailor or fisherman himself. More likely, however, is that one of his family businesses involved managing a fishing fleet. When his parents died, Nicholas received his inheritance but is said to have given it away to the poor. So was St Nicholas a working, albeit wealthy, man who complemented his day job with caring for his congregation, or was he a full-time bishop? The impressive list of deeds of Nicholas seems to point to the latter. This does not mean, however, that his appointment to priest or bishop meant a complete rupture with his former life. More likely this was a gradual process.
Nicholas's early activities as a priest are said to have occurred during the persecution of Christians under the reign of co-ruling Roman Emperors Diocletian (reigned 284–305) and Maximian (reigned 286–305) In the Eastern Empire Galerius (reigned 305–311) continued the persecution until 311 when he issued a general edict of toleration from his deathbed. Nicholas survived this period, although his activities at the time are uncertain.
Following Galerius' death his surviving co-ruler Licinius (reigned 307–324) mostly tolerated Christians. As a result their community was allowed to further develop, and the various bishops who acted as their leaders managed to concentrate religious, social, and political influence as well as wealth in their hands. In many cases they acted as the heads of their respective cities. It is apparently in this period that Nicholas rose to become bishop of Myra. Judging from tradition, he was probably well loved and respected in his area, mostly as a result of his charitable activities. As with other bishops of the time, Nicholas's popularity would serve to ensure his position and influence during and after this period.
The destruction of several pagan temples is also attributed to him, among them the temple of Artemis. Because the celebration of Diana's birth is on December 6, some authors have speculated that this date was deliberately chosen for Nicholas's feast day to overshadow or replace the pagan celebrations.
Not only was Nicholas intolerant of pagans, he was also intolerant of Arianism. Nicholas is listed as a participant in the First Council of Nicaea. There according to legend he became so angry upon hearing the views of Arius that he rushed over to the heretic and gave him a tremendous box on his ears, sending him to the ground.
Nicholas is also known for coming to the defence of the falsely accused, often preventing them from being executed, and for his intercession on behalf of sailors and other travelers. The popular veneration of Nicholas as a saint seems to have started relatively early. Justinian I, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire (reigned 527–565) is reported to have built a temple (i.e. a church building) in Nicholas's honor in Constantinople.
Propers for Nicholas - Bishop of Myra
http://ohioanglican.blogspot.com/2010/12/nicholas-of-myra.html
HOMOSEXUAL THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS IS A SIN
HOMOSEXUAL THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS IS A SIN
By Martino Gerber and Giuliano Lattes
************************************************
EVIL THOUGHTS IS SIN
Matthew 5: 27-30
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Matthew 15: 18-19
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
James 1: 13-15
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
http://carm.org/online-bible
*****************************************************************
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN
By Martino Gerber and Giuliano Lattes
************************************************
The Bible Old Testament tells us that homosexuality is a sin:
The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
Genesis 18: 17-33 19:1-30;
**************************
Leviticus 18:22;
"You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing.
Leviticus 18:29;
Yes, anyone who does any of these hateful things, whatever it may be, any persondoing so, wilbe outlawed from his people.
Leviticus 20:13;
"The manwho has intercourse with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
*******************************
The Bible New Testament tells us that homosexuality is a sin:
Romans 1:24-32;
24 That is why God abandoned them in their inmost cravings to filthy practices of dishonouring their own bodies-
25 because they exchanged God's truth for a lie and have worshipped and served the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:
27 why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.
28 In other words, since they would not consent to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour.
29 And so now they are steeped in all sorts of injustice, rottenness, greed and malice; full of envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite,
30 libellers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant and boastful, enterprising in evil, rebellious to parents,
31 without brains, honour, love or pity.
32 They are well aware of God's ordinance: that those who behave like this deserve to die -- yet they not only do it, but even applaud others who do the same.
1 Corinthians 6:9;
9 Do you not realise that people who do evil willnever inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites.
1 Timothy 1: 9-10;
9 on the understanding that laws are not framed for people who are upright. On the contrary, they are for criminals and the insubordinate, for the irreligious and the wicked, for the sacrilegious and the godless; they are for people who kill their fathers or mothers and for murderers,
10 for the promiscuous, homosexuals, kidnappers, for liars and for perjurers -- and for everything else that is contrary to the sound teaching.
*****************************
Jesus teaches that the homosexuality is a sin, in fact Jesus condemns sodomites;
Matthew 10: 14-15;
14 And if anyone does not welcome you or listen to what you have to say, as you walk out of the house or town shake the dust from your feet.
15 In truth I tell you, on the Day of Judgement it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
Matthew 11: 23-24;
23 And as for you, Capernaum, did you want to be raised as high as heaven?
You shall be flung down to hell. For if the miracles done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have been standing yet.
24 Still, I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on Judgement Day than for you.
Luke 10: 11-12;
11 "We wipe off the very dust of your town that clings to our feet, and leave it with you. Yet be sure of this: the kingdom of God is very near."
12 I tell you, on the great Day it will be more bearable for Sodom than for that town.
****************************************
Sodomites sin is homosexuality:
2 Peter 2: 4-8;
4 When angels sinned, God did not spare them: he sent them down into the underworld and consigned them to the dark abyss to be held there until the Judgement.
5 He did not spare the world in ancient times: he saved only Noah, the preacher of uprightness, along with seven others, when he sent the Flood over a world of sinners.
6 He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by reducing them to ashesas a warning to future sinners;
7 but rescued Lot, an upright manwho had been sickened by the debauched way in which these vile people behaved-
8 for that upright man, living among them, was outraged in his upright soul by the crimes that he saw and heard every day.
Jude: 1,7;
7 Sodom and Gomorrah, too, and the neighbouring towns, who with the same sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts,
are put before us as an example since they are paying the penalty of eternal fire.
***********************************
Bible's quotations byNew Jerusalem Bible
http://www.catholic.org/bible/
https://sites.google.com/site/antiblasphemycentral/
https://sites.google.com/site/antiblasphemycentral/Home/homosexual-thoughts-and-feelings-is-a-sin
By Martino Gerber and Giuliano Lattes
************************************************
EVIL THOUGHTS IS SIN
Matthew 5: 27-30
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Matthew 15: 18-19
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
James 1: 13-15
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
http://carm.org/online-bible
*****************************************************************
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN
By Martino Gerber and Giuliano Lattes
************************************************
The Bible Old Testament tells us that homosexuality is a sin:
The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
Genesis 18: 17-33 19:1-30;
**************************
Leviticus 18:22;
"You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing.
Leviticus 18:29;
Yes, anyone who does any of these hateful things, whatever it may be, any persondoing so, wilbe outlawed from his people.
Leviticus 20:13;
"The manwho has intercourse with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
*******************************
The Bible New Testament tells us that homosexuality is a sin:
Romans 1:24-32;
24 That is why God abandoned them in their inmost cravings to filthy practices of dishonouring their own bodies-
25 because they exchanged God's truth for a lie and have worshipped and served the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:
27 why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.
28 In other words, since they would not consent to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour.
29 And so now they are steeped in all sorts of injustice, rottenness, greed and malice; full of envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite,
30 libellers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant and boastful, enterprising in evil, rebellious to parents,
31 without brains, honour, love or pity.
32 They are well aware of God's ordinance: that those who behave like this deserve to die -- yet they not only do it, but even applaud others who do the same.
1 Corinthians 6:9;
9 Do you not realise that people who do evil willnever inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites.
1 Timothy 1: 9-10;
9 on the understanding that laws are not framed for people who are upright. On the contrary, they are for criminals and the insubordinate, for the irreligious and the wicked, for the sacrilegious and the godless; they are for people who kill their fathers or mothers and for murderers,
10 for the promiscuous, homosexuals, kidnappers, for liars and for perjurers -- and for everything else that is contrary to the sound teaching.
*****************************
Jesus teaches that the homosexuality is a sin, in fact Jesus condemns sodomites;
Matthew 10: 14-15;
14 And if anyone does not welcome you or listen to what you have to say, as you walk out of the house or town shake the dust from your feet.
15 In truth I tell you, on the Day of Judgement it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
Matthew 11: 23-24;
23 And as for you, Capernaum, did you want to be raised as high as heaven?
You shall be flung down to hell. For if the miracles done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have been standing yet.
24 Still, I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on Judgement Day than for you.
Luke 10: 11-12;
11 "We wipe off the very dust of your town that clings to our feet, and leave it with you. Yet be sure of this: the kingdom of God is very near."
12 I tell you, on the great Day it will be more bearable for Sodom than for that town.
****************************************
Sodomites sin is homosexuality:
2 Peter 2: 4-8;
4 When angels sinned, God did not spare them: he sent them down into the underworld and consigned them to the dark abyss to be held there until the Judgement.
5 He did not spare the world in ancient times: he saved only Noah, the preacher of uprightness, along with seven others, when he sent the Flood over a world of sinners.
6 He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by reducing them to ashesas a warning to future sinners;
7 but rescued Lot, an upright manwho had been sickened by the debauched way in which these vile people behaved-
8 for that upright man, living among them, was outraged in his upright soul by the crimes that he saw and heard every day.
Jude: 1,7;
7 Sodom and Gomorrah, too, and the neighbouring towns, who with the same sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts,
are put before us as an example since they are paying the penalty of eternal fire.
***********************************
Bible's quotations byNew Jerusalem Bible
http://www.catholic.org/bible/
https://sites.google.com/site/antiblasphemycentral/
https://sites.google.com/site/antiblasphemycentral/Home/homosexual-thoughts-and-feelings-is-a-sin
Mormons soften language on gays
Mormons soften language on gays
Nov. 15, 2010
By Peggy Fletcher Stack, The Salt Lake Tribune
A newly published compilation of guidelines used worldwide by leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has softened the language about gay Mormons.
The book, known as the Church Handbook of Instructions, lays out Mormon policies on everything from baptism to running a worship service to counseling troubled marriages.
The updated reference book, scheduled to be presented to thousands of Mormon leaders in a giant televised training session Nov. 13, will set the tone for church interactions for years to come.
The new handbook makes a clear distinction between same-sex orientation and behavior. It eliminates the suggestion, mentioned in a 2006 edition, that same-sex relationships “distort loving relationships” and that gays should repent of their “homosexual thoughts or feelings.”
It also says that celibate gay Mormons who are “worthy and qualified in every other way” should be allowed to have “callings,” or church assignments, and to participate fully in temple rituals.
The handbook simply repeats what top LDS leaders have been trying to say, but in more explicit terms that many members will understand, said David Pruden, president of Evergreen International, a support group that helps gay Mormons live by church standards.
Sometimes in the past, when a gay Mormon told his bishop he was struggling with same-sex feelings, the local leader would immediately call a “disciplinary council,” Pruden said. “They didn’t understand something that was foreign to them.”
These members were trying to be faithful to the church and looking for help, he said. Instead they were hurt and punished. The new tweaks, Pruden said, “will bless people by making it easier for them to come forward.”
The changes are “baby steps in the right direction,” said Mitch Mayne, an openly gay and active Mormon in the Bay Area. “At least the handbook takes the damning terminology out of it.”
But as long as the church makes homosexuality into a “subversive, taboo thing,” Mormon gays will have sex in parks and truck stops, he said. “We wrap being gay in so much shame, and shame brings acting-out behavior.”
http://ncronline.org/news/mormons-soften-language-gays
Nov. 15, 2010
By Peggy Fletcher Stack, The Salt Lake Tribune
A newly published compilation of guidelines used worldwide by leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has softened the language about gay Mormons.
The book, known as the Church Handbook of Instructions, lays out Mormon policies on everything from baptism to running a worship service to counseling troubled marriages.
The updated reference book, scheduled to be presented to thousands of Mormon leaders in a giant televised training session Nov. 13, will set the tone for church interactions for years to come.
The new handbook makes a clear distinction between same-sex orientation and behavior. It eliminates the suggestion, mentioned in a 2006 edition, that same-sex relationships “distort loving relationships” and that gays should repent of their “homosexual thoughts or feelings.”
It also says that celibate gay Mormons who are “worthy and qualified in every other way” should be allowed to have “callings,” or church assignments, and to participate fully in temple rituals.
The handbook simply repeats what top LDS leaders have been trying to say, but in more explicit terms that many members will understand, said David Pruden, president of Evergreen International, a support group that helps gay Mormons live by church standards.
Sometimes in the past, when a gay Mormon told his bishop he was struggling with same-sex feelings, the local leader would immediately call a “disciplinary council,” Pruden said. “They didn’t understand something that was foreign to them.”
These members were trying to be faithful to the church and looking for help, he said. Instead they were hurt and punished. The new tweaks, Pruden said, “will bless people by making it easier for them to come forward.”
The changes are “baby steps in the right direction,” said Mitch Mayne, an openly gay and active Mormon in the Bay Area. “At least the handbook takes the damning terminology out of it.”
But as long as the church makes homosexuality into a “subversive, taboo thing,” Mormon gays will have sex in parks and truck stops, he said. “We wrap being gay in so much shame, and shame brings acting-out behavior.”
http://ncronline.org/news/mormons-soften-language-gays
Homosexual Thoughts and Feelings Not a Sin, Says New LDS Handbook
APOSTASY:
Homosexual Thoughts and Feelings Not a Sin, Says New LDS Handbook
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE
November 11, 2010
7:43AM
Homosexual Thoughts and Feelings Not a Sin, Says New LDS Handbook
Post by Joanna Brooks
Changes to LDS Church policy on homosexuality will be presented to LDS lay clerical leaders worldwide this Saturday, November 13.
The changes are being introduced through a global leadership training satellite broadcast for the release of the newly revised Church Handbook of Instructions (CHI), a 400-page lay priesthood manual reserved for use by LDS Church members in local and regional lay leadership positions.
Multiple advance copies of the CHI leaked on the internet reveal significant changes to Church policy on homosexuality.
Websites are reporting changes (in CHI Book 2) as follows, with deletions marked in strikeouts and additions in italics:
Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.
If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.
While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out to understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. [Paragraph moved from second to third position.]
In addition to the inspired assistance of Church leaders, members may need professional counseling. When appropriate, bishops should contact LDS Social Services to identify resources to provide such counseling in harmony with gospel principles.
If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.
As was the case in reading the LDS Church’s October statement in response to the controversy surrounding Elder Boyd K. Packer’s General Conference Talk, these are incremental but significant changes. The new CHI:
1. Removes the implication that same-sex relationships “distort” love.
2. Removes the imperative that members should repent for having “homosexual thoughts or feelings.”
3. Removes the instruction that Church leaders should refer members to professional counseling. This is especially significant because in times past leaders were encouraged to refer members to practitioners of reparative therapy such as Evergreen International. Reparative therapy has been discredited by scientists and professionals and, in some instances—including the electroshock aversion therapy prescribed by BYU-affiliated practitioners in the 1970s—exposed as abusive.
4. Adds the counsel that LGBT members who remain chaste should be “supported” and “encouraged” by Church leaders and be included in every dimension of LDS life and practice.
As I said of the LDS October statement, the new CHI does not offer institutional welcome or affirmation to LGBT people who want to live full lives as LGBT people. It maintains that “homosexual behavior” is sinful. It does not create space for LGBT Mormons to attend church on Sunday with their partners, as I am able to do. But it does show institutional LDS movement on LGBT issues, most crucially—one hopes—for LDS LGBT young people who may have been brought up to despise themselves simply for having homosexual thoughts and feelings. Church leaders will play a pivotal role in making sure this message gets out to local congregations, where it is most needed.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/3720/homosexual_thoughts_and_feelings_not_a_sin%2C_says_new_lds_handbook/
Homosexual Thoughts and Feelings Not a Sin, Says New LDS Handbook
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE
November 11, 2010
7:43AM
Homosexual Thoughts and Feelings Not a Sin, Says New LDS Handbook
Post by Joanna Brooks
Changes to LDS Church policy on homosexuality will be presented to LDS lay clerical leaders worldwide this Saturday, November 13.
The changes are being introduced through a global leadership training satellite broadcast for the release of the newly revised Church Handbook of Instructions (CHI), a 400-page lay priesthood manual reserved for use by LDS Church members in local and regional lay leadership positions.
Multiple advance copies of the CHI leaked on the internet reveal significant changes to Church policy on homosexuality.
Websites are reporting changes (in CHI Book 2) as follows, with deletions marked in strikeouts and additions in italics:
Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.
If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.
While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out to understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. [Paragraph moved from second to third position.]
In addition to the inspired assistance of Church leaders, members may need professional counseling. When appropriate, bishops should contact LDS Social Services to identify resources to provide such counseling in harmony with gospel principles.
If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.
As was the case in reading the LDS Church’s October statement in response to the controversy surrounding Elder Boyd K. Packer’s General Conference Talk, these are incremental but significant changes. The new CHI:
1. Removes the implication that same-sex relationships “distort” love.
2. Removes the imperative that members should repent for having “homosexual thoughts or feelings.”
3. Removes the instruction that Church leaders should refer members to professional counseling. This is especially significant because in times past leaders were encouraged to refer members to practitioners of reparative therapy such as Evergreen International. Reparative therapy has been discredited by scientists and professionals and, in some instances—including the electroshock aversion therapy prescribed by BYU-affiliated practitioners in the 1970s—exposed as abusive.
4. Adds the counsel that LGBT members who remain chaste should be “supported” and “encouraged” by Church leaders and be included in every dimension of LDS life and practice.
As I said of the LDS October statement, the new CHI does not offer institutional welcome or affirmation to LGBT people who want to live full lives as LGBT people. It maintains that “homosexual behavior” is sinful. It does not create space for LGBT Mormons to attend church on Sunday with their partners, as I am able to do. But it does show institutional LDS movement on LGBT issues, most crucially—one hopes—for LDS LGBT young people who may have been brought up to despise themselves simply for having homosexual thoughts and feelings. Church leaders will play a pivotal role in making sure this message gets out to local congregations, where it is most needed.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/3720/homosexual_thoughts_and_feelings_not_a_sin%2C_says_new_lds_handbook/
Catholic billboard responds to atheist message outside Lincoln Tunnel
Catholic billboard responds to atheist message outside Lincoln Tunnel
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Last updated: Wednesday December 1, 2010, 9:01 AM
BY STEPHANIE AKIN
The Record
STAFF WRITER
Days after an atheist group posted a billboard mocking the Christmas holiday at the New Jersey approach to the Lincoln Tunnel, a Catholic organization has responded with its own message on the New York side.
MICHAEL KARAS / STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Buy this photo
The Catholic League has responded to an atheist billboard in North Bergen with one of their own in New York City by the Lincoln Tunnel.
“You know it’s real,” the newer billboard tells drivers passing the corner of Dyer Avenue and West 31st Street in Manhattan. “This season, celebrate Jesus.”
The sign, sponsored by the New York-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, mimics the wording and design of a 14-by-48 foot billboard erected by an atheist group along Route 495 in North Bergen on Nov. 22.
Both billboards depict Nativity scenes. The Catholic sign, which was visible and lighted on Tuesday night, has a red background; the atheist one is blue. But the messages are markedly different.
“You Know it’s a MYTH,” the atheist sign, paid for by a national group called American Atheists, states. “This Season, Celebrate REASON.”
The Catholic League’s president, William Donohue, called the pro-Jesus sign a “counterpunch” to the atheist message.
“Our approach is positive, and services the common good,” he said in a statement issued Tuesday. “Theirs is negative and is designed to sow division. It’s what they do.”
Donohue could not be reached for comment Tuesday, but the press release said his organization decided to respond to the atheist display with a pro-Christian message at the request of a donor. The release did not say how much the sign cost.
“After Christian motorists have had their sensibilities assaulted as they exit New Jersey, they will experience a sense of joy, and satisfaction, as they enter New York City,” Donohue said in the release. “It’s what we do.”
American Atheists president David Silverman said he did not think the Catholic sign will dilute his group’s message.
“They stole our scene and copied what we’re doing, and that’s fine,” he said. “Once again, the Catholic Church is co-opting something that isn’t theirs, just like they did to Christmas. It’s a great analogy, and I love it.”
Silverman said his group’s sign is meant to remind non-believers that the Christian story of Christmas is based on a winter solstice tradition that anyone can celebrate, regardless of their beliefs, he said.
The Newark Archdiocese, which declined an invitation to put up its own rival billboard early this week, applauded the Catholic League’s decision, archdiocese Spokesman Jim Goodness said.
“I’m happy to see that a donor came through and feels as strongly as we all do that the message of Christmas is an important one and one that should be trumpeted,” he said.
E-mail: akin@northjersey.com
http://www.northjersey.com/news/113010_Catholic_billboard_responds_to_atheist_message_outside_Lincoln_Tunnel.html
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Last updated: Wednesday December 1, 2010, 9:01 AM
BY STEPHANIE AKIN
The Record
STAFF WRITER
Days after an atheist group posted a billboard mocking the Christmas holiday at the New Jersey approach to the Lincoln Tunnel, a Catholic organization has responded with its own message on the New York side.
MICHAEL KARAS / STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Buy this photo
The Catholic League has responded to an atheist billboard in North Bergen with one of their own in New York City by the Lincoln Tunnel.
“You know it’s real,” the newer billboard tells drivers passing the corner of Dyer Avenue and West 31st Street in Manhattan. “This season, celebrate Jesus.”
The sign, sponsored by the New York-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, mimics the wording and design of a 14-by-48 foot billboard erected by an atheist group along Route 495 in North Bergen on Nov. 22.
Both billboards depict Nativity scenes. The Catholic sign, which was visible and lighted on Tuesday night, has a red background; the atheist one is blue. But the messages are markedly different.
“You Know it’s a MYTH,” the atheist sign, paid for by a national group called American Atheists, states. “This Season, Celebrate REASON.”
The Catholic League’s president, William Donohue, called the pro-Jesus sign a “counterpunch” to the atheist message.
“Our approach is positive, and services the common good,” he said in a statement issued Tuesday. “Theirs is negative and is designed to sow division. It’s what they do.”
Donohue could not be reached for comment Tuesday, but the press release said his organization decided to respond to the atheist display with a pro-Christian message at the request of a donor. The release did not say how much the sign cost.
“After Christian motorists have had their sensibilities assaulted as they exit New Jersey, they will experience a sense of joy, and satisfaction, as they enter New York City,” Donohue said in the release. “It’s what we do.”
American Atheists president David Silverman said he did not think the Catholic sign will dilute his group’s message.
“They stole our scene and copied what we’re doing, and that’s fine,” he said. “Once again, the Catholic Church is co-opting something that isn’t theirs, just like they did to Christmas. It’s a great analogy, and I love it.”
Silverman said his group’s sign is meant to remind non-believers that the Christian story of Christmas is based on a winter solstice tradition that anyone can celebrate, regardless of their beliefs, he said.
The Newark Archdiocese, which declined an invitation to put up its own rival billboard early this week, applauded the Catholic League’s decision, archdiocese Spokesman Jim Goodness said.
“I’m happy to see that a donor came through and feels as strongly as we all do that the message of Christmas is an important one and one that should be trumpeted,” he said.
E-mail: akin@northjersey.com
http://www.northjersey.com/news/113010_Catholic_billboard_responds_to_atheist_message_outside_Lincoln_Tunnel.html
'You know it's a myth': Atheist billboard causes a storm at entrance to New York tunnel
'You know it's a myth': Atheist billboard causes a storm at entrance to New York tunnel
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html#ixzz16uICCZFN
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:15 PM on 29th November 2010
Comments (51)
Add to My Stories
The religious message of Christmas is often forgotten amid all the partying and gift-giving at this time of year.
So church leaders will be horrified to see their efforts further undermined by an atheist billboard which has gone up in New York.
A traditional nativity scene features a silhouette of a traditional nativity scene with manger, donkey and the Three Wise Men has been unveiled on a bridge tunnel.
But thanks to a group called American Atheists it comes with the message: 'You KNOW it's a Myth... This Season Celebrate REASON'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html#ixzz16uIHCntp
'Celebrate REASON': The billboard, commissioned by the American Atheists, is looking to target 'closet' non-believers
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html#ixzz16uISdDum
The sponsors hope the provocative anti-Christian message will convince 'closet' non-believers who are ‘praying to air’ to join their cause.
It is located on Route 495 outside the Lincoln Tunnel in North Bergen, on the New Jersey side.
David Silverman, the president of the organisation, said he was hoping to 'attract atheists who are currently in the closet' with the billboard, which went up last Tuesday and is expected to remain up throughout the Christmas period.
‘I don’t think it’s any good for the kids,’ he said about Christmas.
Mr Silverman said atheists were unfairly targeted in the ‘war on Christmas’, a phrase often related to the public display of Christmas imagery on government funded
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html#ixzz16uIY08A4
He said: ‘We get blamed for a war on Christmas every year. This time we’re actually going to pay attention to that. We’re actually going to earn a little bit of that.
‘We have been blamed repeatedly for being unpatriotic, we have been told that there are not atheists in fox holes, we have been told that we are immoral.
‘Nobody has ever cared if we would be offended.’
While acknowledging ‘everybody has the right to believe as they see fit’, Mr Silverman said his group believed there were ‘a lot more people’ who were atheists, but feared publicly admitting it.
‘A lot of people in church, a lot of people in the mosque, a lot of people in the synagogue know they’re praying to air.’
Mr Silverman said despite the fact that the billboard has only been up for a few days, he and his group are calling the campaign a success.
‘We’re getting a lot of response from closeted atheists saying: “Thank you for putting it up.”’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html#ixzz16uIpaLak
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html#ixzz16uICCZFN
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:15 PM on 29th November 2010
Comments (51)
Add to My Stories
The religious message of Christmas is often forgotten amid all the partying and gift-giving at this time of year.
So church leaders will be horrified to see their efforts further undermined by an atheist billboard which has gone up in New York.
A traditional nativity scene features a silhouette of a traditional nativity scene with manger, donkey and the Three Wise Men has been unveiled on a bridge tunnel.
But thanks to a group called American Atheists it comes with the message: 'You KNOW it's a Myth... This Season Celebrate REASON'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html#ixzz16uIHCntp
'Celebrate REASON': The billboard, commissioned by the American Atheists, is looking to target 'closet' non-believers
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html#ixzz16uISdDum
The sponsors hope the provocative anti-Christian message will convince 'closet' non-believers who are ‘praying to air’ to join their cause.
It is located on Route 495 outside the Lincoln Tunnel in North Bergen, on the New Jersey side.
David Silverman, the president of the organisation, said he was hoping to 'attract atheists who are currently in the closet' with the billboard, which went up last Tuesday and is expected to remain up throughout the Christmas period.
‘I don’t think it’s any good for the kids,’ he said about Christmas.
Mr Silverman said atheists were unfairly targeted in the ‘war on Christmas’, a phrase often related to the public display of Christmas imagery on government funded
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html#ixzz16uIY08A4
He said: ‘We get blamed for a war on Christmas every year. This time we’re actually going to pay attention to that. We’re actually going to earn a little bit of that.
‘We have been blamed repeatedly for being unpatriotic, we have been told that there are not atheists in fox holes, we have been told that we are immoral.
‘Nobody has ever cared if we would be offended.’
While acknowledging ‘everybody has the right to believe as they see fit’, Mr Silverman said his group believed there were ‘a lot more people’ who were atheists, but feared publicly admitting it.
‘A lot of people in church, a lot of people in the mosque, a lot of people in the synagogue know they’re praying to air.’
Mr Silverman said despite the fact that the billboard has only been up for a few days, he and his group are calling the campaign a success.
‘We’re getting a lot of response from closeted atheists saying: “Thank you for putting it up.”’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html#ixzz16uIpaLak
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334040/You-know-myth-Atheist-banner-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN
By Martino Gerber and Giuliano Lattes
************************************************
The Bible Old Testament tells us that homosexuality is a sin:
The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
Genesis 18: 17-33 19:1-30;
**************************
Leviticus 18:22;
"You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing.
Leviticus 18:29;
Yes, anyone who does any of these hateful things, whatever it may be, any persondoing so, wilbe outlawed from his people.
Leviticus 20:13;
"The manwho has intercourse with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
*******************************
The Bible New Testament tells us that homosexuality is a sin:
Romans 1:24-32;
24 That is why God abandoned them in their inmost cravings to filthy practices of dishonouring their own bodies-
25 because they exchanged God's truth for a lie and have worshipped and served the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:
27 why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.
28 In other words, since they would not consent to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour.
29 And so now they are steeped in all sorts of injustice, rottenness, greed and malice; full of envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite,
30 libellers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant and boastful, enterprising in evil, rebellious to parents,
31 without brains, honour, love or pity.
32 They are well aware of God's ordinance: that those who behave like this deserve to die -- yet they not only do it, but even applaud others who do the same.
1 Corinthians 6:9;
9 Do you not realise that people who do evil willnever inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites.
1 Timothy 1: 9-10;
9 on the understanding that laws are not framed for people who are upright. On the contrary, they are for criminals and the insubordinate, for the irreligious and the wicked, for the sacrilegious and the godless; they are for people who kill their fathers or mothers and for murderers,
10 for the promiscuous, homosexuals, kidnappers, for liars and for perjurers -- and for everything else that is contrary to the sound teaching.
*****************************
Jesus teaches that the homosexuality is a sin, in fact Jesus condemns sodomites;
Matthew 10: 14-15;
14 And if anyone does not welcome you or listen to what you have to say, as you walk out of the house or town shake the dust from your feet.
15 In truth I tell you, on the Day of Judgement it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
Matthew 11: 23-24;
23 And as for you, Capernaum, did you want to be raised as high as heaven?
You shall be flung down to hell. For if the miracles done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have been standing yet.
24 Still, I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on Judgement Day than for you.
Luke 10: 11-12;
11 "We wipe off the very dust of your town that clings to our feet, and leave it with you. Yet be sure of this: the kingdom of God is very near."
12 I tell you, on the great Day it will be more bearable for Sodom than for that town.
****************************************
Sodomites sin is homosexuality:
2 Peter 2: 4-8;
4 When angels sinned, God did not spare them: he sent them down into the underworld and consigned them to the dark abyss to be held there until the Judgement.
5 He did not spare the world in ancient times: he saved only Noah, the preacher of uprightness, along with seven others, when he sent the Flood over a world of sinners.
6 He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by reducing them to ashesas a warning to future sinners;
7 but rescued Lot, an upright manwho had been sickened by the debauched way in which these vile people behaved-
8 for that upright man, living among them, was outraged in his upright soul by the crimes that he saw and heard every day.
Jude: 1,7;
7 Sodom and Gomorrah, too, and the neighbouring towns, who with the same sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts,
are put before us as an example since they are paying the penalty of eternal fire.
***********************************
Bible's quotations byNew Jerusalem Bible
http://www.catholic.org/bible/
CHRISTIAN BIBLE STUDIES
http://groups.google.com/group/christianbiblestudies?hl=it
By Martino Gerber and Giuliano Lattes
************************************************
The Bible Old Testament tells us that homosexuality is a sin:
The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
Genesis 18: 17-33 19:1-30;
**************************
Leviticus 18:22;
"You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing.
Leviticus 18:29;
Yes, anyone who does any of these hateful things, whatever it may be, any persondoing so, wilbe outlawed from his people.
Leviticus 20:13;
"The manwho has intercourse with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
*******************************
The Bible New Testament tells us that homosexuality is a sin:
Romans 1:24-32;
24 That is why God abandoned them in their inmost cravings to filthy practices of dishonouring their own bodies-
25 because they exchanged God's truth for a lie and have worshipped and served the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:
27 why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.
28 In other words, since they would not consent to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour.
29 And so now they are steeped in all sorts of injustice, rottenness, greed and malice; full of envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite,
30 libellers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant and boastful, enterprising in evil, rebellious to parents,
31 without brains, honour, love or pity.
32 They are well aware of God's ordinance: that those who behave like this deserve to die -- yet they not only do it, but even applaud others who do the same.
1 Corinthians 6:9;
9 Do you not realise that people who do evil willnever inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites.
1 Timothy 1: 9-10;
9 on the understanding that laws are not framed for people who are upright. On the contrary, they are for criminals and the insubordinate, for the irreligious and the wicked, for the sacrilegious and the godless; they are for people who kill their fathers or mothers and for murderers,
10 for the promiscuous, homosexuals, kidnappers, for liars and for perjurers -- and for everything else that is contrary to the sound teaching.
*****************************
Jesus teaches that the homosexuality is a sin, in fact Jesus condemns sodomites;
Matthew 10: 14-15;
14 And if anyone does not welcome you or listen to what you have to say, as you walk out of the house or town shake the dust from your feet.
15 In truth I tell you, on the Day of Judgement it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
Matthew 11: 23-24;
23 And as for you, Capernaum, did you want to be raised as high as heaven?
You shall be flung down to hell. For if the miracles done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have been standing yet.
24 Still, I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on Judgement Day than for you.
Luke 10: 11-12;
11 "We wipe off the very dust of your town that clings to our feet, and leave it with you. Yet be sure of this: the kingdom of God is very near."
12 I tell you, on the great Day it will be more bearable for Sodom than for that town.
****************************************
Sodomites sin is homosexuality:
2 Peter 2: 4-8;
4 When angels sinned, God did not spare them: he sent them down into the underworld and consigned them to the dark abyss to be held there until the Judgement.
5 He did not spare the world in ancient times: he saved only Noah, the preacher of uprightness, along with seven others, when he sent the Flood over a world of sinners.
6 He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by reducing them to ashesas a warning to future sinners;
7 but rescued Lot, an upright manwho had been sickened by the debauched way in which these vile people behaved-
8 for that upright man, living among them, was outraged in his upright soul by the crimes that he saw and heard every day.
Jude: 1,7;
7 Sodom and Gomorrah, too, and the neighbouring towns, who with the same sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts,
are put before us as an example since they are paying the penalty of eternal fire.
***********************************
Bible's quotations byNew Jerusalem Bible
http://www.catholic.org/bible/
CHRISTIAN BIBLE STUDIES
http://groups.google.com/group/christianbiblestudies?hl=it
Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan 'for blasphemy'
Religion
Thursday 11 November 2010
Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan 'for blasphemy'
A Christian woman has been sentenced to hang in Pakistan after being convicted of defaming the Prophet Mohammed.
By Rob Crilly in Islamabad and Aoun Sahi in Lahore 5:36PM GMT 09 Nov 2010
Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother-of-five, denies blasphemy and told investigators that she was being persecuted for her faith in a country where Christians face routine harassment and discrimination.
Christian groups and human rights campaigners condemned the verdict and called for the blasphemy laws to be repealed.
Her supporters say she will now appeal against the sentence handed down in a local court in the town of Sheikhupura, near Lahore, Pakistan.
Ashiq Masih, her husband, said he had not had the heart to break the news to two of their children.
"I haven't told two of my younger daughters about the court's decision," he said. "They asked me many times about their mother but I can't get the courage to tell them that the judge has sentenced their mother to capital punishment for a crime she never committed." Mrs Bibi has been held in prison since June last year.
The court heard she had been working as a farmhand in fields with other women, when she was asked to fetch drinking water.
Some of the other women – all Muslims – refused to drink the water as it had been brought by a Christian and was therefore "unclean", according to Mrs Bibi's evidence, sparking a row.
The incident was forgotten until a few days later when Mrs Bibi said she was set upon by a mob.
The police were called and took her to a police station for her own safety.
Shahzad Kamran, of the Sharing Life Ministry Pakistan, said: "The police were under pressure from this Muslim mob, including clerics, asking for Asia to be killed because she had spoken ill of the Prophet Mohammed.
"So after the police saved her life they then registered a blasphemy case against her." He added that she had been held in isolation for more than a year before being sentenced to death on Monday.
"The trial was clear," he said. "She was innocent and did not say those words." Earlier this year, Pakistan's internet service providers were ordered to block Facebook to prevent access to supposedly blasphemous images.
Human rights groups believe the law is often used to discriminate against religious minorities, such as the country's estimated three million Christians.
Although no one has ever been executed under Pakistan's blasphemy laws – most are freed on appeal – as many as 10 people are thought to have been murdered while on trial.
Ali Hasan Dayan, of Human Rights Watch, said the blasphemy laws were out of step with rights guaranteed under Pakistan's constitution and should be repealed.
"It's an obscene law," he said. "Essentially the blasphemy law is used as a tool of persecution and to settle other scores that are nothing to do with religion.
"It makes religious minorities particularly vulnerable because it's often used against them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8120142/Christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-Pakistan-for-blasphemy.html
Thursday 11 November 2010
Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan 'for blasphemy'
A Christian woman has been sentenced to hang in Pakistan after being convicted of defaming the Prophet Mohammed.
By Rob Crilly in Islamabad and Aoun Sahi in Lahore 5:36PM GMT 09 Nov 2010
Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother-of-five, denies blasphemy and told investigators that she was being persecuted for her faith in a country where Christians face routine harassment and discrimination.
Christian groups and human rights campaigners condemned the verdict and called for the blasphemy laws to be repealed.
Her supporters say she will now appeal against the sentence handed down in a local court in the town of Sheikhupura, near Lahore, Pakistan.
Ashiq Masih, her husband, said he had not had the heart to break the news to two of their children.
"I haven't told two of my younger daughters about the court's decision," he said. "They asked me many times about their mother but I can't get the courage to tell them that the judge has sentenced their mother to capital punishment for a crime she never committed." Mrs Bibi has been held in prison since June last year.
The court heard she had been working as a farmhand in fields with other women, when she was asked to fetch drinking water.
Some of the other women – all Muslims – refused to drink the water as it had been brought by a Christian and was therefore "unclean", according to Mrs Bibi's evidence, sparking a row.
The incident was forgotten until a few days later when Mrs Bibi said she was set upon by a mob.
The police were called and took her to a police station for her own safety.
Shahzad Kamran, of the Sharing Life Ministry Pakistan, said: "The police were under pressure from this Muslim mob, including clerics, asking for Asia to be killed because she had spoken ill of the Prophet Mohammed.
"So after the police saved her life they then registered a blasphemy case against her." He added that she had been held in isolation for more than a year before being sentenced to death on Monday.
"The trial was clear," he said. "She was innocent and did not say those words." Earlier this year, Pakistan's internet service providers were ordered to block Facebook to prevent access to supposedly blasphemous images.
Human rights groups believe the law is often used to discriminate against religious minorities, such as the country's estimated three million Christians.
Although no one has ever been executed under Pakistan's blasphemy laws – most are freed on appeal – as many as 10 people are thought to have been murdered while on trial.
Ali Hasan Dayan, of Human Rights Watch, said the blasphemy laws were out of step with rights guaranteed under Pakistan's constitution and should be repealed.
"It's an obscene law," he said. "Essentially the blasphemy law is used as a tool of persecution and to settle other scores that are nothing to do with religion.
"It makes religious minorities particularly vulnerable because it's often used against them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8120142/Christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-Pakistan-for-blasphemy.html
Whats Wrong With The Shack Book?
Whats Wrong With The Shack Book?
The Shack is full of false doctrine looked past by people who are emotionally swept out into the sea of deception. They look past the truth of God's Word because they want a god of their own making, one who fails to punish for sin unrepented of.
The primary source of this bad doctrine is because the trinity of The Shack Book is not the Trinity of the Bible. Rather it is the goddess Kali.
This is the book for you if you believe in a Universal salvation without seeking forgiveness, if you want a god who loves without logic in contradicting His Word, and if you don't know or don't care about biblical truth and sound doctrine.
A Critical Review of The Shack Book
a novel by by William Paul Young
This book is nothing more than a clever re-telling of the Black Madonna heresy. The Black Madonna --Kali or the Black Queen, and her daughter Sara-la-kali ( the Black Queen in the spirit), and the finally Christ as the grown Osiris of Babylonian text.
If you read Reverend Dr Matthew Fox's article on the Black Madonna, available on his website, the coincidences are too close, then do a little research on the Cult of Sara, and the picture becomes clear. "Papa" the black female and male god/goddess, Sarayu, Sara-la-kali, and Osiris, from the Madonna and Child as Jesus.
No wonder the emergent church is moved by this work. It is classic icon worship wrapped in a veil of Christianity. The move from the concrete foundation of the Rock to the instability of a Shack on the sand.
What bothers me, as I read through the blogs and comments on the Internet is that so many people love this book!
"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets."
Luke 6:26
I know that I will pick up a lot of flack for what I say in regards to this book, but I fear what I am reading in excerpts from the book. I am convinced that deception usually will not present itself openly, shouting out in an open square. "Here I am." Rather, deception is just that
"the misleading of a person; the leading of another person to believe what is false, or not to believe what is true, and thus to ensnare him" from Websters dictionary.
Just attack the Critics
Any time that I have seen anyone question the validity or the doctrine presented in this book they are attacked as being unloving, unkind, or somehow being out of touch with God's love. I regularly see in comments in many of the blogs an attack on doctrine, as its being unnecessary to a relationship with God.
We are told by some that doctrine gets in the way of a loving relationship. And that we don't know God by way of doctrine or teachings. Yet we're told Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, the word of God is doctrine and teaching, and he says it is one of the ways we come to know him.
Has God Become Lawless?
Another problem I have with the book is on pages 122 and 123, Mac is told by Jesus, that hierarchies, organization, and law or regulations get in the way of relationship. It was my understanding that the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, but then that's just what the Bible says.
Now, I can already hear the comments coming at me. Somehow, somewhere, someone is going to think I am being unloving in criticizing a book that has emotionally separated some from the truth of God's Word.
What Does Paul Young Believe and Teach?
2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
I like to find out who the author is of anything that I am taking as part of my spiritual journey as I seek to grow closer to Christ. I'd like to quote directly from Willie Young's blog about the shack, that is attached to his shack website...
May 24, 2007
"The second element is this: if Jesus drew occasionally upon his `God' capabilities, then how could he qualify as my representative and substitute, let alone model a dependent human life - I can't do that? He would have ceased being a truly human sacrifice.
I am personally convinced that Jesus was born, lived, died, was raised and now reigns as a fully human being, and has not drawn upon his deity ever in that process." Willie P Young
Luk 9:42 And as he was yet coming, the devil threw him down, and tore him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father.
Luk 9:43 And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,
Luk 9:44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
Luk 9:45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
If you believe that Jesus never drew on His Deity in His life on earth or since His death and resurrection, than you make him out to be weak and impotent, and not God at all. He was God in the flesh, the very statement declares his deity.
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
If Jesus reigns now as a fully human being, then he is not in heaven and has not inherited the kingdom.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
You will know them by their fruits....
why bad doctrine leads to bad religion
If we follow just a few of the bad doctrines of "The Shack" to their logical conclusions, we end up with some very twisted theology.
First, Making God into a woman.
over 2300 times God is referred to as He in the Scriptures, and not once is He a She...God declares himself to be masculine. Flat out, it is heresy to say that God is a woman. not because it doesn't fit my "world view", but because God declares who He is in His revealed Word, and because I believe Jesus!
When Jesus tells me that if you have seen Him you have seen the Father, when He tells me we must worship in Spirit and in Truth, then we need to obey that, and recognize in Truth who God is. If you carry the doctrine of God as a woman to its logical end, then seeing Christ as you do the Father takes from Him His gender at best and much worse at the other end of the spectrum. This is blasphemy! And then you dare to call Elousia "Papa" and god? This is twisted, calling a woman Papa, and God who declares Himself to be God, calling Him a woman.
The Bad fruit of the Holy Spirit as a woman...
why this is a perverse view of the Holy Spirit.....
Okay, this one makes me sick to think about, but it is the logical result of carrying this really horrific doctrine to its end result.
Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
You see, it is by the holy Spirit that Mary conceives, and so if the Holy Spirit is a woman then what does that make both Mary and the holy Spirit? If Christ is the result of an action of the Holy Spirit upon Mary then you can follow the logic, this becomes an even greater miracle than before, largely because it goes against the Scriptures.
Thank God I am not Him, because this to me is blasphemy of the holy Spirit, which would be the unforgivable sin! But thanks be to God that He is the judge and not me.
The feminist agenda of perverting the message of God carries itself out to some very strange doctrines indeed.
Do I Hate Willie Young?
So am I unloving because I give you the truth? Do I hate Willie Young, because I criticize his work and words, and act as a Berean by comparing his words to Scripture, and his doctrines? God forbid!
Rather, I would rather be found as a watchman, shouting out a warning, the there are wolves in our midst! These wolves are like tares among wheat, and like wolves, with a sheep's clothing. Watch out! Wake up! Be always prepared, for you to not know the day or the hour. We are told before Christ comes again that there will be a great apostasy. And apostasy takes place among those who believe, you have to believe before you can fall away.
We are warned, Christ said, "I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
So go ahead, let the comments loose. I just find so few voices who are willing to stand up for God's Word, and to protect doctrine, when the doctrinal errors revealed are from this book "The Shack".
"Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (2John 1:9).
Stop being carried away by every wind of doctrine
Perhaps what amazes me the most about this book, "The Shack", is its almost hypnotic power to take captive the hearts and minds of believers, as if they were under a magical spell. They throw all caution, doctrine, and wise counsel out the window, because this book has touched their emotions so deeply. I think it also ironic, that Willie Young's personal website is called windrumors.com, and that his publishing company is called Windblown Media.
Please notice, the Scriptures are specific, he gave us teachers, prophets, pastors and evangelists,for the perfecting of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ. In that we might become perfect men and women reaching the full stature of the fullness of Christ. We are not talking emotions here, but truth and doctrine!this is to protect us from being windblown by every wind of doctrine. We are not to rush after rumors, or deception, cleverly crafted in the form of a tale or fable.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
Eph 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
Eph 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
Eph 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
Eph 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ;
Eph 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus
Links to further your scrutiny, or as Paul said to the Bereans, search
search the scriptures to see if these things are so
Al Mohler talks about the Shack
Al Mohler talks on the Doctrine of The Shack in light of the Scripture. He gives a short intro, discusses several other topics and then at about 10 minutes into the program spends 20 minutes discussing why this is a rewriting of Biblical Christianity
An interesting conversation on the Shack
A sometimes heated debate about the virtues and viles of the book
The Shack: Harmless Allegory or Deadly Heresy?
"There is perhaps no book within the last few months that has released such a firestorm of discussion as The Shack by William P. Young. As I write this review..."
New YouTube vids
http://www.squidoo.com/TheShackBook
The Shack is full of false doctrine looked past by people who are emotionally swept out into the sea of deception. They look past the truth of God's Word because they want a god of their own making, one who fails to punish for sin unrepented of.
The primary source of this bad doctrine is because the trinity of The Shack Book is not the Trinity of the Bible. Rather it is the goddess Kali.
This is the book for you if you believe in a Universal salvation without seeking forgiveness, if you want a god who loves without logic in contradicting His Word, and if you don't know or don't care about biblical truth and sound doctrine.
A Critical Review of The Shack Book
a novel by by William Paul Young
This book is nothing more than a clever re-telling of the Black Madonna heresy. The Black Madonna --Kali or the Black Queen, and her daughter Sara-la-kali ( the Black Queen in the spirit), and the finally Christ as the grown Osiris of Babylonian text.
If you read Reverend Dr Matthew Fox's article on the Black Madonna, available on his website, the coincidences are too close, then do a little research on the Cult of Sara, and the picture becomes clear. "Papa" the black female and male god/goddess, Sarayu, Sara-la-kali, and Osiris, from the Madonna and Child as Jesus.
No wonder the emergent church is moved by this work. It is classic icon worship wrapped in a veil of Christianity. The move from the concrete foundation of the Rock to the instability of a Shack on the sand.
What bothers me, as I read through the blogs and comments on the Internet is that so many people love this book!
"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets."
Luke 6:26
I know that I will pick up a lot of flack for what I say in regards to this book, but I fear what I am reading in excerpts from the book. I am convinced that deception usually will not present itself openly, shouting out in an open square. "Here I am." Rather, deception is just that
"the misleading of a person; the leading of another person to believe what is false, or not to believe what is true, and thus to ensnare him" from Websters dictionary.
Just attack the Critics
Any time that I have seen anyone question the validity or the doctrine presented in this book they are attacked as being unloving, unkind, or somehow being out of touch with God's love. I regularly see in comments in many of the blogs an attack on doctrine, as its being unnecessary to a relationship with God.
We are told by some that doctrine gets in the way of a loving relationship. And that we don't know God by way of doctrine or teachings. Yet we're told Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, the word of God is doctrine and teaching, and he says it is one of the ways we come to know him.
Has God Become Lawless?
Another problem I have with the book is on pages 122 and 123, Mac is told by Jesus, that hierarchies, organization, and law or regulations get in the way of relationship. It was my understanding that the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, but then that's just what the Bible says.
Now, I can already hear the comments coming at me. Somehow, somewhere, someone is going to think I am being unloving in criticizing a book that has emotionally separated some from the truth of God's Word.
What Does Paul Young Believe and Teach?
2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
I like to find out who the author is of anything that I am taking as part of my spiritual journey as I seek to grow closer to Christ. I'd like to quote directly from Willie Young's blog about the shack, that is attached to his shack website...
May 24, 2007
"The second element is this: if Jesus drew occasionally upon his `God' capabilities, then how could he qualify as my representative and substitute, let alone model a dependent human life - I can't do that? He would have ceased being a truly human sacrifice.
I am personally convinced that Jesus was born, lived, died, was raised and now reigns as a fully human being, and has not drawn upon his deity ever in that process." Willie P Young
Luk 9:42 And as he was yet coming, the devil threw him down, and tore him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father.
Luk 9:43 And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,
Luk 9:44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
Luk 9:45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
If you believe that Jesus never drew on His Deity in His life on earth or since His death and resurrection, than you make him out to be weak and impotent, and not God at all. He was God in the flesh, the very statement declares his deity.
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
If Jesus reigns now as a fully human being, then he is not in heaven and has not inherited the kingdom.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
You will know them by their fruits....
why bad doctrine leads to bad religion
If we follow just a few of the bad doctrines of "The Shack" to their logical conclusions, we end up with some very twisted theology.
First, Making God into a woman.
over 2300 times God is referred to as He in the Scriptures, and not once is He a She...God declares himself to be masculine. Flat out, it is heresy to say that God is a woman. not because it doesn't fit my "world view", but because God declares who He is in His revealed Word, and because I believe Jesus!
When Jesus tells me that if you have seen Him you have seen the Father, when He tells me we must worship in Spirit and in Truth, then we need to obey that, and recognize in Truth who God is. If you carry the doctrine of God as a woman to its logical end, then seeing Christ as you do the Father takes from Him His gender at best and much worse at the other end of the spectrum. This is blasphemy! And then you dare to call Elousia "Papa" and god? This is twisted, calling a woman Papa, and God who declares Himself to be God, calling Him a woman.
The Bad fruit of the Holy Spirit as a woman...
why this is a perverse view of the Holy Spirit.....
Okay, this one makes me sick to think about, but it is the logical result of carrying this really horrific doctrine to its end result.
Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
You see, it is by the holy Spirit that Mary conceives, and so if the Holy Spirit is a woman then what does that make both Mary and the holy Spirit? If Christ is the result of an action of the Holy Spirit upon Mary then you can follow the logic, this becomes an even greater miracle than before, largely because it goes against the Scriptures.
Thank God I am not Him, because this to me is blasphemy of the holy Spirit, which would be the unforgivable sin! But thanks be to God that He is the judge and not me.
The feminist agenda of perverting the message of God carries itself out to some very strange doctrines indeed.
Do I Hate Willie Young?
So am I unloving because I give you the truth? Do I hate Willie Young, because I criticize his work and words, and act as a Berean by comparing his words to Scripture, and his doctrines? God forbid!
Rather, I would rather be found as a watchman, shouting out a warning, the there are wolves in our midst! These wolves are like tares among wheat, and like wolves, with a sheep's clothing. Watch out! Wake up! Be always prepared, for you to not know the day or the hour. We are told before Christ comes again that there will be a great apostasy. And apostasy takes place among those who believe, you have to believe before you can fall away.
We are warned, Christ said, "I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
So go ahead, let the comments loose. I just find so few voices who are willing to stand up for God's Word, and to protect doctrine, when the doctrinal errors revealed are from this book "The Shack".
"Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (2John 1:9).
Stop being carried away by every wind of doctrine
Perhaps what amazes me the most about this book, "The Shack", is its almost hypnotic power to take captive the hearts and minds of believers, as if they were under a magical spell. They throw all caution, doctrine, and wise counsel out the window, because this book has touched their emotions so deeply. I think it also ironic, that Willie Young's personal website is called windrumors.com, and that his publishing company is called Windblown Media.
Please notice, the Scriptures are specific, he gave us teachers, prophets, pastors and evangelists,for the perfecting of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ. In that we might become perfect men and women reaching the full stature of the fullness of Christ. We are not talking emotions here, but truth and doctrine!this is to protect us from being windblown by every wind of doctrine. We are not to rush after rumors, or deception, cleverly crafted in the form of a tale or fable.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
Eph 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
Eph 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
Eph 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
Eph 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ;
Eph 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus
Links to further your scrutiny, or as Paul said to the Bereans, search
search the scriptures to see if these things are so
Al Mohler talks about the Shack
Al Mohler talks on the Doctrine of The Shack in light of the Scripture. He gives a short intro, discusses several other topics and then at about 10 minutes into the program spends 20 minutes discussing why this is a rewriting of Biblical Christianity
An interesting conversation on the Shack
A sometimes heated debate about the virtues and viles of the book
The Shack: Harmless Allegory or Deadly Heresy?
"There is perhaps no book within the last few months that has released such a firestorm of discussion as The Shack by William P. Young. As I write this review..."
New YouTube vids
http://www.squidoo.com/TheShackBook
Outrage, as Pastor claims Jesus ‘was’ HIV positive
Outrage, as Pastor claims Jesus ‘was’ HIV positive
By Staff Reporter
for ZimEye.org
Published: September 5, 2010
Comment
Capetown(ZimEye) A South African Pastor has sparked outrage from the worldwide Christian community after preaching a message titled: ‘Jesus was HIV Positive’ trying to encourage people to go and get tested for the disease.
Reverend Xola Skosana from Khayelitsha, near Cape Town, a township which has one of the highest rates of HIV in South Africa and having recently lost two of his sisters to Aids, underwent an HIV test in front of his congregation, along with more than 100 young people from the area.
Skosana’s ‘approach’ of reaching to the masses on HIV-awareness has been praised by Aids campaigners in South Africa but received a backlash from many Christians and in particular Zimbabwean Pastors who described the South African pastor as ‘devillish’, and ‘a pastor who needs a pastor’ condemning his teaching as gross heresy which seems to portrays Jesus as having been ’sexually promiscuous’.
A Zimbabwean Pastor from Britain’s Nottingham city, Ed Chibwana, however responded to the outrage with the following statement:
“Well Jesus was not HIV positive (in His lifetime) but He (later did) bear all diseases on His body for anyone who dares to believe. Testing is good, but the true medicine is the word of God,” he said.
Rev Skosana seemed to draw his ‘new teaching’ from a portion of scripture in Isaiah which states that when He went to the cross of His death Jesus ‘Himself bore our sicknesses on His body…’ and thus Skosana’s teaching should state that Jesus ‘became’ HIV positive when He went to the cross, rather than saying He in ‘was’ HIV positive.
In recent years, South Africa has attracted huge controversy on the subject of HIV Aids, with a former President Thabo Mbeki who once claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS sparking another great worldwide outrage from the medical community. (ZimEye, Zimbabwe)
http://www.zimeye.org/?p=21668
By Staff Reporter
for ZimEye.org
Published: September 5, 2010
Comment
Capetown(ZimEye) A South African Pastor has sparked outrage from the worldwide Christian community after preaching a message titled: ‘Jesus was HIV Positive’ trying to encourage people to go and get tested for the disease.
Reverend Xola Skosana from Khayelitsha, near Cape Town, a township which has one of the highest rates of HIV in South Africa and having recently lost two of his sisters to Aids, underwent an HIV test in front of his congregation, along with more than 100 young people from the area.
Skosana’s ‘approach’ of reaching to the masses on HIV-awareness has been praised by Aids campaigners in South Africa but received a backlash from many Christians and in particular Zimbabwean Pastors who described the South African pastor as ‘devillish’, and ‘a pastor who needs a pastor’ condemning his teaching as gross heresy which seems to portrays Jesus as having been ’sexually promiscuous’.
A Zimbabwean Pastor from Britain’s Nottingham city, Ed Chibwana, however responded to the outrage with the following statement:
“Well Jesus was not HIV positive (in His lifetime) but He (later did) bear all diseases on His body for anyone who dares to believe. Testing is good, but the true medicine is the word of God,” he said.
Rev Skosana seemed to draw his ‘new teaching’ from a portion of scripture in Isaiah which states that when He went to the cross of His death Jesus ‘Himself bore our sicknesses on His body…’ and thus Skosana’s teaching should state that Jesus ‘became’ HIV positive when He went to the cross, rather than saying He in ‘was’ HIV positive.
In recent years, South Africa has attracted huge controversy on the subject of HIV Aids, with a former President Thabo Mbeki who once claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS sparking another great worldwide outrage from the medical community. (ZimEye, Zimbabwe)
http://www.zimeye.org/?p=21668
Different Jesus to Believe In?
Different Jesus to Believe In?
By David Van Biema Wednesday, May. 09, 2007
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1618968,00.html#ixzz13b5djHyO
To whom do you compare Jesus Christ? Or at least someone who says he is Jesus Christ, and claims thousands of adherents who agree?
After all, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, 61, who preached before several hundred followers and a clutch of more conventional Christian protesters at an Orlando-area amphitheater last weekend, would seem to be a true original. By his own account a former heroin addict and thief, he still imbibes hard liquor ("Jesus drank wine because he didn't have Dewar's," he told ABC's Primetime in March), surrounds himself with beautiful women despite being married, wears a $11,000 Rolex and drives a BMW, and says that for members of his Miami-based Creciendo en Gracia (Growing in Grace) movement, there is no such thing as sin. Over the years, his religious persona has continually evolved: having once claimed to be a kind of John the Baptist figure, then "Jesus Christ, hombre" ("Jesus Christ, the man"), he most recently added the title "antichrist," (although apparently without any Satanic intention) and his apostles have taken to tattooing "666" on their hands. Along the way, he has developed adherents — he claimed "millions" of followers to ABC in what his website says are 30 countries, although no expert feels competent to pin a number on them — while making his fair share of enemies; he is reportedly banned in several nations, in one case because his movement disrupted services by Roman Catholic churches.
Thus far, perhaps because he preaches in Spanish yet fits into neither of the two current major hispanic religious niches — Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant — De Jesus has escaped a full-dress scholarly analysis. But experts are beginning to close in on him, even if they cannot accurately say how popular his idiosyncratic movement really is or predict any more than anyone else whether it will continue to grow.
De Jesus, says Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, religion professor emeritus at Brooklyn College and co-author with his wife of the book Recognizing the Latino Resurgence, is in some ways a familiar export from Puerto Rico, where he was born and lived until age 20. Stevens-Arroyo and some other scholars believe that the island's original colonial inheritance of Spanish Catholicism, combined with subsequent exposure to American Protestantism and its constitutionally mandated religious open market, created a a culture of religious seekers and corresponding "enthusiasms for overnight sensations." "This guy" says Stevens-Arroyo, "is one among Heinz's 57 varieties" on the island, some of whom inevitably reach the Latino community on the mainland. He describes one Miami predecessor from the 1930s known as "La Diosa," who claimed to be an incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Her followers founded spiritual cooperatives: small businesses like laundromats dedicated to her, he says, are still in operation in the city.
Whereas La Diosa was something of an ascetic, however, scholars say that De Jesus's message is more typical of the branch of Pentecostal Christianity called Prosperity Gospel, which enjoys modest success here but is vastly popular in the developing world. De Jesus' literature is studded with recurrent use of the phrases "prosperidad," (prosperity), "felicidad" (happiness), and his movement's name, which means "Growing in Grace" in English. Such catchwords are reminiscent of Prosperity's assertion that God wants to showers gifts upon his followers — provided that they tithe liberally to their church. So is De Jesus' unabashed enjoyment of material trappings, which prosperity preachers attribute to God's desire that his believers be rich and that his representatives on earth be good examples.
Still, his claim that his followers are incapable of sin because of a verse in Paul's biblical letter to the Roman church would stretch even Prosperity's sometimes liberal scriptural readings to the breaking point. And any prosperity church, indeed any Christian church, would regard de Jesus's claim to be THE Jesus as heretical. Almost as suspicious, says Miguel De La Torre, a professor at Denver's Iliff school of Theology and co-author of the introduction to the primer Latino Theology, is the way Creciendo's leader has run through self-descriptions over the decades: from "the Apostle" in 1998 to "The Other," a kind of Christ-precursor figure in 1999, to Jesus Christ in 2004 to this year's "antichrist." Concludes De La Torre, "I think he's a con man" whose theology has "no rhyme or reason" beyond marketing. "I'm writing an encyclopedia of Latino religion and culture," he continues. "And I can tell you right now, this individual will not be part of it."
Others are not so quick to dismiss. Says John Green, Senior Fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public LIfe, "There isn't a well-developed theology, a set of propositions. He appears to have traveled a lot in Latin America, but my colleagues say he doesn't have much of an international following. But really, we have no way of knowing whether or not it may ultimately spread beyond this." Thomas Tweed, Chair of the religion department at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and an expert in Miami's religious history, doubts, as do several other scholars, that de Jesus' renown will extend much beyond the Latino community unless he preaches more regularly in English or finds someone to do it for him. But then again, these days a phenomenon does not need to break out of the Latino world to be a force in the U.S. "The question people ask about new religions," he says, is 'is this just a silly group or is this a group we should be scared of?'"
He refuses to regard De Jesus as silly: Tweed is impressed with its use of Spanish language media and even YouTube. But at the same time, he thinks it is nothing to be afraid of. Technically, Tweed notes, Crecienda en Gracia is a cult, a small group in some tension with the world at large and organized around a single magnetic leader. But it is not a cult as understood in the popular sense: Jim Jones or the Branch Davidians, who in deep self-imposed isolation, honed a violent apocalyptic element that eventually led to murder or suicide. Those at last weekend's rally and throughout De Jesus' following, he says, do appear to believe we may be approaching the Millennium (or else why indulge in a Second Coming?), but they lack a fire-and-brimstone End Times scenario and their leader shows no appetite for isolation — or self-sacrifice, for that matter.
"If he says he's taking his group to the Andes to establish the kingdom of God on earth," says Tweed, "that's when I'd start to worry." Until then, those not too put off by de Jesus' exalted self-image can do no more than marvel at him and wonder what his next transformation will bring.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1618968,00.html#ixzz13b5kllul
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1618968,00.html
By David Van Biema Wednesday, May. 09, 2007
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1618968,00.html#ixzz13b5djHyO
To whom do you compare Jesus Christ? Or at least someone who says he is Jesus Christ, and claims thousands of adherents who agree?
After all, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, 61, who preached before several hundred followers and a clutch of more conventional Christian protesters at an Orlando-area amphitheater last weekend, would seem to be a true original. By his own account a former heroin addict and thief, he still imbibes hard liquor ("Jesus drank wine because he didn't have Dewar's," he told ABC's Primetime in March), surrounds himself with beautiful women despite being married, wears a $11,000 Rolex and drives a BMW, and says that for members of his Miami-based Creciendo en Gracia (Growing in Grace) movement, there is no such thing as sin. Over the years, his religious persona has continually evolved: having once claimed to be a kind of John the Baptist figure, then "Jesus Christ, hombre" ("Jesus Christ, the man"), he most recently added the title "antichrist," (although apparently without any Satanic intention) and his apostles have taken to tattooing "666" on their hands. Along the way, he has developed adherents — he claimed "millions" of followers to ABC in what his website says are 30 countries, although no expert feels competent to pin a number on them — while making his fair share of enemies; he is reportedly banned in several nations, in one case because his movement disrupted services by Roman Catholic churches.
Thus far, perhaps because he preaches in Spanish yet fits into neither of the two current major hispanic religious niches — Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant — De Jesus has escaped a full-dress scholarly analysis. But experts are beginning to close in on him, even if they cannot accurately say how popular his idiosyncratic movement really is or predict any more than anyone else whether it will continue to grow.
De Jesus, says Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, religion professor emeritus at Brooklyn College and co-author with his wife of the book Recognizing the Latino Resurgence, is in some ways a familiar export from Puerto Rico, where he was born and lived until age 20. Stevens-Arroyo and some other scholars believe that the island's original colonial inheritance of Spanish Catholicism, combined with subsequent exposure to American Protestantism and its constitutionally mandated religious open market, created a a culture of religious seekers and corresponding "enthusiasms for overnight sensations." "This guy" says Stevens-Arroyo, "is one among Heinz's 57 varieties" on the island, some of whom inevitably reach the Latino community on the mainland. He describes one Miami predecessor from the 1930s known as "La Diosa," who claimed to be an incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Her followers founded spiritual cooperatives: small businesses like laundromats dedicated to her, he says, are still in operation in the city.
Whereas La Diosa was something of an ascetic, however, scholars say that De Jesus's message is more typical of the branch of Pentecostal Christianity called Prosperity Gospel, which enjoys modest success here but is vastly popular in the developing world. De Jesus' literature is studded with recurrent use of the phrases "prosperidad," (prosperity), "felicidad" (happiness), and his movement's name, which means "Growing in Grace" in English. Such catchwords are reminiscent of Prosperity's assertion that God wants to showers gifts upon his followers — provided that they tithe liberally to their church. So is De Jesus' unabashed enjoyment of material trappings, which prosperity preachers attribute to God's desire that his believers be rich and that his representatives on earth be good examples.
Still, his claim that his followers are incapable of sin because of a verse in Paul's biblical letter to the Roman church would stretch even Prosperity's sometimes liberal scriptural readings to the breaking point. And any prosperity church, indeed any Christian church, would regard de Jesus's claim to be THE Jesus as heretical. Almost as suspicious, says Miguel De La Torre, a professor at Denver's Iliff school of Theology and co-author of the introduction to the primer Latino Theology, is the way Creciendo's leader has run through self-descriptions over the decades: from "the Apostle" in 1998 to "The Other," a kind of Christ-precursor figure in 1999, to Jesus Christ in 2004 to this year's "antichrist." Concludes De La Torre, "I think he's a con man" whose theology has "no rhyme or reason" beyond marketing. "I'm writing an encyclopedia of Latino religion and culture," he continues. "And I can tell you right now, this individual will not be part of it."
Others are not so quick to dismiss. Says John Green, Senior Fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public LIfe, "There isn't a well-developed theology, a set of propositions. He appears to have traveled a lot in Latin America, but my colleagues say he doesn't have much of an international following. But really, we have no way of knowing whether or not it may ultimately spread beyond this." Thomas Tweed, Chair of the religion department at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and an expert in Miami's religious history, doubts, as do several other scholars, that de Jesus' renown will extend much beyond the Latino community unless he preaches more regularly in English or finds someone to do it for him. But then again, these days a phenomenon does not need to break out of the Latino world to be a force in the U.S. "The question people ask about new religions," he says, is 'is this just a silly group or is this a group we should be scared of?'"
He refuses to regard De Jesus as silly: Tweed is impressed with its use of Spanish language media and even YouTube. But at the same time, he thinks it is nothing to be afraid of. Technically, Tweed notes, Crecienda en Gracia is a cult, a small group in some tension with the world at large and organized around a single magnetic leader. But it is not a cult as understood in the popular sense: Jim Jones or the Branch Davidians, who in deep self-imposed isolation, honed a violent apocalyptic element that eventually led to murder or suicide. Those at last weekend's rally and throughout De Jesus' following, he says, do appear to believe we may be approaching the Millennium (or else why indulge in a Second Coming?), but they lack a fire-and-brimstone End Times scenario and their leader shows no appetite for isolation — or self-sacrifice, for that matter.
"If he says he's taking his group to the Andes to establish the kingdom of God on earth," says Tweed, "that's when I'd start to worry." Until then, those not too put off by de Jesus' exalted self-image can do no more than marvel at him and wonder what his next transformation will bring.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1618968,00.html#ixzz13b5kllul
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1618968,00.html
Jose De Jesus Miranda Is Not Jesus: A Biblical Response
Jose De Jesus Miranda Is Not Jesus: A Biblical Response
Introduction
Lately, there has been a guy by the name of Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda whose claim to be Jesus has been on the spotlight of the national media, from Fox news to NBC’s Today Show. His group is called Creciendo en Gracia. We will critique a video clip that propagates this error on YouTube produced by his followers. This video clip as of October 1st, 2006 is located at this URL address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VNz8I-ZDMo&eurl.
1.) “Finally, the wait is over, the Lord of the Christian has reincarnated, in a Puerto Rican Man.?(00:15-00:20)
RESPONSE: Do not believe it.
“At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.?/font>
(Mark 13:21; emphasis added)
2.) “He came back through this Puerto Rican man, through Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, the man Christ Jesus.?(00:24-00:32)
RESPONSE:
“For false Christs and false prophets WILL APPEAR and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.?/font>
(Matthew 24:24; emphasis added)
3.) “Jesus of Nazareth, as we know him, said he would return a second time and everyone expects for him to come flying down. But no, he would return the same way he came the first time, in a body and preaching.?(00:35-00:45)
RESPONSE: Jesus second coming will be from the sky.
“They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. ‘Men of Galilee,? they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.?
(Acts 1:10-11; emphasis added)
4.) “I was able to interview, Jesus Christ.?(00:47-50)
RESPONSE: Did Jesus come down from the sky to interview the news reporter? No.
?Yes, it is as you say,?Jesus replied. ‘But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.?
(Matthew 26:64)
5.) “He is God.?(00:53)
RESPONSE: Since Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is a false Christ, he can not be from God, not to mention being God himself.
6.) “For me to dare say that I am the man Christ Jesus, I have much proof of what is written and this is what gives me peace.?(01:09-01:18)
RESPONSE: No Proof was offered by Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda that satisfied the Biblical Criteria.
“Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many.?(Matthew 24:4-5)
7.) “After two thousand years, the world is being witnessed to the second coming of Jesus Christ on the earth.?01:22-01:29)
RESPONSE: Is the whole world mourning and is Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda on the sky’s cloud?
No.
"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.?/font>
(Matthew 23:30; emphasis added)
8.) “The Apostle Paul wrote that he would return the second time without relation to sin. That’s why he said he would come a second time without a relation to sin because it no longer exists!?01:34-01:46)
RESPONSE: This appears to be a reference to the verse in Hebrews 9:28 about Christ return would be chiefly for the purpose of those He will saved.
But how does this show that Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is Jesus Christ?
9.) “He also wrote, ‘To he who could confirm you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ.?(01:52-01:58)
RESPONSE: This is a rough wording of the verse Romans 16:25 that Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda used to show that in Christ second coming, he would be preaching, which is what Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda happened to do. Four quick points must be noted.
(A) Nowhere in the Context of the surrounding passage are there any references to Jesus?second coming.
(B) This passage talks about Christ ministry of preaching and teaching before his death.
(C) If Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda were to interpret the surrounding verses and context as in the future, then Paul’s ministry with the gospel (mentioned in this sentence) would be a future event too; but Paul has been dead for thousands of years!
(D) Even if we give Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda this use of this verse to show that Christ would be preaching when he comes back, it does not establish him as Christ, for other false Christ also preaches!
10.) “He never self-proclaimed to be Jesus Christ. It was the church that recognized that what came out of his mouth was prophesied in the Bible.?(02:02-02:09)
RESPONSE: Did Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda really never proclaimed to be Jesus Christ? Even within this video clip, we see him claiming this himself one minute into the clip: “For me to dare say that I am the man Christ Jesus, I have much proof.?/em>
11.) “Jesus Christ is already on the earth, teaching, consoling and edifying his church.?(02:17-02:24)
RESPONSE: Do not believe it.
“At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.?(Mark 13:21; emphasis added)
12.) “Welcome to the Government of God!?(02:25-02:28)
RESPONSE: God’s Government, being His Kingdom, is already here before Jose Luis de Jesus proclaimed, “I will be president of the biggest government that this earth has experienced.?/em> (See http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_254163721.html)
"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. (Daniel 2:44; see context for clarity)
It is also spiritual in nature.
13.) “And I shall live and move amongst them, and be their God. And they shall be my people.?(02:31-02:38)
RESPONSE: Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, being a false Christ, is not from God, nor is he God.
From http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_254163721.html and many news sources, we know that Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is served by human hands so that he enjoys a life of luxury.
This is not the God of the Bible.
“And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.?(Acts:17:25)
14.) “If this book is truth for the people who are watching, if this is the truth, then I am the Lord.?/font>
RESPONSE: If you read the Bible, on the contrary you would reject Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda’s claim to be Christ.
“Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many.?(Matthew 24:4-5)
By Jimmy Li
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Edited March 30, 2009 0:07
http://teamtruth.com/articles/art_responseto_jose_de_jesus_miranda.htm
Introduction
Lately, there has been a guy by the name of Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda whose claim to be Jesus has been on the spotlight of the national media, from Fox news to NBC’s Today Show. His group is called Creciendo en Gracia. We will critique a video clip that propagates this error on YouTube produced by his followers. This video clip as of October 1st, 2006 is located at this URL address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VNz8I-ZDMo&eurl.
1.) “Finally, the wait is over, the Lord of the Christian has reincarnated, in a Puerto Rican Man.?(00:15-00:20)
RESPONSE: Do not believe it.
“At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.?/font>
(Mark 13:21; emphasis added)
2.) “He came back through this Puerto Rican man, through Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, the man Christ Jesus.?(00:24-00:32)
RESPONSE:
“For false Christs and false prophets WILL APPEAR and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.?/font>
(Matthew 24:24; emphasis added)
3.) “Jesus of Nazareth, as we know him, said he would return a second time and everyone expects for him to come flying down. But no, he would return the same way he came the first time, in a body and preaching.?(00:35-00:45)
RESPONSE: Jesus second coming will be from the sky.
“They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. ‘Men of Galilee,? they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.?
(Acts 1:10-11; emphasis added)
4.) “I was able to interview, Jesus Christ.?(00:47-50)
RESPONSE: Did Jesus come down from the sky to interview the news reporter? No.
?Yes, it is as you say,?Jesus replied. ‘But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.?
(Matthew 26:64)
5.) “He is God.?(00:53)
RESPONSE: Since Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is a false Christ, he can not be from God, not to mention being God himself.
6.) “For me to dare say that I am the man Christ Jesus, I have much proof of what is written and this is what gives me peace.?(01:09-01:18)
RESPONSE: No Proof was offered by Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda that satisfied the Biblical Criteria.
“Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many.?(Matthew 24:4-5)
7.) “After two thousand years, the world is being witnessed to the second coming of Jesus Christ on the earth.?01:22-01:29)
RESPONSE: Is the whole world mourning and is Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda on the sky’s cloud?
No.
"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.?/font>
(Matthew 23:30; emphasis added)
8.) “The Apostle Paul wrote that he would return the second time without relation to sin. That’s why he said he would come a second time without a relation to sin because it no longer exists!?01:34-01:46)
RESPONSE: This appears to be a reference to the verse in Hebrews 9:28 about Christ return would be chiefly for the purpose of those He will saved.
But how does this show that Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is Jesus Christ?
9.) “He also wrote, ‘To he who could confirm you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ.?(01:52-01:58)
RESPONSE: This is a rough wording of the verse Romans 16:25 that Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda used to show that in Christ second coming, he would be preaching, which is what Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda happened to do. Four quick points must be noted.
(A) Nowhere in the Context of the surrounding passage are there any references to Jesus?second coming.
(B) This passage talks about Christ ministry of preaching and teaching before his death.
(C) If Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda were to interpret the surrounding verses and context as in the future, then Paul’s ministry with the gospel (mentioned in this sentence) would be a future event too; but Paul has been dead for thousands of years!
(D) Even if we give Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda this use of this verse to show that Christ would be preaching when he comes back, it does not establish him as Christ, for other false Christ also preaches!
10.) “He never self-proclaimed to be Jesus Christ. It was the church that recognized that what came out of his mouth was prophesied in the Bible.?(02:02-02:09)
RESPONSE: Did Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda really never proclaimed to be Jesus Christ? Even within this video clip, we see him claiming this himself one minute into the clip: “For me to dare say that I am the man Christ Jesus, I have much proof.?/em>
11.) “Jesus Christ is already on the earth, teaching, consoling and edifying his church.?(02:17-02:24)
RESPONSE: Do not believe it.
“At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.?(Mark 13:21; emphasis added)
12.) “Welcome to the Government of God!?(02:25-02:28)
RESPONSE: God’s Government, being His Kingdom, is already here before Jose Luis de Jesus proclaimed, “I will be president of the biggest government that this earth has experienced.?/em> (See http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_254163721.html)
"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. (Daniel 2:44; see context for clarity)
It is also spiritual in nature.
13.) “And I shall live and move amongst them, and be their God. And they shall be my people.?(02:31-02:38)
RESPONSE: Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, being a false Christ, is not from God, nor is he God.
From http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_254163721.html and many news sources, we know that Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is served by human hands so that he enjoys a life of luxury.
This is not the God of the Bible.
“And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.?(Acts:17:25)
14.) “If this book is truth for the people who are watching, if this is the truth, then I am the Lord.?/font>
RESPONSE: If you read the Bible, on the contrary you would reject Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda’s claim to be Christ.
“Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many.?(Matthew 24:4-5)
By Jimmy Li
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Edited March 30, 2009 0:07
http://teamtruth.com/articles/art_responseto_jose_de_jesus_miranda.htm
THE BLASPHEMOUS COMIC : LOADED BIBLE 2
THE BLASPHEMOUS COMIC : LOADED BIBLE 2
Loaded Bible 2: Blood of Christ
Comic Books: Horror: 0 comments: 05/26/2007
By Rae_rae
Jesus Christ Vampire Slayer
Quick warning: if you do not like vampires, if you do not have a sense of humor when it comes to Christianity, if books like Battle Pope and The Goon offend you then do not even think about picking this up. Everyone else should at least be mildly amused by this. Almost a year or so ago the first Loaded Bible came out. In that we were introduced to a post apocalyptic world where vampires ruled most of the Earth, the Vatican controlled most of society and killed anyone who rebelled, and Jesus came back to kill the vampires. Or so that’s what Jesus and the people thought. A circle of vamp leaders infiltrated the priests that ran society in order to show humans ‘the truth.’ What was this ‘truth’? How about the fact that their faith did not bring the second coming of Jesus to save them but cloning did. Add that with film of Jesus talking to a very sexy, very naked female vampire showing him (and the camera) the reserve of clones makes for a rebellion of the people. Then nothing. I don’t know what took Image so long to put this second book out but I’m glad they did. This issue picks up two days after the people who followed the Vatican learned ‘the truth.’ Jesus, trying to cope with the fact that he is not the messiah, is now MIA in the desert. Things get more confusing for him when he finds a vampire baby and tries to save it but cannot. Meanwhile, an angry mob becomes violent when drones for the Vatican try to kill the vamp that told them the truth about their Jesus. Then the priests let loose they other Jesus clones, but not before letting hell break loose on the mob by releasing some starved test vamps they had captured first. After all, what better way to restore faith then by the farce of saving people from monsters you let loose yourself.
This book was very comical. Ok, so not obviously comical like Battle Pope, but the plot is just so fanatical that I couldn’t stop laughing. This book has a bit of a dark tone, is bloody, has boobies, and is violent. Maybe I just have a sick sense of humor, but if you want something different pick this book up. The only downside to this for me was the $4.99 price tag. Looks like gas isn’t the only thing going up in price.
http://www.popsyndicate.com/site/story/loaded_bible_2_blood_of_christ
Loaded Bible 2: Blood of Christ
Comic Books: Horror: 0 comments: 05/26/2007
By Rae_rae
Jesus Christ Vampire Slayer
Quick warning: if you do not like vampires, if you do not have a sense of humor when it comes to Christianity, if books like Battle Pope and The Goon offend you then do not even think about picking this up. Everyone else should at least be mildly amused by this. Almost a year or so ago the first Loaded Bible came out. In that we were introduced to a post apocalyptic world where vampires ruled most of the Earth, the Vatican controlled most of society and killed anyone who rebelled, and Jesus came back to kill the vampires. Or so that’s what Jesus and the people thought. A circle of vamp leaders infiltrated the priests that ran society in order to show humans ‘the truth.’ What was this ‘truth’? How about the fact that their faith did not bring the second coming of Jesus to save them but cloning did. Add that with film of Jesus talking to a very sexy, very naked female vampire showing him (and the camera) the reserve of clones makes for a rebellion of the people. Then nothing. I don’t know what took Image so long to put this second book out but I’m glad they did. This issue picks up two days after the people who followed the Vatican learned ‘the truth.’ Jesus, trying to cope with the fact that he is not the messiah, is now MIA in the desert. Things get more confusing for him when he finds a vampire baby and tries to save it but cannot. Meanwhile, an angry mob becomes violent when drones for the Vatican try to kill the vamp that told them the truth about their Jesus. Then the priests let loose they other Jesus clones, but not before letting hell break loose on the mob by releasing some starved test vamps they had captured first. After all, what better way to restore faith then by the farce of saving people from monsters you let loose yourself.
This book was very comical. Ok, so not obviously comical like Battle Pope, but the plot is just so fanatical that I couldn’t stop laughing. This book has a bit of a dark tone, is bloody, has boobies, and is violent. Maybe I just have a sick sense of humor, but if you want something different pick this book up. The only downside to this for me was the $4.99 price tag. Looks like gas isn’t the only thing going up in price.
http://www.popsyndicate.com/site/story/loaded_bible_2_blood_of_christ
Did Jesus Ever Say He was God?
Did Jesus Ever Say He was God?
Is Jesus God? Investigate these interesting claims...
Others were convinced that Jesus was God:
Paul: "Christ is the visible image of the invisible God."1
John: "He existed in the beginning with God."2
Peter: "you must worship Christ as Lord of your life."3
But what did Jesus say about himself?
Did he ever identify himself as God? According to the Bible...absolutely! Below are some of his statements made while on earth, in their context.
Is Jesus God? He said he was equal to God.
"Your father Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad." The people said, "You aren't even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!" At that point they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus was hidden from them and left the Temple.4
"The Father and I are one." Once again the people picked up stones to kill him. Jesus said, "At my Father's direction I have done many good works. For which one are you going to stone me?" They replied, "We're stoning you not for any good work, but for blasphemy! You, a mere man, claim to be God."5
Jesus shouted to the crowds, "If you trust me, you are trusting not only me, but also God who sent me. For when you see me, you are seeing the one who sent me. I have come as a light to shine in this dark world, so that all who put their trust in me will no longer remain in the dark."6
After washing their feet, he put on his robe again and sat down and asked, "Do you understand what I was doing? You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and you are right, because that's what I am. And since I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash each other's feet."7
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know him and have seen him!" Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?"8
Is Jesus God? How he described himself:
Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, Moses didn't give you bread from heaven. My Father did. And now he offers you the true bread from heaven. The true bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." "Sir," they said, "give us that bread every day." Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry again. Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."9
Jesus spoke to the people once more and said, "I am the light of the world. If you follow me, you won't have to walk in darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life." The Pharisees replied, "You are making those claims about yourself! Such testimony is not valid." Jesus told them, "These claims are valid even though I make them about myself. For I know where I came from and where I am going, but you don't know this about me."10
so he explained it to them: "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who came before me were thieves and robbers. But the true sheep did not listen to them. Yes, I am the gate. Those who come in through me will be saved. They will come and go freely and will find good pastures. The thief's purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd sacrifices his life for the sheep."11
Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if only you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask." Jesus told her, "Your brother will rise again." "Yes," Martha said, "he will rise when everyone else rises, at the last day." Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. Everyone who lives in me and believes in me will never ever die. Do you believe this, Martha?" "Yes, Lord," she told him. "I have always believed you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who has come into the world from God."12
Is Jesus God? What he said he was sent here to do:
But Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many."13
for he wanted to spend more time with his disciples and teach them. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies. He will be killed, but three days later he will rise from the dead." They didn't understand what he was saying, however, and they were afraid to ask him what he meant.14
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him. There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God's one and only Son."15
However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them. For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do my own will. And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them up at the last day. For it is my Father's will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life. I will raise them up at the last day."16
Still wondering if Jesus is God? Please see the following evidence presented in this article: Beyond Blind Faith.
I have a question or comment...
How to know God...
(1) Col 1:15
(2) John 1:2
(3) 1Peter 3:15
(4) John 8:56-59
(5) John 10:30-33
(6) John 12:44-46
(7) John 13:12-14
(8) John 14:6-9
(9) John 6:32-35
(10) John 8:12-14
(11) John 10:7-11
(12) John 11:21-27
(13) Matthew 20:25-28
(14) Mark 9:31-32
(15) John 3:16-18
(16) John 6:37-40
© EveryStudent.com HOME TOP CONTACT
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/whodoyousay.html
Is Jesus God? Investigate these interesting claims...
Others were convinced that Jesus was God:
Paul: "Christ is the visible image of the invisible God."1
John: "He existed in the beginning with God."2
Peter: "you must worship Christ as Lord of your life."3
But what did Jesus say about himself?
Did he ever identify himself as God? According to the Bible...absolutely! Below are some of his statements made while on earth, in their context.
Is Jesus God? He said he was equal to God.
"Your father Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad." The people said, "You aren't even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!" At that point they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus was hidden from them and left the Temple.4
"The Father and I are one." Once again the people picked up stones to kill him. Jesus said, "At my Father's direction I have done many good works. For which one are you going to stone me?" They replied, "We're stoning you not for any good work, but for blasphemy! You, a mere man, claim to be God."5
Jesus shouted to the crowds, "If you trust me, you are trusting not only me, but also God who sent me. For when you see me, you are seeing the one who sent me. I have come as a light to shine in this dark world, so that all who put their trust in me will no longer remain in the dark."6
After washing their feet, he put on his robe again and sat down and asked, "Do you understand what I was doing? You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and you are right, because that's what I am. And since I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash each other's feet."7
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know him and have seen him!" Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?"8
Is Jesus God? How he described himself:
Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, Moses didn't give you bread from heaven. My Father did. And now he offers you the true bread from heaven. The true bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." "Sir," they said, "give us that bread every day." Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry again. Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."9
Jesus spoke to the people once more and said, "I am the light of the world. If you follow me, you won't have to walk in darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life." The Pharisees replied, "You are making those claims about yourself! Such testimony is not valid." Jesus told them, "These claims are valid even though I make them about myself. For I know where I came from and where I am going, but you don't know this about me."10
so he explained it to them: "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who came before me were thieves and robbers. But the true sheep did not listen to them. Yes, I am the gate. Those who come in through me will be saved. They will come and go freely and will find good pastures. The thief's purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd sacrifices his life for the sheep."11
Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if only you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask." Jesus told her, "Your brother will rise again." "Yes," Martha said, "he will rise when everyone else rises, at the last day." Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. Everyone who lives in me and believes in me will never ever die. Do you believe this, Martha?" "Yes, Lord," she told him. "I have always believed you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who has come into the world from God."12
Is Jesus God? What he said he was sent here to do:
But Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many."13
for he wanted to spend more time with his disciples and teach them. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies. He will be killed, but three days later he will rise from the dead." They didn't understand what he was saying, however, and they were afraid to ask him what he meant.14
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him. There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God's one and only Son."15
However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them. For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do my own will. And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them up at the last day. For it is my Father's will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life. I will raise them up at the last day."16
Still wondering if Jesus is God? Please see the following evidence presented in this article: Beyond Blind Faith.
I have a question or comment...
How to know God...
(1) Col 1:15
(2) John 1:2
(3) 1Peter 3:15
(4) John 8:56-59
(5) John 10:30-33
(6) John 12:44-46
(7) John 13:12-14
(8) John 14:6-9
(9) John 6:32-35
(10) John 8:12-14
(11) John 10:7-11
(12) John 11:21-27
(13) Matthew 20:25-28
(14) Mark 9:31-32
(15) John 3:16-18
(16) John 6:37-40
© EveryStudent.com HOME TOP CONTACT
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/whodoyousay.html
Does God exist?
Question: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?"
Answer: The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “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” (Romans 1:20).
People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace. Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved us and changed our lives that we cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing.
Recommended Resource: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is the Cosmological argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The cosmological argument derives its title from observing the world around us (the cosmos). It begins with what is most obvious in reality: things exist. It is then argued that the cause of those things’ existence had to be a "God-type" thing. These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since. Besides being philosophically evident, science finally caught up with theologians in the 20th century when it was confirmed that the universe had to have had a beginning. So, today, the arguments are even powerful for non-philosophers. There are two basic forms of these arguments, and the easiest way to think of them might be what are called the "vertical" and the "horizontal" forms. These titles indicate the direction from which the causes come. In the vertical form, it is argued that every created thing is being caused right now (imagine a timeline with an arrow pointing up from the universe to God). The horizontal version shows that creation had to have a cause in the beginning (imagine that same timeline only with an arrow pointing backward to a beginning point in time).
The horizontal is a little easier to understand because it does not require much in the way of philosophy to grasp. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. The universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not solve the problem. This is because those other things had to have causes, too, and this cannot go on forever. Why not? Let's take a simple example: trees. All trees began to exist at some point (for they have not always existed). Each tree had its beginning in a seed (the "cause" of the tree). But every seed had its beginning ("cause") in another tree. See where this is going? You can't have an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed because no series is infinite—it cannot go on forever. All series are finite (limited) by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number because even the number series is limited (although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number). If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings actually—at the end and at the beginning (if you don't see why this is true, try to imagine a one ended stick!). But if there were no first cause, the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore, there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause—one that had no beginning. This first cause is God.
The vertical form is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful because not only does it show that God had to cause the "chain of causes" in the beginning, He must still be causing things to exist right now. Once again, we begin by noting that things exist. Second, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of "own"—that once something is created, existence is just part of what it is—this is not the case. Consider a simple example of the triangle. We can define the nature of a triangle as "the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments." Notice what is not part of this definition: existence.
This definition would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore, a triangle's nature—what it is—does not guarantee that one exists (like unicorns—we know what they are, but that does not make them exist). Because it is not part of a triangle's nature to exist, triangles must be made to exist by something else that already exists (such as I drawing one on a piece of paper). But it also does not exist simply because of what I am. So, I have to be given existence as well. This cannot go on forever (no infinite series, remember?). Therefore, something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence. Now apply this example to everything in the universe. Does any of it exist on its own? No. So, not only did the universe have to have a first cause to get started; it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This thing would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, be infinite . . . sound familiar? It should! It is God!
http://www.gotquestions.org/cosmological-argument.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.
Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is yes it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.
To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”
In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:
1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.
So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.
Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” This being the case, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.
Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:
• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?
To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.
Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.
Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:
• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”
But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).v • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).
One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.
Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.
This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist and that such a place is an awfully long time to be wrong. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”
So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13 NAS).
http://www.gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is the transcendental argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The transcendental argument for the existence of God is the argument which attempts to prove God’s existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose the Christian worldview and that God’s transcendent character is the source of logic and morals. The transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that without the existence of God it is impossible to prove anything because, in the atheistic world, you cannot justify or account for universal laws.
Deductive reason presupposes the laws of logic. But why do the laws of logic hold? For the Christian, there is a transcendent standard for reasoning. As the laws of logic are reduced to being materialistic entities, they cease to possess their law-like character. But the laws of logic are not comprised of matter; they apply universally and at all times. The laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature and are necessary for deductive reasoning. The invariability, sovereignty, transcendence, and immateriality of God are the foundation for the laws of logic. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.
The atheist might respond “Well, I can use the laws of logic and I am an atheist.” But this argument is illogical. Logical reasoning requires the existence of a transcendent and immaterial God, not a profession of belief in Him. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview his reasoning cannot rationally be accounted for.
If the laws of logic are merely man-made contentions, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic. In that case, the laws of logic would not be universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if the laws of logic were conventional, because the two parties could simply adopt different laws of logic. Each would be correct according to his own arbitrary standard.
If the atheist argues that the laws of logic are simply the product of electro-chemical impulses in the brain, then the laws of logic cannot be regarded as universal. What happens inside your brain cannot be regarded as a law for it does not necessarily correspond to what happens in another person’s brain. In other words, we could not argue that logical contradictions cannot occur in a distant galaxy, distinct from conscious observers.
One common response is “We can use the laws of logic because they have been observed to work.” However, this is to miss the point. All are agreed that the laws of logic work, but they work because they are true. The real issue is, how can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? Why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? Moreover, the appeal to the past to make such deductions concerning the way matter will behave in the future—from the materialistic point of view—is circular. Indeed, in the past, matter has conformed to uniformity. But how can one know that uniformity will persist in the future unless one has already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? To use one’s past experience as a premise upon which to build one’s expectations for the future is to presuppose uniformity and logic. Thus, when the atheist claims to believe that there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he is trying to simply justify uniformity by presupposing uniformity, which is to argue in a circle.
To conclude, the transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that atheism is self-refuting because the atheist must presuppose the opposite of what he is attempting to prove in order to prove anything. It argues that rationality and logic make sense only within a Christian theistic framework. Atheists have access to the laws of logic, but they have no foundation upon which to base their deductive reason within their own paradigm.
http://www.gotquestions.org/transcendental-argument.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is the Ontological argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The ontological argument is an argument based not on observation of the world (like the cosmological and teleological arguments) but rather from reason alone. Specifically, the ontological argument reasons from the study of being (ontology). The first and most popular form goes back to St. Anselm in the 11th century A.D. He begins with stating that the concept of God is "a being than which no greater can be conceived." Since existence is possible, and to exist is greater than to not exist, then God must exist (if God did not exist, then a greater being could be conceived, but that is self defeating—you can't have something greater than that which no greater can be conceived!). Therefore, God must exist. Descartes did much the same thing only starting from the idea of a perfect being.
Atheist extraordinaire Bertrand Russell said that it is much easier to say that the ontological argument is no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with it! However, ontological arguments are not terribly popular in most Christian circles these days. First, they seem to beg the question as to what God is like. Second, subjective appeal is low for non-believers as these arguments tend to lack hard objective support. Third, it is difficult to simply state that something must exist by definition. Without good philosophical support for why a thing must exist, simply defining something into existence is not good philosophy (like stating that unicorns are magical, single-horned horses that exist). These problems notwithstanding, several prominent philosophers today continue to work on this more unusual form of theological argument.
http://www.gotquestions.org/ontological-argument.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is the Teleological argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The word teleology comes from telos which means "purpose" or "goal." The idea is that it takes a "purposer" to have purpose, and so where we see things obviously intended for a purpose, something had to have caused it for a reason. In other words, design implies a designer. We instinctively do this all the time. The difference between the Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore is obvious—one is designed, one is not. The Grand Canyon was clearly formed by non-rational, natural processes, whereas Mount Rushmore was clearly created by an intelligent being—a designer. When we are walking down the beach and see a watch we do not assume that time and random chance produced it from blowing sand. Why? Because it has the clear marks of design—it has a purpose, it conveys information, it is specifically complex, etc. In no scientific field is design considered to be spontaneous; it always implies a designer, and the greater the design, the greater the designer. Thus, taking the assumptions of science, the universe would require a designer beyond itself (i.e. supernatural).
The teleological argument applies this criteria to the whole universe. If designs imply a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was created. Clearly, every life form in earth's history has been highly complex. A single strand of DNA equates to one volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The human brain is approximately 10 billion gigabytes in capacity. Besides living things here on earth, the whole universe seems designed for life. Literally hundreds of conditions are required for life on earth—everything from the mass density of the universe down to earthquake activity must be fine-tuned in order for life to survive. The random chance of all these things occurring is literally beyond imagination. The odds are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of atomic particles in the whole universe! With this much design, it is difficult to believe that we just got lucky. In fact, top atheist philosopher Antony Flew's recent conversion to theism was based largely on this argument.
In addition to being used to demonstrate God's existence, the teleological argument also exposes shortcomings in the theory of evolution. The Intelligent Design movement in science applies information theory to life systems and shows that chance cannot even begin to explain its complexity. In fact, even single-celled bacteria are so complex that without all of their parts working together at the same time they would have no survival potential. That means those parts could not have developed by chance. Darwin recognized that this might be a problem someday just by looking at the human eye. Little did he know that even single-celled creatures have too much complexity to explain without a creator!
http://www.gotquestions.org/teleological-argument.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is the Moral argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God.
In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.
To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.
http://www.gotquestions.org/moral-argument.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "Is God imaginary?"
Answer: Godisimaginary.com is not the first to claim that God is imaginary. In an article entitled “Theology and Falsification” written many years ago, Anthony Flew, one of the twentieth century’s most outspoken atheists wrote,
Two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.” So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. . . . Yet still the believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, who comes secretly to look after the garden he loves.” At last the Skeptic despairs. “But what remains of the original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”
Following Flew’s thoughts from decades ago, the web site godisimaginary.com provides what it believes are 50 “proofs” that God does not exist – that He is nothing more than an imaginary gardener, a superstition, a myth. The site claims, “Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists. If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's 'God,' nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists.”
Actually, when a person thinks as a rational person and tosses away any preconceived bias and baggage that’s held, one must disagree with the site’s assertions and instead reach the conclusion that God does indeed exist.
Addressing each of the 50 points is unnecessary as it doesn’t matter if the site had 50,000 “proof” points against God; all one needs to do is use a logical, rational, and reasonable argument to show that God does indeed exist and every point becomes irrelevant. It is telling and interesting that godisimaginary.com focuses so much of its time on red herrings of issues with prayer and why God won’t do tricks upon request, and ignores the primary question of philosophy and religion: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” In other words, like Flew, the site concentrates on issues with a gardener they believe to be imaginary and ignores the question of why a garden exists in the first place.
The only place on the site where a possible answer to this question is offered is “proof” point 47. Complexity, says the site, could only arise from either Nature itself or a Creator. “Proof” point 47 then states, “The advantage of the first option is that it is self-contained. The complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.”
This assertion and conclusion is flawed as they have proposed two explanations and then bundle a third option into the solution they like – spontaneous generation with an eternal universe. An eternal universe is, initially, a logical option but not spontaneous generation, which is a scientific term for something coming from nothing or self-creation, which is an analytically false statement – that is, a statement that shows itself to be false by definition. A fundamental law of science is ex nihilo nihil fit – out of nothing, nothing comes. And as Aristotle said, “Nothing is what rocks dream about.” The web site derides Christians for believing in magic, yet it embraces greater magic than anything found in the Bible – life just appearing out of nothing from non-life with no cause.
Next, their argument ignores the basic laws of causality – an effect must resemble its cause. How can an impersonal, meaningless, purposeless, amoral universe accidentally create beings who are full of personality and obsessed with meaning, purpose, and morality? It can’t. Further, intelligence doesn’t arise from non-intelligence, which is why even Richard Dawkins (noted atheist) and Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) admit that intelligence had to engineer DNA and life on earth – they just say it was a superior alien race who seeded the earth, which of course, begs the question of who engineered that superior alien race. Godisimaginary.com claims, “No intelligence is required to encode DNA,” but refuting this statement is the very co-discoverer of DNA himself – Francis Crick – who admits there is no way for DNA to have arisen apart from intelligence.
But what of evolution? Doesn’t evolution explain life and intelligence? Not at all. Evolution is a biological process that attempts to describe change in already existing life forms – it has no way to answer the question of existence. This one piece of evidence alone began to turn Anthony Flew away from atheism.
These facts being evident, it then becomes quite easy to offer a simple, reasonable, logical proof for God in the following way:
1. Something exists
2. You don’t get something from nothing
3. Therefore, something necessary and eternal exists
4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
5. Science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe
6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists
The only premise that can be attacked is premise five, but the fact is every drop of evidence in the possession of science points to the fact that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. And everything that has a beginning has a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Any fanciful assertions of collapsing universes, imaginary time, and the like are just that – fanciful – and require more faith to than to believe in God. The two choices are simple – matter before mind or mind before matter – and it is interesting that this web site claims it is their intelligence that causes them to choose the former over the latter.
“But who created God?” the site asks. Why not ask, “Where is the bachelor’s wife?” or “What does the color blue taste like?” It’s a category mistake – you don’t make the unmade. Further, why sit back comfortably and believe in an unmade universe and yet angrily bristle at the notion of an unmade Creator? Could it be because mindless matter cannot call human beings into moral account whereas a personal God can? Finally, is it more reasonable to embrace a cause that contains none of the characteristics of its effect (personality, love, meaning, purpose, etc.) or a cause that embodies them all (a personal God)? The site claims, “In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is imaginary,” but in reality, logic, reason, and evidence disprove their position and point in the absolute other direction.
The conclusion is that a personal Creator exists. Moreover, this Being who created everything mirrors the God described in the Bible quite well as evidenced by what one can infer just from the fact of creation alone:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent, because there is no infinite regress of causes).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal can’t create personality).
• He must be necessary as everything else depends on Him.
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
The Judeo-Christian God perfectly fits this profile. At this point, all 50 “proofs” on the web site become irrelevant – God exists; therefore, all points offered on the site are incorrect in the final conclusion that they collectively try to reach. Wondering why God won’t cure all the cancer in the world because a group of Christians prayed for it, pointing out the divorce rate among Christians, scoffing because God doesn’t create money for churches out of thin air, wondering why Jesus never moved a physical mountain, asserting a false dichotomy that says a person must be a person of facts or of faith (many brilliant scientists believe in God), making unprovable claims that Jesus never did a concrete miracle, and erroneously stating that the Bible “advocates” senseless murder, slavery, and oppression of women - all end up being impotent in light of the conclusion that a creator God exists.
Answering such objections – if they are genuine and not extended in a way that refuses to believe even if reasoned responses are given – requires only the disciplined study of Scripture alongside the Spirit of God who inspired it. Arguments with those who possess a hardened skeptical spirit are to be avoided as 1 Timothy 6:20 says, “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge.'” But even still, God is fully capable of using His powerful general revelation (the creation) to witness to those who appear completely lost due to a skeptical and hardened heart.
In stark contrast to the article he'd written many years earlier, in 2007, Anthony Flew wrote a much different kind of book entitled There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. In it, he recounts his atheism and relays how he now, because of evidence and reason, believes that a creator God exists. The one who initially posited an “imaginary gardener” now says, “I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.” This being the case, one thing is certain – the 50 frail attempts on godisimaginary.com to prove that God is imaginary fall far short of even causing a nick on the armor of evidence that opposes them.
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-imaginary.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "Is God a delusion?"
Answer: Richard Dawkins is the world’s chief apostle for atheism and has been Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University since 1996. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, he labels God and belief in God as delusions. Dawkins is a gifted writer, and his position at the leading university in the English-speaking world gives him great prestige in intellectual, cultural, and political circles. His atheism is fierce. The jacket of The God Delusion calls the God of the Old Testament “a sex-obsessed tyrant” and the deistic god of the 18th century Enlightenment a “more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker.” Belief in God, says Dawkins, subverts science and knowledge, breeds ignorance, foments bigotry, and abuses children. All this happens for the simple reason that God is a delusion. Not only are “fundamentalists” unintelligent for “know[ing] they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book,” but even moderation in faith, says Dawkins, “fosters fanaticism.”
There are plenty of intelligent answers to Dawkins’ contentions about life, history, science, ethics, and God, as well as to his general crusade against all things religious and, particularly, all things Christian. But what does the Bible say about people like Dawkins and the arguments he proposes? The Bible is just as firm as Dawkins in its assertions about God and man. Psalm 14:1-3, for example, says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Fools who deny the existence of God are corrupt and vile, and so are their deeds. Because their understanding is also corrupt, “they do not seek after God.” Note that the Bible and Dawkins are directly opposed to one another. Dawkins says there is no God, and people who believe in Him do terrible things. The Bible says there is a God, and it is rather the people who deny Him who do terrible things. Further, the apostle Paul declares that the reason people who deny God can gain and maintain such large followings, as Dawkins has, is that the human race in general is lost in sin and self-delusion and seek after those whose rhetoric reflects the same. Those who deny God follow eagerly after Dawkins and his ilk because they have hatred for God in common (2 Timothy 4:3).
The Bible sees the denial of God as the true delusion, and this delusion extends to the atheist’s view of humanity as “good,” all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. A sober assessment of human beings recognizes that we lie, cheat, steal, lust, complain, become embittered and resentful, envy, hate, forget, and are careless, ruthless, disrespectful, and loveless. Not only do we do all these things on a daily and hourly basis, but we do them naturally from our birth. This is what God’s Word means when it says, “There is no one who does good” (Psalm 14:3). This does not mean we never do anything positive, like obeying our parents or giving money to a church or charity. It means that we are so obviously sinful that it is silly to call human beings “good.” Nobody teaches children to lie; they do it naturally. Nobody teaches teenage boys to lust; they do it naturally. Nobody teaches the employee to resent his boss or spread malicious gossip about the coworker with whom he is competing for a promotion; he does these things naturally. Nobody teaches the wife to unjustly criticize and complain about her husband, or the husband to neglect and condescend to his wife; both do these things naturally. Yet in the sixth chapter of The God Delusion, entitled “The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good?”, Dawkins explains why human beings are good—based on nothing more than his own opinion—despite the fact that there is no God who defines what is good. Again, Dawkins not only directly opposes the Bible’s teaching but he denies what is obvious to even the most casual observer of human nature and behavior.
At the same time, Dawkins titles his ninth chapter “Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion.” There he reports replying to a question about clergy sexual abuse by saying, “Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place” (p. 317). Human beings are good, says Dawkins, and even the sexual abuse they perpetrate is better than a religion which tells them they are not good. How he explains the desire for “good” men—priests or otherwise—to abuse children sexually in the first place is a mystery. The Bible, however, does explain it. Men do evil because their hearts are evil (Matthew 12:35), and unless they are made new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), they will continue to do evil because it is their natural inclination.
The apostle Paul explains the function of law (to convict of sin) and the salvation from sin—that has come to the world in Jesus Christ. “But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?...There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God” (Romans 3:5-6, 10-11). The Bible here is saying that it is not the psychological abuse we suffer from religion that makes human beings, including some pastors and priests, do evil things like abuse children. Rather, it is our inherent sin nature that makes us do these things, and it is our insufficient attention to God, to Jesus, to Christian truth, and to the Bible’s teaching that causes this behavior to continue even where religious activity and institutions are present. It is not that the idea of God has caused us psychological damage; it is that we are born psychologically damaged, with a natural inclination toward what is evil, and we ignore and reject God, who is the only source of salvation from our sin and psychological damage. Even though we may intellectually accept the idea of God’s existence, when we ignore Him and reject His Word, we are as good as saying He is a delusion.
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “delusion” as follows: “Something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also, the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.” The last clause is significant: intellectual and moral delusion have permanent effects on the mind and heart. Believing lies causes the mind to begin to operate abnormally and to exist in a state that is not healthy and perhaps even dangerous, both for itself and for others. This is what the Bible calls “sin,” and a core element of our sin is our delusion that God does not exist.
It should be stated clearly here, given how often atheism presents and promotes itself under the banner of science, that science is not to blame for atheism or any other symptom of human sinfulness. In fact, many great scientists of the past were Christians, believing Jesus Christ to be the representative of God on earth, the same God who made the heavens and the earth and established the laws by which the natural world operates and which scientists investigate. Most of the "giants" of modern science and most founders of hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, and every other kind of charity that has humanized and softened a world made inhumane and hard by human sinfulness, were Christians. They pursued rational understanding of the cosmos because they believed God, who has a mind, had created the cosmos according to the principles of rational and mathematical operation that govern the human mind, which is designed in the image of God’s mind.
Belief in God is thus no delusion. It is inherently and fundamentally rational. It is the source of true wisdom regarding why human beings do evil things so often and so naturally, why we can work so hard to be good and still fail, and why Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ is the spiritual hope for mankind. It also explains why people who believe in Jesus Christ have done so much not only to remedy the effects in this world of human sin, but to scientifically understand this world and to organize and publish the principles of science.
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-delusion.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "Is God evil?"
Answer: The web site evilbible.com endeavors to do two things: (1) demonstrate that the Bible is not the Word of God, but instead is only a book written by “evil” men, and (2) disprove the God of Christianity. The arsenal it attempts to use to prove its assertions is one common to many other atheist web sites and publications. Supposed Bible contradictions are put on display, atrocities and immoral practices that are recorded within the pages of the Bible are referenced, and various philosophical and moral arguments are used to assert that the God of the Bible is an impossibility or at best not a God to be worshipped.
While a number of these specific argumnts will be addressed in the sections that follow, certain topics on the evilbible.com web site that have already been thoroughly tackled on Gotquestions.org (e.g., slavery) will not be covered, but anyone wishing more information on those subjects is encouraged to review the material that already exists and which sufficiently answers evilbible.com’s charges in those areas. Instead, the focus of this article will be the three broad problems that cause nearly all (or perhaps all) of evilbible.com’s arguments to fail:
• A misunderstanding of God’s Word
• A misunderstanding of God’s character
• A misunderstanding of God’s creation
Let’s now review each of these issues and cite specific examples from evilbible.com’s web site that illustrate how and why their assertions against the Bible and God are false.
Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Word
The first problem area for evilbible.com is a misunderstanding of God’s Word. In its efforts to attack the Bible, the evilbible.com web site makes two key assertions: 1) the Bible is full of horrible atrocities, and 2) the Bible is full of contradictions. As to the first point, evilbible.com is absolutely correct—the Bible is indeed full of atrocities and immoral behavior. From start to finish, the Bible records many terrible things, with the worst being the premeditated murder of the innocent and perfect Son of God. But where evilbible.com’s argument in this area falls flat is that they fail to understand that the Bible does not approve of everything it records. This is absolutely crucial to understand. For example, in Judges chapters 19 and 20, the Bible records the brutal rape and murder of a young woman who was a Levite’s concubine. Moreover, the actions of the Levite are less than honorable, and the crime results in a vicious civil war within the nation of Israel. But a careful reading of the text will show no approval of the actions that took place, and no commendation from God for the Levite’s behavior. So evilbible.com’s argument that atrocities being recorded in Scripture prove that it isn’t God’s Word simply does not hold up.
Another argument in this same vein on the evilbible.com web site focuses on the command of God for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Obviously, they claim, since God initiated this request, and human sacrifice is abhorrent, surely this proves the Bible is not anything produced by a loving and good God. But where evilbible.com’s argument in this area fails is that the web site’s writers don’t understand that God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him; the story is a powerful narrative typology of God Himself sacrificing His own Son Jesus for the sins of mankind. And whereas Abraham was stopped by God from going through with his act, God Himself did not stay His own hand when it came to His Son, and the end result was salvation for all who would believe in Him.
With regard to point number two above, evilbible.com lists a number of supposed contradictions in the Bible they use to assert that the Bible is not inerrant but is instead a fallibly written book. When it comes to assertions of biblical contradictions, it should be noted that a number of good books on this subject address nearly every one (if not all) of evilbible.com’s claims. Second, it should not come as a surprise that non-Christians trip over the issues that evilbible.com brings to the table. The Bible is a spiritual book, and while it exhibits what is called perspicuity (clarity of expression) in regard to its core teachings, there are spiritual significance and lessons for much of what the Bible speaks about, and only those who have been quickened by God’s Spirit will arrive at their true meanings (1 Corinthians 2:14). For example, Leviticus 19:19 says, "Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." Critics look at this obscure Old Testament passage, laugh, and reach the conclusion that God doesn’t want people to wear wool and polyester blends. However, in this case God was using physical things to act as reminders of spiritual principles. He was telling Israel not to mix their pure religion with the pagan religions that literally surrounded them; they were not to be syncretistic, but instead they were to be devoted to the one true God and not assimilate other pagan teachings.
Spiritual lessons such as the above are found in a number of errors that evilbible.com makes. For example they argue for the following set of contradictions:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven... earth... [or] water. - Leviticus 26:11
And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them. - Exodus 25:18
First, it should be noted that evilbible.com does not reference the proper book/chapter/verse in the first quote – it is actually Exodus 20:4. That error aside, their argument fails because they quote the verse out of context; if one continues reading the next verse, the true reason for the prohibition is given: “You shall not worship them or serve them.” The command of God to not make images concerned objects of worship, not objects used for decorative or educational purposes as Exodus 25:18 records.
Another example of a supposed contradiction argued by evilbible.com in the New Testament is the following:
For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works. - Ephesians 2:8-9
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. - James 2:24
Again, evilbible.com should not really be faulted for not understanding these two verses clearly; they are spiritual two sides to one coin. The Bible makes it clear that Christians are saved by faith alone. But the Bible also makes it clear that faith in the life of a true Christian is always evidenced by good works. Good works are not the means of salvation; they are the evidence and the proof of salvation. So to put them together in one sentence: Christians are saved by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), but the faith that saves is not alone (James 2:24). True faith will always manifest good works; faith which does not evidence good works is a dead faith which cannot save (James 2:26). This principle is viewed elsewhere in Scripture, for example by Jesus, who referenced the fact that good trees bear good fruit, but bad trees yield bad fruit (Matthew 7:17).
To summarize, we can see that evilbible.com’s claims of atrocities and contradictions in God’s Word simply do not hold water. There have always been critics who claim the Bible is wrong. For example, many used to maintain that the reigns and times of the Israelite kings were recorded in error (e.g., Joram-Jehoram), but then came Dr. Edwin Thiele’s book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, which proved that they are indeed correct. In the end, the Bible always survives the challenges leveled against it.
Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Character
The second problem is that evilbible.com suffers from a misunderstanding of God’s character. The web site routinely speaks of God as a tyrant and an unabashed killer. Evilbible.com takes the position of Socrates who once said that it is better to suffer injustice than to do it, better to be the victim than the perpetrator. Apparently the site’s writers would be more comfortable with God if He were a victim rather than a sovereign. In making such assertions, evilbible.com also follows the lead of atheist Robert Wilson who wrote, “The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer.” In addition, evilbible.com charges that God is the creator of evil and wickedness, and therefore asserts that God cannot be the holy and righteous deity described in the Bible. In theology, this is the problem of theodicy, which is the branch of theology that vindicates God’s divine attributes (particularly holiness and justice) in the face of the existence of physical and moral evil.
With respect to the first assertion—that God is a tyrannical murderer of the innocent—evilbible.com displays a gross misunderstanding of history, which compounds their misunderstanding of God’s character. Referencing Old Testament accounts of God imposing judgment on various cultures and peoples, evilbible.com says:
“The people slaughtered in the Old Testament were almost uniformly blameless (with a few exceptions, of course for instance, the Sodomites violated the conventions of hospitality.)”
It is interesting to note that this absurd statement—that the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality, a position straight out the homosexual activists’ handbook—is completely illogical. The statement asserts that God was justified in “slaughtering” the people of Sodom because they were inhospitable. Yet they go on to claim He was not justified in punishing cultures who practiced true wickedness. And when, incidentally, has anyone who displayed a lack of hospitality ever been referred to as a Sodomite? The sin of Sodom was gross immorality and violent homosexuality, as Genesis 19 accurately records.
The claim that those God punished were “uniformly blameless” is completely without merit and historically inaccurate. The Bible records the exact opposite about the peoples whom God acted upon in judgment. A few examples include:
“After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, ‘The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.’ No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Deuteronomy 9:4-5, emphasis added).
“Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 18:12-13, emphasis added).
"Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants" (Leviticus 18:24-25, emphasis added).
Evilbible.com overlooks the historical evidences that these nations and cultures practiced the very things that evilbible.com decries as morally reprehensible. As just one example, the Assyrians who inhabited Nineveh during the time of Jonah were an incredibly barbaric and cruel people. When archaeologists uncovered Nineveh, the TV specials produced from their work had to be filtered because the evidence of brutality was so great. The discoveries unearthed facts such as how the Assyrians used to slowly impale their victims by sliding them down sharp poles, and that they also made handbags from their victim’s skins. In a stone pillar found at Nineveh, one Assyrian ruler boasted of “nobles I flayed” and “three thousand captives I burned with fire. I left not one hostage alive. I cut off the hands and feet of some. I cut off the noses, ears and fingers of others. The eyes of numerous soldiers I put out. Maidens I burned as a holocaust.” Such things certainly speak against evilbible.com’s claims that the people who fell under God’s judgment were innocent. Other examples include the inhabitants of Jericho who history has shown practiced child sacrifice, cultic prostitution, and much more.
Evilbible.com also overlooks the patience of God in dealing with such people. God always waited for the nations who ultimately experienced judgment to turn from their despicable ways and always warned them of the judgment that was coming. The book of Jonah describes God’s patience with the Ninevites, who finally did turn from their evil ways and avoided destruction. Other peoples and cultures could have repented of their sins, but they chose not to. As an example, the people of Amalek (described in 1 Samuel) routinely attempted to commit genocide against Israel, but were given 400 years by God to repent. But Amalek continued to commit their atrocities against Israel and so God judged them via Saul and the Israeli army.
Evilbible.com does not stop to consider that if one were to catapult the practices, genocide, and barbarism of these cultures/peoples into the 21st century and broadcast it around the world via CNN, there would most certainly be a global outcry for severe military action and punishment. And if modern, “enlightened” man would call for such severe judgment against such atrocities, why should evilbible.com criticize God for carrying out the same thing?
Lastly, in regard to evilbible.com’s claim that God is creator of evil, they present the following rationale and verse from the King James Version to support their position:
“God Is The Creator Of Evil: Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that God is indeed the creator of evil. Please read verse Isaiah 45:7. ‘I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things.” The Christian God outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil. So how can he then claim to be sinless?”
In evilbible.com’s defense, the verse from Isaiah 45:7 has been misunderstood by many people, primarily because of a poor translation in the King James Bible (and ASV). Parts of the book of Isaiah are of the poetry genre, and there is a literary technique used at times in Hebrew poetry called antithetical parallelism which sets two thoughts in complete contrast to one another, which is exactly what is happening in Isaiah 45:7. For example, if you were asked what the opposition of “light” is, you would likely respond “darkness,” which is what Isaiah 45:7 says. But if you were asked what the opposite of “peace” is, would you respond “evil”? No, you likely wouldn’t. This is why nearly all other translations of this verse (including the New King James Version) translate the word “calamity” or something similar, as that is what the antithetical structure of the verse mandates. God does not bring moral evil upon anyone, but He does bring about calamity and disaster upon those who oppose Him, but such a thing does not make Him evil; it makes Him a just and righteous God.
So, in the end, the above examples (and others present on the web site) show how a misunderstanding of history and wrong biblical interpretation lead to the wrong conclusion about God’s character.
Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Creation
The last broad issue found on the evilbible.com web site is a misunderstanding of God’s creation, which manifests itself most in the problem of evilbible.com borrowing from the Christian moral worldview to carry out its arguments against God and the Bible instead of using its own atheistic foundation. In essence, evilbible.com invokes a Christian framework to deny the Christian God, a technique that is irrational and disingenuous, to say the least. For example, evilbible.com declares:
“It violates my morality to worship a hypocritical, judgmental, self righteous murderer.”
Here’s the problem with making such a statement: without God, evilbible.com has no real foundation for the morality it claims, no moral framework from which to attack God. Why is this the case? Because before a person can call something bad (as evilbible.com does God and the Bible), a person must know what good is. But before a person can call something good, he must have a moral framework to distinguish between good and bad. But before someone can have a moral framework to distinguish good and bad, he must have absolute moral laws to build that framework. But before a person can have absolute moral laws, he must have an absolute moral Lawgiver (laws don’t give themselves). Now the atheists have backed themselves into a corner, because the only absolute moral Lawgiver you can have is God. This is why intellectually honest atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, rightly understands that an atheist can’t ever call anything bad or good —the atheist foundation doesn’t support such a stance. In his book, River out of Eden, he writes, “Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA . . . life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” (emphasis added).
Since, being atheists, the writers of evilbible.com cannot be intellectually honest and use the term “evil,” they should rename their web site to something that is not prefaced with the word “evil.” All evilbible.com can assert is what atheist evolutionist William Provine calls “approximate morals,” but they can never have ethics that are globally, eternally, and universally binding upon everyone, and thus cannot call anything evil.
Another misunderstanding of God’s creation is exhibited in evilbible.com’s claim that God Himself is impossible. Evilbible.com puts forth a variety of common arguments against God, but the overall theme is that creation as we know it refutes the existence of the God described in the Bible. Here again the argument of the existence of evil is used to reject God. Evilbible.com wrongly rejects the argument of free will being the catalyst of evil (which it is/was) and mistakenly rejects the fact that, yes, there is evil in this world, but perhaps God has a good reason for permitting it. Jesus dying on the cross appeared on the surface to be the epitome of gratuitous evil, but out of that event, mankind was redeemed from the misery it finds itself in. God’s gift of freedom, and the misuse of that freedom, clearly explains the moral evil we experience. As Augustine said, “Such is the generosity of God’s goodness that He has not refrained from creating even that creature which He foreknew would not only sin, but remain in the will to sin. As a runaway horse is better than a stone which does not run away because it lacks self-movement and sense perception, so the creature is more excellent which sins by free will than that which does not sin only because it has no free will.”
Moreover, evilbible.com posits God is impossible because of supposed contradictions in His nature that do not match the world, yet they are perfectly happy to accept that an impersonal, amoral, meaningless, purposeless universe accidentally created personal beings who are obsessed with morality, meaning, and purpose in life. If, as they argue, a cause must resemble its effect, then what explanation do they give for this contradiction? Mindless matter has no way of producing mind or anything similar.
The fact is, the Being who is the cause of everything in the universe perfectly mirrors the God described in the Bible. This is evidenced by what one can infer just from the fact of creation alone:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent, because there is no infinite regress of causes).
• He must be omnipresent (he created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal can’t create personality).
• He must be necessary as everything else depends on Him.
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only a cognitive being can produce cognitive beings.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
The Judeo-Christian God perfectly fits this profile.
Is God evil? – Conclusion
A misunderstanding of God’s Word, His character, and His creation all result in the argumentation errors found on evilbible.com. A fitting summation of their stance is this statement made on their web site:
“I don’t think I could ever complete a whole list as to what I find objectionable regarding the bible.”
For certain, there are apparent difficulties that arise when one begins studying the Bible. But a person should not assume God doesn’t exist and/or the Bible is in error just because he encounters a problem in the Bible that he can’t immediately understand or explain. The scientist doesn’t throw out science just because he/she sees something in the physical world he can’t immediately explain. Neither should we do the same with theology or the study of Scripture. Misunderstandings like those committed by evilbible.com are the result of not thoroughly investigating matters or dismissing a belief based on a presupposition that is buried deep in a person’s heart or lifestyle (or both). And the danger in both cases is something Pascal warned about many years ago: “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” What self-described atheists find attractive about denying God is that they think if they deny Him, they will never have to deal with Him in any way. Sadly, they couldn’t be more wrong.
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-evil.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is Pascal's Wager?"
Answer: Pascal's Wager is named after 17th French philosopher and mathematician, Blaise Pascal. One of Pascal’s most famous works was the Pensées (“Thoughts”), which was published posthumously in 1670. It is in this work that we find what is known as Pascal's Wager.
The gist of the wager is that, according to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose. If we live as though God exists, and He does indeed exist, we have gained heaven. If He doesn’t exist, we have lost nothing. If, on the other hand, we live as though God does not exist and He really does exist, we have gained hell and punishment and have lost heaven and bliss. If one weighs the options, clearly the rational choice to live as if God exists is the best of the possible choices. Pascal even suggested that some may not, at the time, have the ability to believe in God. In such a case, one should live as if they had faith anyway. Perhaps living as if one had faith may lead one to actually come to faith.
Now there have been criticisms over the years from various camps. For example, there is the argument from inconsistent revelations. This argument critiques Pascal's Wager on the basis that there is no reason to limit the choices to the Christian God. Seeing as there have been many religions throughout human history, there can be many potential gods. Another critique comes from atheist circles. Richard Dawkins postulated the possibility of a god that might reward honest disbelief and punish blind or feigned faith.
Be that as it may, what should concern us is whether or not Pascal's Wager can be squared with Scripture. The Wager fails on a number of counts. First and foremost, it doesn’t take into account the apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 1 that the knowledge of God is evident to all so that we are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20). Reason alone can bring us to the knowledge of God’s existence. It will be an incomplete knowledge of God, but it is the knowledge of God nonetheless. Furthermore, the knowledge of God is enough to render us all without excuse before God’s judgment. We are all under God’s wrath for suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness.
Secondly, there is no mention of the cost involved in following Jesus. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus twice warns us to count the costs of becoming His disciple (Luke 9:57-62; 14:25-33). There is a cost to following Jesus, and it is not an easy price to pay. Jesus told His disciples that they would have to lose their lives in order to save them (Matthew 10:39). Following Jesus brings with it the hatred of the world (John 15:19). Pascal's Wager makes no mention of any of this. As such, it reduces faith in Christ to mere credulity.
Thirdly, it completely misrepresents the depravity of human nature. The natural man—one who has not been born again by the Holy Spirit (John 3:3)—cannot be persuaded to a saving faith in Jesus Christ by a cost-benefit analysis such as Pascal's Wager. Faith is a result of being born again and that is a divine work of the Holy Spirit. This is not to say that one cannot assent to the facts of the gospel or even be outwardly obedient to the law of God. One of the points from Jesus’ parable of the soils (Matthew 13) is that false conversions are going to be a fact of life until the time Christ returns. However, the sign of true saving faith is the fruit it produces (Matthew 7:16-20). Paul makes the argument that the natural man cannot understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). Why? Because they are spiritually discerned. Pascal's Wager makes no mention of the necessary preliminary work of the Spirit to come to the knowledge of saving faith.
Fourth and finally, as an apologetic/evangelistic tool (which is what the Wager was intended to be), it seems focused on a risk/reward outlook, which is not consistent to a true saving faith relationship in Christ. Jesus placed obedience to His commands as an evidence of love for Christ (John 14:23). According to Pascal's Wager, one is choosing to believe and obey God on the basis of receiving heaven as a reward. This is not to diminish the fact that heaven is a reward and that it is something we should hope for and desire. But if our obedience is solely, or primarily, motivated by wanting to get into heaven and avoid hell, then faith and obedience become a means of achieving what we want rather than the result of a heart that has been reborn in Christ and expresses faith and obedience out of love of Christ.
In conclusion, Pascal's Wager, while an interesting piece of philosophical thought, should have no place in a Christian’s evangelistic and apologetic repertoire. Christians are to share and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, which alone is the “power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).
http://www.gotquestions.org/Pascals-wager.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions about God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does God exist?
Who is God?
Is there an argument for the existence of God?
Is God real?
Is God dead?
What are the attributes of God? What is God like?
What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?
Can monotheism be proven?
What is Theology Proper / Paterology?
Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?
Did God create evil?
Why does God allow the innocent to suffer?
Does God love everyone or just Christians?
Is God sovereign, or do we have a free will?
What are the different names of God, and what do they mean?
Where was God on September 11th?
Why doesn't God still perform miracles like He did in the Bible?
Does God hear / answer the prayers of a sinner / unbeliever?
Why does God love us?
Why was God so evident in the Bible and seems so hidden today?
Does God punish us when we sin?
Why is God a jealous God?
Who created God? Where did God come from?
How do I get the image of God as imposing and angry out of my mind?
Does God change His mind?
Has anyone ever seen God?
What does it mean to fear God?
Is it wrong to question God?
Is there anything God can't do?
Does God have a sense of humor?
Why is God so different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Testament?
Is God / the Bible sexist?
Why does God demand, seek, or request that we worship Him?
Is God fair?
Why did God command the extermination of the Canaanites?
Is God male or female?
What is YHWH? What is the tetragrammaton?
Does God make mistakes?
What does God look like?
Why does God allow sickness?
What does it mean that God is love?
Why does God create people when He knows they are going to go to hell?
Why does God allow evil men like Hitler and Saddam to come into power?
Does God tempt us to sin? What about Abraham in Genesis chapter 22?
What is deism? What do deists believe?
Does God still speak to us today?
Why does God allow natural disasters, i.e. earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis?
What was God doing before He created the universe?
What is God's will?
What is the immutability of God?
Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?
Why does God refer to Himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22?
Why does God require faith?
Does God help those who help themselves?
Why does God allow birth defects?
Why does Scripture emphasize the right hand of God?
Does God have a physical body?
Can God sin? If God cannot sin, is He truly omnipotent?
What does it mean that God is infinite?
Why does God allow evil?
Where is God now? Where is God when it hurts?
Is it sometimes God's will for believers to be sick?
What is the key to truly knowing God?
How is belief in God any different from belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Why won't God heal amputees?
Is God cruel?
Is God imaginary?
Why did God allow the Holocaust?
What does it mean to find God?
What is the glory of God?
What is the Godhead?
Does God hate? If God is love, how can He hate?
If God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin, why did He create them?
Is God evil?
What do LORD, GOD, Lord, God, etc., stand for in the Bible? Why are they used in place of God's name?
Why does God allow good things to happen to bad people?
Is it wrong to be angry with God?
Is it wrong to feel disappointment with God?
Is it wrong to be frustrated with God?
Why is seeking God important?
How should I understand the concept of the Father God?
What does it mean that God is a God of justice?
What does it mean that God is Almighty?
What does it mean that God is the Ancient of Days?
What is God's relationship to time?
What does it mean that God is eternal?
Is God's love conditional or unconditional?
What is the biblical understanding of the wrath of God?
What does it mean that God is omniscient?
What does it mean that God is omnipresent?
What does it mean that God is omnipotent?
What does it mean that God is transcendent?
Does God love Satan?
http://www.gotquestions.org/questions_God.html
Answer: The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “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” (Romans 1:20).
People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace. Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved us and changed our lives that we cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing.
Recommended Resource: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is the Cosmological argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The cosmological argument derives its title from observing the world around us (the cosmos). It begins with what is most obvious in reality: things exist. It is then argued that the cause of those things’ existence had to be a "God-type" thing. These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since. Besides being philosophically evident, science finally caught up with theologians in the 20th century when it was confirmed that the universe had to have had a beginning. So, today, the arguments are even powerful for non-philosophers. There are two basic forms of these arguments, and the easiest way to think of them might be what are called the "vertical" and the "horizontal" forms. These titles indicate the direction from which the causes come. In the vertical form, it is argued that every created thing is being caused right now (imagine a timeline with an arrow pointing up from the universe to God). The horizontal version shows that creation had to have a cause in the beginning (imagine that same timeline only with an arrow pointing backward to a beginning point in time).
The horizontal is a little easier to understand because it does not require much in the way of philosophy to grasp. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. The universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not solve the problem. This is because those other things had to have causes, too, and this cannot go on forever. Why not? Let's take a simple example: trees. All trees began to exist at some point (for they have not always existed). Each tree had its beginning in a seed (the "cause" of the tree). But every seed had its beginning ("cause") in another tree. See where this is going? You can't have an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed because no series is infinite—it cannot go on forever. All series are finite (limited) by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number because even the number series is limited (although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number). If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings actually—at the end and at the beginning (if you don't see why this is true, try to imagine a one ended stick!). But if there were no first cause, the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore, there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause—one that had no beginning. This first cause is God.
The vertical form is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful because not only does it show that God had to cause the "chain of causes" in the beginning, He must still be causing things to exist right now. Once again, we begin by noting that things exist. Second, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of "own"—that once something is created, existence is just part of what it is—this is not the case. Consider a simple example of the triangle. We can define the nature of a triangle as "the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments." Notice what is not part of this definition: existence.
This definition would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore, a triangle's nature—what it is—does not guarantee that one exists (like unicorns—we know what they are, but that does not make them exist). Because it is not part of a triangle's nature to exist, triangles must be made to exist by something else that already exists (such as I drawing one on a piece of paper). But it also does not exist simply because of what I am. So, I have to be given existence as well. This cannot go on forever (no infinite series, remember?). Therefore, something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence. Now apply this example to everything in the universe. Does any of it exist on its own? No. So, not only did the universe have to have a first cause to get started; it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This thing would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, be infinite . . . sound familiar? It should! It is God!
http://www.gotquestions.org/cosmological-argument.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.
Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is yes it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.
To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”
In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:
1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.
So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.
Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” This being the case, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.
Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:
• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?
To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.
Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.
Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:
• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”
But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).v • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).
One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.
Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.
This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist and that such a place is an awfully long time to be wrong. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”
So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13 NAS).
http://www.gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is the transcendental argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The transcendental argument for the existence of God is the argument which attempts to prove God’s existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose the Christian worldview and that God’s transcendent character is the source of logic and morals. The transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that without the existence of God it is impossible to prove anything because, in the atheistic world, you cannot justify or account for universal laws.
Deductive reason presupposes the laws of logic. But why do the laws of logic hold? For the Christian, there is a transcendent standard for reasoning. As the laws of logic are reduced to being materialistic entities, they cease to possess their law-like character. But the laws of logic are not comprised of matter; they apply universally and at all times. The laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature and are necessary for deductive reasoning. The invariability, sovereignty, transcendence, and immateriality of God are the foundation for the laws of logic. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.
The atheist might respond “Well, I can use the laws of logic and I am an atheist.” But this argument is illogical. Logical reasoning requires the existence of a transcendent and immaterial God, not a profession of belief in Him. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview his reasoning cannot rationally be accounted for.
If the laws of logic are merely man-made contentions, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic. In that case, the laws of logic would not be universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if the laws of logic were conventional, because the two parties could simply adopt different laws of logic. Each would be correct according to his own arbitrary standard.
If the atheist argues that the laws of logic are simply the product of electro-chemical impulses in the brain, then the laws of logic cannot be regarded as universal. What happens inside your brain cannot be regarded as a law for it does not necessarily correspond to what happens in another person’s brain. In other words, we could not argue that logical contradictions cannot occur in a distant galaxy, distinct from conscious observers.
One common response is “We can use the laws of logic because they have been observed to work.” However, this is to miss the point. All are agreed that the laws of logic work, but they work because they are true. The real issue is, how can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? Why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? Moreover, the appeal to the past to make such deductions concerning the way matter will behave in the future—from the materialistic point of view—is circular. Indeed, in the past, matter has conformed to uniformity. But how can one know that uniformity will persist in the future unless one has already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? To use one’s past experience as a premise upon which to build one’s expectations for the future is to presuppose uniformity and logic. Thus, when the atheist claims to believe that there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he is trying to simply justify uniformity by presupposing uniformity, which is to argue in a circle.
To conclude, the transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that atheism is self-refuting because the atheist must presuppose the opposite of what he is attempting to prove in order to prove anything. It argues that rationality and logic make sense only within a Christian theistic framework. Atheists have access to the laws of logic, but they have no foundation upon which to base their deductive reason within their own paradigm.
http://www.gotquestions.org/transcendental-argument.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is the Ontological argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The ontological argument is an argument based not on observation of the world (like the cosmological and teleological arguments) but rather from reason alone. Specifically, the ontological argument reasons from the study of being (ontology). The first and most popular form goes back to St. Anselm in the 11th century A.D. He begins with stating that the concept of God is "a being than which no greater can be conceived." Since existence is possible, and to exist is greater than to not exist, then God must exist (if God did not exist, then a greater being could be conceived, but that is self defeating—you can't have something greater than that which no greater can be conceived!). Therefore, God must exist. Descartes did much the same thing only starting from the idea of a perfect being.
Atheist extraordinaire Bertrand Russell said that it is much easier to say that the ontological argument is no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with it! However, ontological arguments are not terribly popular in most Christian circles these days. First, they seem to beg the question as to what God is like. Second, subjective appeal is low for non-believers as these arguments tend to lack hard objective support. Third, it is difficult to simply state that something must exist by definition. Without good philosophical support for why a thing must exist, simply defining something into existence is not good philosophy (like stating that unicorns are magical, single-horned horses that exist). These problems notwithstanding, several prominent philosophers today continue to work on this more unusual form of theological argument.
http://www.gotquestions.org/ontological-argument.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is the Teleological argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The word teleology comes from telos which means "purpose" or "goal." The idea is that it takes a "purposer" to have purpose, and so where we see things obviously intended for a purpose, something had to have caused it for a reason. In other words, design implies a designer. We instinctively do this all the time. The difference between the Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore is obvious—one is designed, one is not. The Grand Canyon was clearly formed by non-rational, natural processes, whereas Mount Rushmore was clearly created by an intelligent being—a designer. When we are walking down the beach and see a watch we do not assume that time and random chance produced it from blowing sand. Why? Because it has the clear marks of design—it has a purpose, it conveys information, it is specifically complex, etc. In no scientific field is design considered to be spontaneous; it always implies a designer, and the greater the design, the greater the designer. Thus, taking the assumptions of science, the universe would require a designer beyond itself (i.e. supernatural).
The teleological argument applies this criteria to the whole universe. If designs imply a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was created. Clearly, every life form in earth's history has been highly complex. A single strand of DNA equates to one volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The human brain is approximately 10 billion gigabytes in capacity. Besides living things here on earth, the whole universe seems designed for life. Literally hundreds of conditions are required for life on earth—everything from the mass density of the universe down to earthquake activity must be fine-tuned in order for life to survive. The random chance of all these things occurring is literally beyond imagination. The odds are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of atomic particles in the whole universe! With this much design, it is difficult to believe that we just got lucky. In fact, top atheist philosopher Antony Flew's recent conversion to theism was based largely on this argument.
In addition to being used to demonstrate God's existence, the teleological argument also exposes shortcomings in the theory of evolution. The Intelligent Design movement in science applies information theory to life systems and shows that chance cannot even begin to explain its complexity. In fact, even single-celled bacteria are so complex that without all of their parts working together at the same time they would have no survival potential. That means those parts could not have developed by chance. Darwin recognized that this might be a problem someday just by looking at the human eye. Little did he know that even single-celled creatures have too much complexity to explain without a creator!
http://www.gotquestions.org/teleological-argument.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is the Moral argument for the existence of God?"
Answer: The moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God.
In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.
To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.
http://www.gotquestions.org/moral-argument.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "Is God imaginary?"
Answer: Godisimaginary.com is not the first to claim that God is imaginary. In an article entitled “Theology and Falsification” written many years ago, Anthony Flew, one of the twentieth century’s most outspoken atheists wrote,
Two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.” So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. . . . Yet still the believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, who comes secretly to look after the garden he loves.” At last the Skeptic despairs. “But what remains of the original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”
Following Flew’s thoughts from decades ago, the web site godisimaginary.com provides what it believes are 50 “proofs” that God does not exist – that He is nothing more than an imaginary gardener, a superstition, a myth. The site claims, “Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists. If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's 'God,' nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists.”
Actually, when a person thinks as a rational person and tosses away any preconceived bias and baggage that’s held, one must disagree with the site’s assertions and instead reach the conclusion that God does indeed exist.
Addressing each of the 50 points is unnecessary as it doesn’t matter if the site had 50,000 “proof” points against God; all one needs to do is use a logical, rational, and reasonable argument to show that God does indeed exist and every point becomes irrelevant. It is telling and interesting that godisimaginary.com focuses so much of its time on red herrings of issues with prayer and why God won’t do tricks upon request, and ignores the primary question of philosophy and religion: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” In other words, like Flew, the site concentrates on issues with a gardener they believe to be imaginary and ignores the question of why a garden exists in the first place.
The only place on the site where a possible answer to this question is offered is “proof” point 47. Complexity, says the site, could only arise from either Nature itself or a Creator. “Proof” point 47 then states, “The advantage of the first option is that it is self-contained. The complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.”
This assertion and conclusion is flawed as they have proposed two explanations and then bundle a third option into the solution they like – spontaneous generation with an eternal universe. An eternal universe is, initially, a logical option but not spontaneous generation, which is a scientific term for something coming from nothing or self-creation, which is an analytically false statement – that is, a statement that shows itself to be false by definition. A fundamental law of science is ex nihilo nihil fit – out of nothing, nothing comes. And as Aristotle said, “Nothing is what rocks dream about.” The web site derides Christians for believing in magic, yet it embraces greater magic than anything found in the Bible – life just appearing out of nothing from non-life with no cause.
Next, their argument ignores the basic laws of causality – an effect must resemble its cause. How can an impersonal, meaningless, purposeless, amoral universe accidentally create beings who are full of personality and obsessed with meaning, purpose, and morality? It can’t. Further, intelligence doesn’t arise from non-intelligence, which is why even Richard Dawkins (noted atheist) and Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) admit that intelligence had to engineer DNA and life on earth – they just say it was a superior alien race who seeded the earth, which of course, begs the question of who engineered that superior alien race. Godisimaginary.com claims, “No intelligence is required to encode DNA,” but refuting this statement is the very co-discoverer of DNA himself – Francis Crick – who admits there is no way for DNA to have arisen apart from intelligence.
But what of evolution? Doesn’t evolution explain life and intelligence? Not at all. Evolution is a biological process that attempts to describe change in already existing life forms – it has no way to answer the question of existence. This one piece of evidence alone began to turn Anthony Flew away from atheism.
These facts being evident, it then becomes quite easy to offer a simple, reasonable, logical proof for God in the following way:
1. Something exists
2. You don’t get something from nothing
3. Therefore, something necessary and eternal exists
4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
5. Science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe
6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists
The only premise that can be attacked is premise five, but the fact is every drop of evidence in the possession of science points to the fact that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. And everything that has a beginning has a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Any fanciful assertions of collapsing universes, imaginary time, and the like are just that – fanciful – and require more faith to than to believe in God. The two choices are simple – matter before mind or mind before matter – and it is interesting that this web site claims it is their intelligence that causes them to choose the former over the latter.
“But who created God?” the site asks. Why not ask, “Where is the bachelor’s wife?” or “What does the color blue taste like?” It’s a category mistake – you don’t make the unmade. Further, why sit back comfortably and believe in an unmade universe and yet angrily bristle at the notion of an unmade Creator? Could it be because mindless matter cannot call human beings into moral account whereas a personal God can? Finally, is it more reasonable to embrace a cause that contains none of the characteristics of its effect (personality, love, meaning, purpose, etc.) or a cause that embodies them all (a personal God)? The site claims, “In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is imaginary,” but in reality, logic, reason, and evidence disprove their position and point in the absolute other direction.
The conclusion is that a personal Creator exists. Moreover, this Being who created everything mirrors the God described in the Bible quite well as evidenced by what one can infer just from the fact of creation alone:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent, because there is no infinite regress of causes).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal can’t create personality).
• He must be necessary as everything else depends on Him.
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
The Judeo-Christian God perfectly fits this profile. At this point, all 50 “proofs” on the web site become irrelevant – God exists; therefore, all points offered on the site are incorrect in the final conclusion that they collectively try to reach. Wondering why God won’t cure all the cancer in the world because a group of Christians prayed for it, pointing out the divorce rate among Christians, scoffing because God doesn’t create money for churches out of thin air, wondering why Jesus never moved a physical mountain, asserting a false dichotomy that says a person must be a person of facts or of faith (many brilliant scientists believe in God), making unprovable claims that Jesus never did a concrete miracle, and erroneously stating that the Bible “advocates” senseless murder, slavery, and oppression of women - all end up being impotent in light of the conclusion that a creator God exists.
Answering such objections – if they are genuine and not extended in a way that refuses to believe even if reasoned responses are given – requires only the disciplined study of Scripture alongside the Spirit of God who inspired it. Arguments with those who possess a hardened skeptical spirit are to be avoided as 1 Timothy 6:20 says, “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge.'” But even still, God is fully capable of using His powerful general revelation (the creation) to witness to those who appear completely lost due to a skeptical and hardened heart.
In stark contrast to the article he'd written many years earlier, in 2007, Anthony Flew wrote a much different kind of book entitled There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. In it, he recounts his atheism and relays how he now, because of evidence and reason, believes that a creator God exists. The one who initially posited an “imaginary gardener” now says, “I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.” This being the case, one thing is certain – the 50 frail attempts on godisimaginary.com to prove that God is imaginary fall far short of even causing a nick on the armor of evidence that opposes them.
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-imaginary.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "Is God a delusion?"
Answer: Richard Dawkins is the world’s chief apostle for atheism and has been Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University since 1996. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, he labels God and belief in God as delusions. Dawkins is a gifted writer, and his position at the leading university in the English-speaking world gives him great prestige in intellectual, cultural, and political circles. His atheism is fierce. The jacket of The God Delusion calls the God of the Old Testament “a sex-obsessed tyrant” and the deistic god of the 18th century Enlightenment a “more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker.” Belief in God, says Dawkins, subverts science and knowledge, breeds ignorance, foments bigotry, and abuses children. All this happens for the simple reason that God is a delusion. Not only are “fundamentalists” unintelligent for “know[ing] they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book,” but even moderation in faith, says Dawkins, “fosters fanaticism.”
There are plenty of intelligent answers to Dawkins’ contentions about life, history, science, ethics, and God, as well as to his general crusade against all things religious and, particularly, all things Christian. But what does the Bible say about people like Dawkins and the arguments he proposes? The Bible is just as firm as Dawkins in its assertions about God and man. Psalm 14:1-3, for example, says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Fools who deny the existence of God are corrupt and vile, and so are their deeds. Because their understanding is also corrupt, “they do not seek after God.” Note that the Bible and Dawkins are directly opposed to one another. Dawkins says there is no God, and people who believe in Him do terrible things. The Bible says there is a God, and it is rather the people who deny Him who do terrible things. Further, the apostle Paul declares that the reason people who deny God can gain and maintain such large followings, as Dawkins has, is that the human race in general is lost in sin and self-delusion and seek after those whose rhetoric reflects the same. Those who deny God follow eagerly after Dawkins and his ilk because they have hatred for God in common (2 Timothy 4:3).
The Bible sees the denial of God as the true delusion, and this delusion extends to the atheist’s view of humanity as “good,” all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. A sober assessment of human beings recognizes that we lie, cheat, steal, lust, complain, become embittered and resentful, envy, hate, forget, and are careless, ruthless, disrespectful, and loveless. Not only do we do all these things on a daily and hourly basis, but we do them naturally from our birth. This is what God’s Word means when it says, “There is no one who does good” (Psalm 14:3). This does not mean we never do anything positive, like obeying our parents or giving money to a church or charity. It means that we are so obviously sinful that it is silly to call human beings “good.” Nobody teaches children to lie; they do it naturally. Nobody teaches teenage boys to lust; they do it naturally. Nobody teaches the employee to resent his boss or spread malicious gossip about the coworker with whom he is competing for a promotion; he does these things naturally. Nobody teaches the wife to unjustly criticize and complain about her husband, or the husband to neglect and condescend to his wife; both do these things naturally. Yet in the sixth chapter of The God Delusion, entitled “The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good?”, Dawkins explains why human beings are good—based on nothing more than his own opinion—despite the fact that there is no God who defines what is good. Again, Dawkins not only directly opposes the Bible’s teaching but he denies what is obvious to even the most casual observer of human nature and behavior.
At the same time, Dawkins titles his ninth chapter “Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion.” There he reports replying to a question about clergy sexual abuse by saying, “Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place” (p. 317). Human beings are good, says Dawkins, and even the sexual abuse they perpetrate is better than a religion which tells them they are not good. How he explains the desire for “good” men—priests or otherwise—to abuse children sexually in the first place is a mystery. The Bible, however, does explain it. Men do evil because their hearts are evil (Matthew 12:35), and unless they are made new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), they will continue to do evil because it is their natural inclination.
The apostle Paul explains the function of law (to convict of sin) and the salvation from sin—that has come to the world in Jesus Christ. “But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?...There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God” (Romans 3:5-6, 10-11). The Bible here is saying that it is not the psychological abuse we suffer from religion that makes human beings, including some pastors and priests, do evil things like abuse children. Rather, it is our inherent sin nature that makes us do these things, and it is our insufficient attention to God, to Jesus, to Christian truth, and to the Bible’s teaching that causes this behavior to continue even where religious activity and institutions are present. It is not that the idea of God has caused us psychological damage; it is that we are born psychologically damaged, with a natural inclination toward what is evil, and we ignore and reject God, who is the only source of salvation from our sin and psychological damage. Even though we may intellectually accept the idea of God’s existence, when we ignore Him and reject His Word, we are as good as saying He is a delusion.
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “delusion” as follows: “Something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also, the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.” The last clause is significant: intellectual and moral delusion have permanent effects on the mind and heart. Believing lies causes the mind to begin to operate abnormally and to exist in a state that is not healthy and perhaps even dangerous, both for itself and for others. This is what the Bible calls “sin,” and a core element of our sin is our delusion that God does not exist.
It should be stated clearly here, given how often atheism presents and promotes itself under the banner of science, that science is not to blame for atheism or any other symptom of human sinfulness. In fact, many great scientists of the past were Christians, believing Jesus Christ to be the representative of God on earth, the same God who made the heavens and the earth and established the laws by which the natural world operates and which scientists investigate. Most of the "giants" of modern science and most founders of hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, and every other kind of charity that has humanized and softened a world made inhumane and hard by human sinfulness, were Christians. They pursued rational understanding of the cosmos because they believed God, who has a mind, had created the cosmos according to the principles of rational and mathematical operation that govern the human mind, which is designed in the image of God’s mind.
Belief in God is thus no delusion. It is inherently and fundamentally rational. It is the source of true wisdom regarding why human beings do evil things so often and so naturally, why we can work so hard to be good and still fail, and why Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ is the spiritual hope for mankind. It also explains why people who believe in Jesus Christ have done so much not only to remedy the effects in this world of human sin, but to scientifically understand this world and to organize and publish the principles of science.
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-delusion.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: "Is God evil?"
Answer: The web site evilbible.com endeavors to do two things: (1) demonstrate that the Bible is not the Word of God, but instead is only a book written by “evil” men, and (2) disprove the God of Christianity. The arsenal it attempts to use to prove its assertions is one common to many other atheist web sites and publications. Supposed Bible contradictions are put on display, atrocities and immoral practices that are recorded within the pages of the Bible are referenced, and various philosophical and moral arguments are used to assert that the God of the Bible is an impossibility or at best not a God to be worshipped.
While a number of these specific argumnts will be addressed in the sections that follow, certain topics on the evilbible.com web site that have already been thoroughly tackled on Gotquestions.org (e.g., slavery) will not be covered, but anyone wishing more information on those subjects is encouraged to review the material that already exists and which sufficiently answers evilbible.com’s charges in those areas. Instead, the focus of this article will be the three broad problems that cause nearly all (or perhaps all) of evilbible.com’s arguments to fail:
• A misunderstanding of God’s Word
• A misunderstanding of God’s character
• A misunderstanding of God’s creation
Let’s now review each of these issues and cite specific examples from evilbible.com’s web site that illustrate how and why their assertions against the Bible and God are false.
Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Word
The first problem area for evilbible.com is a misunderstanding of God’s Word. In its efforts to attack the Bible, the evilbible.com web site makes two key assertions: 1) the Bible is full of horrible atrocities, and 2) the Bible is full of contradictions. As to the first point, evilbible.com is absolutely correct—the Bible is indeed full of atrocities and immoral behavior. From start to finish, the Bible records many terrible things, with the worst being the premeditated murder of the innocent and perfect Son of God. But where evilbible.com’s argument in this area falls flat is that they fail to understand that the Bible does not approve of everything it records. This is absolutely crucial to understand. For example, in Judges chapters 19 and 20, the Bible records the brutal rape and murder of a young woman who was a Levite’s concubine. Moreover, the actions of the Levite are less than honorable, and the crime results in a vicious civil war within the nation of Israel. But a careful reading of the text will show no approval of the actions that took place, and no commendation from God for the Levite’s behavior. So evilbible.com’s argument that atrocities being recorded in Scripture prove that it isn’t God’s Word simply does not hold up.
Another argument in this same vein on the evilbible.com web site focuses on the command of God for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Obviously, they claim, since God initiated this request, and human sacrifice is abhorrent, surely this proves the Bible is not anything produced by a loving and good God. But where evilbible.com’s argument in this area fails is that the web site’s writers don’t understand that God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him; the story is a powerful narrative typology of God Himself sacrificing His own Son Jesus for the sins of mankind. And whereas Abraham was stopped by God from going through with his act, God Himself did not stay His own hand when it came to His Son, and the end result was salvation for all who would believe in Him.
With regard to point number two above, evilbible.com lists a number of supposed contradictions in the Bible they use to assert that the Bible is not inerrant but is instead a fallibly written book. When it comes to assertions of biblical contradictions, it should be noted that a number of good books on this subject address nearly every one (if not all) of evilbible.com’s claims. Second, it should not come as a surprise that non-Christians trip over the issues that evilbible.com brings to the table. The Bible is a spiritual book, and while it exhibits what is called perspicuity (clarity of expression) in regard to its core teachings, there are spiritual significance and lessons for much of what the Bible speaks about, and only those who have been quickened by God’s Spirit will arrive at their true meanings (1 Corinthians 2:14). For example, Leviticus 19:19 says, "Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." Critics look at this obscure Old Testament passage, laugh, and reach the conclusion that God doesn’t want people to wear wool and polyester blends. However, in this case God was using physical things to act as reminders of spiritual principles. He was telling Israel not to mix their pure religion with the pagan religions that literally surrounded them; they were not to be syncretistic, but instead they were to be devoted to the one true God and not assimilate other pagan teachings.
Spiritual lessons such as the above are found in a number of errors that evilbible.com makes. For example they argue for the following set of contradictions:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven... earth... [or] water. - Leviticus 26:11
And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them. - Exodus 25:18
First, it should be noted that evilbible.com does not reference the proper book/chapter/verse in the first quote – it is actually Exodus 20:4. That error aside, their argument fails because they quote the verse out of context; if one continues reading the next verse, the true reason for the prohibition is given: “You shall not worship them or serve them.” The command of God to not make images concerned objects of worship, not objects used for decorative or educational purposes as Exodus 25:18 records.
Another example of a supposed contradiction argued by evilbible.com in the New Testament is the following:
For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works. - Ephesians 2:8-9
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. - James 2:24
Again, evilbible.com should not really be faulted for not understanding these two verses clearly; they are spiritual two sides to one coin. The Bible makes it clear that Christians are saved by faith alone. But the Bible also makes it clear that faith in the life of a true Christian is always evidenced by good works. Good works are not the means of salvation; they are the evidence and the proof of salvation. So to put them together in one sentence: Christians are saved by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), but the faith that saves is not alone (James 2:24). True faith will always manifest good works; faith which does not evidence good works is a dead faith which cannot save (James 2:26). This principle is viewed elsewhere in Scripture, for example by Jesus, who referenced the fact that good trees bear good fruit, but bad trees yield bad fruit (Matthew 7:17).
To summarize, we can see that evilbible.com’s claims of atrocities and contradictions in God’s Word simply do not hold water. There have always been critics who claim the Bible is wrong. For example, many used to maintain that the reigns and times of the Israelite kings were recorded in error (e.g., Joram-Jehoram), but then came Dr. Edwin Thiele’s book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, which proved that they are indeed correct. In the end, the Bible always survives the challenges leveled against it.
Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Character
The second problem is that evilbible.com suffers from a misunderstanding of God’s character. The web site routinely speaks of God as a tyrant and an unabashed killer. Evilbible.com takes the position of Socrates who once said that it is better to suffer injustice than to do it, better to be the victim than the perpetrator. Apparently the site’s writers would be more comfortable with God if He were a victim rather than a sovereign. In making such assertions, evilbible.com also follows the lead of atheist Robert Wilson who wrote, “The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer.” In addition, evilbible.com charges that God is the creator of evil and wickedness, and therefore asserts that God cannot be the holy and righteous deity described in the Bible. In theology, this is the problem of theodicy, which is the branch of theology that vindicates God’s divine attributes (particularly holiness and justice) in the face of the existence of physical and moral evil.
With respect to the first assertion—that God is a tyrannical murderer of the innocent—evilbible.com displays a gross misunderstanding of history, which compounds their misunderstanding of God’s character. Referencing Old Testament accounts of God imposing judgment on various cultures and peoples, evilbible.com says:
“The people slaughtered in the Old Testament were almost uniformly blameless (with a few exceptions, of course for instance, the Sodomites violated the conventions of hospitality.)”
It is interesting to note that this absurd statement—that the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality, a position straight out the homosexual activists’ handbook—is completely illogical. The statement asserts that God was justified in “slaughtering” the people of Sodom because they were inhospitable. Yet they go on to claim He was not justified in punishing cultures who practiced true wickedness. And when, incidentally, has anyone who displayed a lack of hospitality ever been referred to as a Sodomite? The sin of Sodom was gross immorality and violent homosexuality, as Genesis 19 accurately records.
The claim that those God punished were “uniformly blameless” is completely without merit and historically inaccurate. The Bible records the exact opposite about the peoples whom God acted upon in judgment. A few examples include:
“After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, ‘The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.’ No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Deuteronomy 9:4-5, emphasis added).
“Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 18:12-13, emphasis added).
"Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants" (Leviticus 18:24-25, emphasis added).
Evilbible.com overlooks the historical evidences that these nations and cultures practiced the very things that evilbible.com decries as morally reprehensible. As just one example, the Assyrians who inhabited Nineveh during the time of Jonah were an incredibly barbaric and cruel people. When archaeologists uncovered Nineveh, the TV specials produced from their work had to be filtered because the evidence of brutality was so great. The discoveries unearthed facts such as how the Assyrians used to slowly impale their victims by sliding them down sharp poles, and that they also made handbags from their victim’s skins. In a stone pillar found at Nineveh, one Assyrian ruler boasted of “nobles I flayed” and “three thousand captives I burned with fire. I left not one hostage alive. I cut off the hands and feet of some. I cut off the noses, ears and fingers of others. The eyes of numerous soldiers I put out. Maidens I burned as a holocaust.” Such things certainly speak against evilbible.com’s claims that the people who fell under God’s judgment were innocent. Other examples include the inhabitants of Jericho who history has shown practiced child sacrifice, cultic prostitution, and much more.
Evilbible.com also overlooks the patience of God in dealing with such people. God always waited for the nations who ultimately experienced judgment to turn from their despicable ways and always warned them of the judgment that was coming. The book of Jonah describes God’s patience with the Ninevites, who finally did turn from their evil ways and avoided destruction. Other peoples and cultures could have repented of their sins, but they chose not to. As an example, the people of Amalek (described in 1 Samuel) routinely attempted to commit genocide against Israel, but were given 400 years by God to repent. But Amalek continued to commit their atrocities against Israel and so God judged them via Saul and the Israeli army.
Evilbible.com does not stop to consider that if one were to catapult the practices, genocide, and barbarism of these cultures/peoples into the 21st century and broadcast it around the world via CNN, there would most certainly be a global outcry for severe military action and punishment. And if modern, “enlightened” man would call for such severe judgment against such atrocities, why should evilbible.com criticize God for carrying out the same thing?
Lastly, in regard to evilbible.com’s claim that God is creator of evil, they present the following rationale and verse from the King James Version to support their position:
“God Is The Creator Of Evil: Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that God is indeed the creator of evil. Please read verse Isaiah 45:7. ‘I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things.” The Christian God outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil. So how can he then claim to be sinless?”
In evilbible.com’s defense, the verse from Isaiah 45:7 has been misunderstood by many people, primarily because of a poor translation in the King James Bible (and ASV). Parts of the book of Isaiah are of the poetry genre, and there is a literary technique used at times in Hebrew poetry called antithetical parallelism which sets two thoughts in complete contrast to one another, which is exactly what is happening in Isaiah 45:7. For example, if you were asked what the opposition of “light” is, you would likely respond “darkness,” which is what Isaiah 45:7 says. But if you were asked what the opposite of “peace” is, would you respond “evil”? No, you likely wouldn’t. This is why nearly all other translations of this verse (including the New King James Version) translate the word “calamity” or something similar, as that is what the antithetical structure of the verse mandates. God does not bring moral evil upon anyone, but He does bring about calamity and disaster upon those who oppose Him, but such a thing does not make Him evil; it makes Him a just and righteous God.
So, in the end, the above examples (and others present on the web site) show how a misunderstanding of history and wrong biblical interpretation lead to the wrong conclusion about God’s character.
Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Creation
The last broad issue found on the evilbible.com web site is a misunderstanding of God’s creation, which manifests itself most in the problem of evilbible.com borrowing from the Christian moral worldview to carry out its arguments against God and the Bible instead of using its own atheistic foundation. In essence, evilbible.com invokes a Christian framework to deny the Christian God, a technique that is irrational and disingenuous, to say the least. For example, evilbible.com declares:
“It violates my morality to worship a hypocritical, judgmental, self righteous murderer.”
Here’s the problem with making such a statement: without God, evilbible.com has no real foundation for the morality it claims, no moral framework from which to attack God. Why is this the case? Because before a person can call something bad (as evilbible.com does God and the Bible), a person must know what good is. But before a person can call something good, he must have a moral framework to distinguish between good and bad. But before someone can have a moral framework to distinguish good and bad, he must have absolute moral laws to build that framework. But before a person can have absolute moral laws, he must have an absolute moral Lawgiver (laws don’t give themselves). Now the atheists have backed themselves into a corner, because the only absolute moral Lawgiver you can have is God. This is why intellectually honest atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, rightly understands that an atheist can’t ever call anything bad or good —the atheist foundation doesn’t support such a stance. In his book, River out of Eden, he writes, “Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA . . . life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” (emphasis added).
Since, being atheists, the writers of evilbible.com cannot be intellectually honest and use the term “evil,” they should rename their web site to something that is not prefaced with the word “evil.” All evilbible.com can assert is what atheist evolutionist William Provine calls “approximate morals,” but they can never have ethics that are globally, eternally, and universally binding upon everyone, and thus cannot call anything evil.
Another misunderstanding of God’s creation is exhibited in evilbible.com’s claim that God Himself is impossible. Evilbible.com puts forth a variety of common arguments against God, but the overall theme is that creation as we know it refutes the existence of the God described in the Bible. Here again the argument of the existence of evil is used to reject God. Evilbible.com wrongly rejects the argument of free will being the catalyst of evil (which it is/was) and mistakenly rejects the fact that, yes, there is evil in this world, but perhaps God has a good reason for permitting it. Jesus dying on the cross appeared on the surface to be the epitome of gratuitous evil, but out of that event, mankind was redeemed from the misery it finds itself in. God’s gift of freedom, and the misuse of that freedom, clearly explains the moral evil we experience. As Augustine said, “Such is the generosity of God’s goodness that He has not refrained from creating even that creature which He foreknew would not only sin, but remain in the will to sin. As a runaway horse is better than a stone which does not run away because it lacks self-movement and sense perception, so the creature is more excellent which sins by free will than that which does not sin only because it has no free will.”
Moreover, evilbible.com posits God is impossible because of supposed contradictions in His nature that do not match the world, yet they are perfectly happy to accept that an impersonal, amoral, meaningless, purposeless universe accidentally created personal beings who are obsessed with morality, meaning, and purpose in life. If, as they argue, a cause must resemble its effect, then what explanation do they give for this contradiction? Mindless matter has no way of producing mind or anything similar.
The fact is, the Being who is the cause of everything in the universe perfectly mirrors the God described in the Bible. This is evidenced by what one can infer just from the fact of creation alone:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent, because there is no infinite regress of causes).
• He must be omnipresent (he created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal can’t create personality).
• He must be necessary as everything else depends on Him.
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only a cognitive being can produce cognitive beings.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
The Judeo-Christian God perfectly fits this profile.
Is God evil? – Conclusion
A misunderstanding of God’s Word, His character, and His creation all result in the argumentation errors found on evilbible.com. A fitting summation of their stance is this statement made on their web site:
“I don’t think I could ever complete a whole list as to what I find objectionable regarding the bible.”
For certain, there are apparent difficulties that arise when one begins studying the Bible. But a person should not assume God doesn’t exist and/or the Bible is in error just because he encounters a problem in the Bible that he can’t immediately understand or explain. The scientist doesn’t throw out science just because he/she sees something in the physical world he can’t immediately explain. Neither should we do the same with theology or the study of Scripture. Misunderstandings like those committed by evilbible.com are the result of not thoroughly investigating matters or dismissing a belief based on a presupposition that is buried deep in a person’s heart or lifestyle (or both). And the danger in both cases is something Pascal warned about many years ago: “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” What self-described atheists find attractive about denying God is that they think if they deny Him, they will never have to deal with Him in any way. Sadly, they couldn’t be more wrong.
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-evil.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Question: "What is Pascal's Wager?"
Answer: Pascal's Wager is named after 17th French philosopher and mathematician, Blaise Pascal. One of Pascal’s most famous works was the Pensées (“Thoughts”), which was published posthumously in 1670. It is in this work that we find what is known as Pascal's Wager.
The gist of the wager is that, according to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose. If we live as though God exists, and He does indeed exist, we have gained heaven. If He doesn’t exist, we have lost nothing. If, on the other hand, we live as though God does not exist and He really does exist, we have gained hell and punishment and have lost heaven and bliss. If one weighs the options, clearly the rational choice to live as if God exists is the best of the possible choices. Pascal even suggested that some may not, at the time, have the ability to believe in God. In such a case, one should live as if they had faith anyway. Perhaps living as if one had faith may lead one to actually come to faith.
Now there have been criticisms over the years from various camps. For example, there is the argument from inconsistent revelations. This argument critiques Pascal's Wager on the basis that there is no reason to limit the choices to the Christian God. Seeing as there have been many religions throughout human history, there can be many potential gods. Another critique comes from atheist circles. Richard Dawkins postulated the possibility of a god that might reward honest disbelief and punish blind or feigned faith.
Be that as it may, what should concern us is whether or not Pascal's Wager can be squared with Scripture. The Wager fails on a number of counts. First and foremost, it doesn’t take into account the apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 1 that the knowledge of God is evident to all so that we are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20). Reason alone can bring us to the knowledge of God’s existence. It will be an incomplete knowledge of God, but it is the knowledge of God nonetheless. Furthermore, the knowledge of God is enough to render us all without excuse before God’s judgment. We are all under God’s wrath for suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness.
Secondly, there is no mention of the cost involved in following Jesus. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus twice warns us to count the costs of becoming His disciple (Luke 9:57-62; 14:25-33). There is a cost to following Jesus, and it is not an easy price to pay. Jesus told His disciples that they would have to lose their lives in order to save them (Matthew 10:39). Following Jesus brings with it the hatred of the world (John 15:19). Pascal's Wager makes no mention of any of this. As such, it reduces faith in Christ to mere credulity.
Thirdly, it completely misrepresents the depravity of human nature. The natural man—one who has not been born again by the Holy Spirit (John 3:3)—cannot be persuaded to a saving faith in Jesus Christ by a cost-benefit analysis such as Pascal's Wager. Faith is a result of being born again and that is a divine work of the Holy Spirit. This is not to say that one cannot assent to the facts of the gospel or even be outwardly obedient to the law of God. One of the points from Jesus’ parable of the soils (Matthew 13) is that false conversions are going to be a fact of life until the time Christ returns. However, the sign of true saving faith is the fruit it produces (Matthew 7:16-20). Paul makes the argument that the natural man cannot understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). Why? Because they are spiritually discerned. Pascal's Wager makes no mention of the necessary preliminary work of the Spirit to come to the knowledge of saving faith.
Fourth and finally, as an apologetic/evangelistic tool (which is what the Wager was intended to be), it seems focused on a risk/reward outlook, which is not consistent to a true saving faith relationship in Christ. Jesus placed obedience to His commands as an evidence of love for Christ (John 14:23). According to Pascal's Wager, one is choosing to believe and obey God on the basis of receiving heaven as a reward. This is not to diminish the fact that heaven is a reward and that it is something we should hope for and desire. But if our obedience is solely, or primarily, motivated by wanting to get into heaven and avoid hell, then faith and obedience become a means of achieving what we want rather than the result of a heart that has been reborn in Christ and expresses faith and obedience out of love of Christ.
In conclusion, Pascal's Wager, while an interesting piece of philosophical thought, should have no place in a Christian’s evangelistic and apologetic repertoire. Christians are to share and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, which alone is the “power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).
http://www.gotquestions.org/Pascals-wager.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions about God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does God exist?
Who is God?
Is there an argument for the existence of God?
Is God real?
Is God dead?
What are the attributes of God? What is God like?
What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?
Can monotheism be proven?
What is Theology Proper / Paterology?
Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?
Did God create evil?
Why does God allow the innocent to suffer?
Does God love everyone or just Christians?
Is God sovereign, or do we have a free will?
What are the different names of God, and what do they mean?
Where was God on September 11th?
Why doesn't God still perform miracles like He did in the Bible?
Does God hear / answer the prayers of a sinner / unbeliever?
Why does God love us?
Why was God so evident in the Bible and seems so hidden today?
Does God punish us when we sin?
Why is God a jealous God?
Who created God? Where did God come from?
How do I get the image of God as imposing and angry out of my mind?
Does God change His mind?
Has anyone ever seen God?
What does it mean to fear God?
Is it wrong to question God?
Is there anything God can't do?
Does God have a sense of humor?
Why is God so different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Testament?
Is God / the Bible sexist?
Why does God demand, seek, or request that we worship Him?
Is God fair?
Why did God command the extermination of the Canaanites?
Is God male or female?
What is YHWH? What is the tetragrammaton?
Does God make mistakes?
What does God look like?
Why does God allow sickness?
What does it mean that God is love?
Why does God create people when He knows they are going to go to hell?
Why does God allow evil men like Hitler and Saddam to come into power?
Does God tempt us to sin? What about Abraham in Genesis chapter 22?
What is deism? What do deists believe?
Does God still speak to us today?
Why does God allow natural disasters, i.e. earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis?
What was God doing before He created the universe?
What is God's will?
What is the immutability of God?
Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?
Why does God refer to Himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22?
Why does God require faith?
Does God help those who help themselves?
Why does God allow birth defects?
Why does Scripture emphasize the right hand of God?
Does God have a physical body?
Can God sin? If God cannot sin, is He truly omnipotent?
What does it mean that God is infinite?
Why does God allow evil?
Where is God now? Where is God when it hurts?
Is it sometimes God's will for believers to be sick?
What is the key to truly knowing God?
How is belief in God any different from belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Why won't God heal amputees?
Is God cruel?
Is God imaginary?
Why did God allow the Holocaust?
What does it mean to find God?
What is the glory of God?
What is the Godhead?
Does God hate? If God is love, how can He hate?
If God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin, why did He create them?
Is God evil?
What do LORD, GOD, Lord, God, etc., stand for in the Bible? Why are they used in place of God's name?
Why does God allow good things to happen to bad people?
Is it wrong to be angry with God?
Is it wrong to feel disappointment with God?
Is it wrong to be frustrated with God?
Why is seeking God important?
How should I understand the concept of the Father God?
What does it mean that God is a God of justice?
What does it mean that God is Almighty?
What does it mean that God is the Ancient of Days?
What is God's relationship to time?
What does it mean that God is eternal?
Is God's love conditional or unconditional?
What is the biblical understanding of the wrath of God?
What does it mean that God is omniscient?
What does it mean that God is omnipresent?
What does it mean that God is omnipotent?
What does it mean that God is transcendent?
Does God love Satan?
http://www.gotquestions.org/questions_God.html
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)