A Topic of Race in the Church

“Perhaps the longest running conversation between Blacks and Whites in America is a conversation about race.”

[Article]

Does Unbelief Take Faith

Over at another blog, an atheist says, Atheism Does Not Require Faith.

The Claim: “I can count on finding at least a few stories in either the mainstream media or various theist-generated sources claiming that atheism is a religion or that atheism requires as much faith as any religion.”

The Rebuttal: “An atheist is someone who does not accept the theistic claim (i.e., a god or gods exist). Like the "agnomist," the atheist requires no faith because he or she is not offering any sort of belief claim. In fact, it is precisely the tendency to seek evidence rather than to rely on faith that typically leads one to atheism.”

---

I left the following comment:

“Maybe the faith spoken of, is not so much that you do not believe in God, but the faith to believe in the evolution of everything from a big bang (or other choice besides God); therefore, claiming you have faith in what you believe, not in what you claim not to believe.I understand, you may claim that there is evidence and/or degrees of probability, for the big bang (or other choice besides God), but without absolutes, one is still left with making a choice that is based (whether great or small) on "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", which is the biblical definition of faith.

So, I am not sure if most are saying that an atheist is exercising faith when they deny God, but when they believe/trust/hope (or other choice word) in something else, such as the big bang, etc.

For even in atheism, one is saying, "I don't believe in that", but "I do believe in this."”

---

I believe there may be some confusion (maybe somewhat on both sides) when it comes to an issue of faith vs. unbelief. I don’t think we can actually say it takes faith to not believe in something, have it be God, “gnome[s], unicorns, fairies, Santa Claus, Odin, angels, or gods”.

The faith arises not from the denial of God as our Creator, but in the acceptance (belief/hope/trust) of something else, whether the big bang or another cause, as man’s creator (or starter of creation).

Do I believe atheists exercise faith? I sure do, just not in their denial of God. I believe, when atheists believe (by teaching, writing, saying) mankind has come from the evolutionary chain, birthed by the big bang, which still fails to hold absolute proof, it is exercising faith in "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Trying Marriage On For Size, and Canceling at Any Time

“"I think marriage is the new dating and having kids is the new marriage," she proclaims loudly, as yet another woman dining with her partner turns to stare. "It's true. I wouldn't have married him if I didn't think I could get out of it."”

A woman, named Andi in the article, somewhat seems to gloat about how she decided to get married at 27, and decided to get a divorce at 28. She decided, “Within months of promising to love and honor and cherish Tucker forever, she knew she had made a huge mistake. The problem? He was boring.” I can’t help but wonder if Tucker actually changed, or was it merely Andi that despised the ‘C’ word: commitment. As the writer notes, “I know there have been days in my own five-year marriage when I've dreamed of reclaiming my freedom.” “Reclaiming my freedom”, is pure selfishness, in direct conflict with what your commitment to God, your vows, your husband, and your family stands for.

Given statistics: “While newly-marrieds everywhere fear the one-in-two-marriages-fail statistic, the more relevant stat is that while the median age at which a woman first marries is 25, the median age at which she first divorces is 29. In fact, 20 percent of marriages fail within five years, and of those, one in four end within two years. So much for until death do us part.”

Given reasons: “Of course, our generation can afford to chuck the Cinderella story when the glass slipper doesn't fit. While our grandmothers were forced to remain shackled to unhappy unions for monetary reasons, most women today have the financial wherewithal to cry uncle and bolt whenever we get uncomfortable.”

Given ideas: “Pamela Paul, author of the book The Starter Marriage, who herself was divorced less than a year after taking her vows at age 27. "Ours is an H&M culture, where you go out and buy 10 cheap items for the season, then toss them, rather than investing in one beautiful coat you'll wear for another 10 seasons. More and more women have that throwaway mentality with their first marriage — the 'I want it now' attitude." Until, of course, you don't.”

This Andi, has apparently remarried. We ask why? Is this new guy, not boring? She notes, “Then she met David. He was supposed to be her rebound relationship. Three years later, she realized that she wanted to have kids with him — and that was the clincher.” So, are we to gather, that she will stay committed to this relationship? I guess there is no guarantee, in that she says, “"I'm happy, but I try not to think about it," she says. "It's like, if I thought I had to have my hair the same way for the rest of my life, I'd freak out."”

Commitment folks. If you don’t think you will be able to honor your commitment to God and your potential spouse, don’t make it. Maybe if we would adhere to more wisdom before dating and committing ourselves to a person (for marriage is “till death do you part”), and once we have freely done so, to earnestly contend to do that which is right, in the sight of God, we may not have so many Trying Marriage On For Size, and Canceling at Any Time.

With this lack of respect for the institution of marriage, given by God, even among professing Christians, I can’t help but wonder why homosexuals are fighting so hard to be a part of it.

Did Tolkien Visit Middle Earth?

Assumingly most have, at least heard the name, if not read, J. R. R. Tolkien’s book, The Hobbit. In his book, he speaks of a place, he calls, Middle-Earth.

But new discovers may have actually found these very hobbits, or the evolutionary trail of their linage, of which he wrote.

All this time, we merely thought his writings were of fantasy and fairy tale, but maybe Tolkien knew something the rest of us did not.

Who Then Is a Bigot?

A bigot is, “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”

Bigotry is, “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”

On a recent visit to a blog, I was reference to being a bigot, because I believe homosexuality is immoral and a sin against God.

As concerning homosexuality, the commenter wrote, “There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. In fact, criminalizing it and denying rights to homosexuals is what is immoral. If you are too bigotted to accept that, it is not the school's responsibility to make allowances for your bigotry.”

Scripture, as per Romans 1 and elsewhere, declares homosexuality is indeed a sin in the eyes of Almighty God, and therefore immoral and evil.

I completely realize that, with the above reference to Scripture, we have two choices:

1. We accept that this is indeed the Word of God, with the authority to judge our thoughts and actions righteously; therefore, we conclude that homosexuality is immoral and a sin. With this, we conclude that we are “stubborn” and “utterly intolerant” toward any idea that homosexuality is moral and acceptable behavior.

2. We deny God and/or reject this to be the Word of God, allowing it to have no authority in judging our thoughts and actions; therefore, we conclude that homosexuality is moral and not a sin. With this, we conclude that we are “stubborn” and “utterly intolerant” toward any idea that homosexuality is immoral and unacceptable behavior.

Do we not notice that both sides (Christian and Atheist) hold strict contradicting views, which are intolerant of the other? It all comes down to faith vs. unbelief, and that is where our security lies.

So, what I would like to say to the Atheist, the next time you wish to call a Christian a bigot, over the topic of homosexuality or any other, you will find that you are no less of one.

The name calling does nothing, but cause a debate/discussion to become personal. It does nothing in reaching an agreement/decision.

Seeking To Have the Next Generation Accept Homosexuality

Apparently, there has been some dismay concerning, “The State of New Jersey mandates that all school children be taught a diversity curriculum by the fourth grade”. [Article]

You may ask, what was the problem some had with the “diversity curriculum”?

The school showed a film, “That’s a Family!” which, “looks at diversity through the eyes of children who talk about their own families.” There was a topic on single parents, traditional parents, adoptive parents, divorced parents, but then they also had lesbian parents (Betty and Kim).

As Christians, we realize what Scripture says about marriage, and what it says about homosexuality. Currently, the majority of society does not see homosexuality as a moral, acceptable alternative lifestyle, which they would like to receive the same benefits and name as the moral, acceptable marriage of heterosexuals.

It should be obvious, to any honest onlooker, that the purpose of showing third (or now fourth) graders such a film, is to give them the impression that homosexuality should be, just as acceptable and equally moral as heterosexuality. It is clear, that since they are unable to force this pretence on modern society, they are reaching out to convert the children; therefore, hoping the children will one day bring the sinful act of homosexuality into the minds of the people, to be a moral and acceptable way of life.

I checked it out, and apparently, “New Jersey began issuing civil union licenses to same-sex couples in February 2007, joining Vermont and Connecticut in pioneering the marriage alternative.” This gives reason as to why the “diversity curriculum” in New Jersey would desire to include homosexuality in its teaching of “Family”.

As it has always been, the fight is for our children. Are we going to properly pray, read, and study God’s Word to teach it to our children, or will we allow the world to continue to discredit Scripture, calling it archaic, to embrace that which God calls sin, in turn demanding that God judge and condemn America, as He did Sodom and Gomorrah?

To deny acceptance, to be given to homosexuality, is NOT to say one agrees with hate crimes that may be committed against them. It does say that we believe homosexuality to be a sin against God, and is therefore NOT moral and should not be accepted in any way, shape, or form.

One may claim I am just intolerant, and should promote tolerance.

I reply, stop being intolerant of Christian values, and be tolerant to what is right and intolerant to that which is ungodly.

Pink Is Their Color

A rare pink dolphin has been seen in the waters of “in Calcasieu Lake, an estuary just north of the Gulf of Mexico in southwestern Louisiana.”

Here are some pictures. [Link]

“There is a species of pink dolphin that lives in the Amazon River in South America, but this one appears to be a more common bottlenose dolphin.”

"It appears to be an uncanny freak of nature, an albino dolphin, with reddish eyes and glossy pink skin," the Web site reads. "It is small in comparison to the others it is traveling with and appears to be a youngster traveling with mama."

---

Does this mean there could be merit to the “Invisible Pink Unicorn”?

Catholic Bishop Asks Christians to Embrace Idol Name for God

I can only imagine what the Pope is saying about this… [Article]

“Catholic churches in the Netherlands should use the name Allah for God to ease tensions between Muslims and Christians, says a Dutch bishop.”

“Tiny Muskens, the bishop of Breda, told the Dutch TV program "Network" Monday night he believes God doesn't mind what he is called, Radio Netherlands Worldwide reported.”

“"Someone like me has prayed to Allah yang maha kuasa (Almighty God) for eight years in Indonesia and other priests for 20 or 30 years," Muskens said. "In the heart of the Eucharist, God is called Allah over there, so why can't we start doing that together?"”

Does this heretic (one neither Christian nor Muslim) realize that the Christian God and the Muslim Allah do not share the same attributes (by majority) to even assume the two are the same? I usually refrain from such a title (heretic), but by all accounts what this Muskens is saying, clearly fits the definition, both to the Christian and to the Muslim.

“However, a survey published today in the Netherlands' largest newspaper, De Telegraaf, showed 92 percent of the more than 4,000 people polled oppose the bishop's view, the Associated Press reported.”

Maybe this Muskens should sit down and start with Genesis and continue to Revelation, and then decide if God can still be called Allah.

Examine: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Chapter 3

As concerning my slow, but continuous reading of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion:

Chapter 3

P. 78
Like most nonbelievers (and some Christians), RD misunderstands the attributes of God (i.e. omniscience and omnipotence), whereby, they are indeed hard to understand when man cannot and does not have the ability of such. But, how much more difficult for the natural man, that has not the Spirit?

Such a big word, for such a “sparing” point: parsimonious.

Interestingly, he never tells us WHY [but opinion], “it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other physical concept as yet unknown” over “invoking God” to terminate the beginning of creation. For by science, itself, states: matter/energy cannot be created/destroyed. Science also states: it cannot prove/disprove God. So, to say a “big bang singularity”, which is tested [assumingly] by science, seemingly defying science in creation [by its so-called ability to create matter/energy, if by chance, there was nothing before it] is not more parsimonious [sparing/stingy/close/tight], than saying, God, who is of the supernatural, has the power and did create the natural. Whereas, with the “big bang”, there is always a look to before, there is no before God, therefore we only have what God Himself, which has always been, has made.

Hebrews 11:3, Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

P. 79
As concerning RD’s continued “regress” [#5], we are left with a regress to his precious, “Evolution by natural selection”, for his natural selection apparently does not design, but simply makes things look designed. Yeah, that sounds logical. For RD writes, “Thanks to Darwin, it is no longer true to say that nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed”, then goes on to say “Evolution by natural selection produces an excellent simulacrum of design, mounting prodigious heights of complexity and elegance.” So, we should believe that design is created by random chance and mutations, not by design. Logical?

P. 88-90
Scripture declares, [2 Corinthians 4:3-5], “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.”

Interestingly, RD notes the very reasons that he is unable to accept and understand Christianity, God, and Christ, the Spirit, sin, repentance, and salvation, concerning his objections to “the argument from personal experience.”

“The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don’t present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time.” He continues a few pages over by stating, “And the same thing works for hearing. When we hear a sound, it is not faithfully transported up the auditory nerve and relayed to the brain as if by a high-fidelity Bang and Olufsend.”

Assumingly he fails to realize how close he has come to repeating the words of Christ:

Matthew 13:15, For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Am I saying a Christian is smarter and able to make them self see and hear, whereas an atheist cannot? No. It is the Spirit which must open our eyes, ears, minds, and hearts to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Remember, how he and his teacher both saw creation, but one chose faith and the other choose unbelief? Pray that God would open the eyes and ears of the lost, and saved their souls.

P. 92
As with anyone (well some Christians also) that take a low or no view of sin, they try to use a play on words, to call sin less than what it is.

In his “THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE” topic, he mentions that C.S. Lewis stated that “since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he must have been either right or else insane or a liar”. Since RD is unable to argue with the obvious three choices (for he has written, “Jesus probably existed” [P. 97]), he illogically adds a fourth choice of “Jesus was honestly mistaken.” Honestly mistaken would be the same as a liar. If I run around everyday telling people I am the son of Martin Luther King Jr., and I am not, then whether I am “honestly mistaken”, mentally ill, or simply on purpose stating such to promote my agenda, I am a LIAR. Jesus was not a liar or mistaken, nor was he insane: He is the Son of God.

P. 93
RD loves to quote nonbelievers when he considers biblical matters. Even in Scripture he chooses to quote the Pharisees, which did not believe or understand Christ, as to why they did not understand the Bethlehem birth of Christ. Using a Scriptural record of the Pharisees’ rejection of the words of Christ, in no way, proves a Christ rejecter’s point. It simply states they rejected the truth, as does RD.

P. 96
RD’s reasoning of spiritual (biblical) things, leads me hoping and praying that God will show him mercy, and send the Spirit to convict his heart of sin, and give unto him understanding. He again uses a quote, yet by Thomas Jefferson, totally out of context.

The quote, from Jefferson to Adams, “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”, has little to do with whether Jesus existed, and more to the theology of Oneness verses the Trinity of God. [Ref]

P. 100
Again he notes, “What is remarkable is the polar opposition between the religiosity of the American public at large and the atheism of the intellectual elite.” Again I note, the things of God have been hidden from the wise and prudent, but revealed unto babes.

“Intellectual elite” does not mean they have spiritual understanding, nor does it mean that they are intelligent or elite concerning God, in their atheism belief.

Critical Teardown versus Constructive Criticism

To criticize someone is quite easy to do. All one must do is observe another person long enough, and we could quickly become critical of that person, their ideas and their actions. If we take notice of ourselves, we may find that this practice, most often, comes about when we do not particular like a person, when we are jealous of this person, or when we simply just think mighty highly of ourselves over another person; especially in times that we may find ourselves disagreeing with this person, whereas others (we wish were on our side) lean more toward them, rather than us.

The problem with being entirely critical of someone else (deeds or actions), is that, in and of itself, does not bring forth anything positive or productive for the one we view with a critical eye, nor for our own humility, nor for those which observe our gossip of the situation from the sidelines.

Criticizing and being critical of another, again, is easy to do, and is sometimes done without even taking thought to the fact that it is being done. Especially when one is fixed upon boosting their own self pride and image, we may fail to see the destructive nature in simply having the critical eye fixed upon everyone but ourselves.

“Criticism voiced out of self-interest or competition may be destructive.”

Constructive Criticism, on the other hand, can be both positive and productive, to both the one and the other, and their relationship. This not only points out a “negative”, but gives a “positive” solution to help improve and/or correct; therefore, helping an individual better themselves (physically, emotionally, spiritually) with encouragement from one they can trust, because the person has shown a love and desire for the improvement of the person, and not simply a selfish desire to merely point out their “flaws”, to only have themselves appear better, can be beneficial to all persons.

We all have places that need constructive criticism, from a pure heart, with a pure desire to want us to succeed in growing as persons and Christians.

Scripture declares, “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” Meekness: “humbly patient; longsuffering”

“Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.”

Next time you look around that beam, take a moment to see if you are about to perform a Critical Teardown versus Constructive Criticism.

Examine: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Chapter 2

As concerning my slow, but continuous reading of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion:

Chapter 2

P. 31
I find it notably interesting that RD can begin a chapter describing one whom he does not know and whom he claims does not exist.

It appears that RD uses the Catholic Church and Thomas Jefferson as his authoritative resources, at least in the beginning of chapter 2. Just noticing there are many of today which disagree with the Catholic Church and there were those of yesterday that did not agree with Jefferson.

It also yields a lot of opinions that are somewhat without good foundations. (You would have to read to see what I mean here.)

P. 38-39
I believe RD misspeaks when he claims, “It is conventional to assume that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic were deists. No doubt many of them were, although it has been argued that the greatest of them might have been atheists.” For he clearly notes his opinion in saying, “Certainly their writings on religion in their own time leave me in no doubt that most of them would have been atheists in ours.”

P. 43
RD enjoys misquoting John Adams, for sure, out of context, (and maybe others) by not giving the complete quote(s) and not referencing where it may be found.

For one example, please consider RD’s quote of Mr. Adams, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were not religion in it.”

Now a fuller quote, “'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!' But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell..."” [Ref]

There is much more I could say in this section of the book, but I will refrain.

P. 45
He seems to insinuate that it is okay, acceptable, expected for an atheist to lie about their atheism to get into political power (I mean public office). Hmmm… What else is okay, acceptable, expected to lie about to get into office? What about while in office? What about reelection?

P. 51
He writes, “I’d be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated.” “I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.

His categories (only 1, 6, & 7)
[1] Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, “I do not believe, I know.”

[6] Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

[7] Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.”

At first, his words may seem clever, but taking a further look at what he writes seems somewhat hypocritical on his part. I would say the majority of atheists I have conversed with on the internet, at least, write as if they are in category 7, for they are always telling Christians, “there is no God”. Saying, “there is no scientific evidence of God” is not the same as saying “there is no God”. As since RD points out that [7] exactly contrast [1], and [1] is built on faith, so must [7] be. For the choices 1-7 are based on faith, belief, and not on evidence.

For how many times have we heard that science cannot prove or disprove God, for He is of the supernatural realm, whereby the natural science has no means to examine? For this reason, RD decides to say, “What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn’t) but whether his existence is probable.” So since science cannot prove/disprove God, it turns to test His probability. But against what, the natural? This still leaves the atheist with no greater foundation to rest their case of “there is no God” on, but their faith/belief/hope that their presuppositions “there is no God” is correct. With no probability giving a definite “no” to “does God exist”, they are still left in category [6] or [7] by their choice to deny God exist, even though science and probability are unable to remove God from existence.

Biology Mix Up

Article: Human-animal embryo study wins approval

“Most support was expressed for the creation of so-called cytoplasmic hybrid embryos, in which a human cell is inserted into an empty animal egg. Other hybrid embryos, such as those created by fertilising an animal egg with human sperm, or vice versa, were less well supported.

In December, the government sparked a revolt by scientists, patient groups and medical researchers when it published a white paper containing proposals to outlaw almost all research into animal-human embryos. The research has since been backed by Nobel prizewinners, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Commons science and technology committee, and the government's chief science adviser, Sir David King.

In May, the government withdrew its opposition in a draft fertility bill and now seeks to outlaw only embryos created by mixing sperm and eggs from humans and animals. The bill will be put before parliament before the end of the year.”

All I can say is, at least for the moment, they are not allowing “DNA bestiality”.

Related: Greek Mythical gods Brought To Life

Does One Really Wager Everything

Recently a blog posted their version of “Pascal's D--n Wager: Sidestepping Reason and Rational Thinking”.

They present the following:

---

To summarize, Pascal wager states two major suppositions:

1. If you believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

2. If you do not believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to hell, your loss is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

---

They also posted this:

---

The mathematical calculations are as follows:

	God exists (G)	God does not exist (~G)
Living as if God exists (B)	+∞ (heaven)	−N (none)
Living as if God does not exist (~B)	−∞ (hell)	−N (none)

---

The problem I found was with their assumptions. They have hence *amended their original post, in stating: “Mathematically speaking, using the parameters as set by Pascal, Pascal's Wager (based on playing on the safe side of belief) is a bet based pretty much on common sense and a great dose of pragmatism: Regardless whether God exists or not, you do not stand to lose everything.”

The original did not contain, “Mathematically speaking, using the parameters as set by Pascal.” Nevertheless, the idea of “Regardless whether God exists or not, you do not stand to lose everything” does not follow the reasoning behind, “Pascal wager states two major suppositions” presented by the blog author.

As posted at their blog, I present why I believe the statement, “Regardless whether God exists or not, you do not stand to lose everything” is without warrant, and against reason and logic concerning the presentation of Pascal’s Wager in their writing.

---

Based on Pascal's Wager, in fact, as you present it, you do have the "chance" that "your loss is infinite".
----------

1. If you believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

You don't believe in (1), so you don't get (i) and (ii) wouldn't matter. You are betting on (ii), hoping (i) isn't true. 1/1 50% wager, whereas a Christian is 100% either getting heaven or getting nothing.

----------

2. If You do not believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to hell, your loss is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

You do believe in (2), you definitely do not want (i), and (ii) wouldn't matter. You are betting on (ii), hoping (i) isn't true. 1/1 50% wager, whereas as a Christians gets 100% escaping hell or getting nothing.

----------

Basically you are wagering an eternity of hell ("your loss is infinite") on whether God exist or not, when you say, "You do not believe in God". So, in fact, "you [do] stand to lose everything".

* Originally wrote "corrected".