Happy Valentine's Day 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Do You Love Me? What About Them?
I am going to just come out and say it: “I Love You!”Am I the only one that finds that which we are commanded to do in Scripture to be sometimes awkward and/or unnatural? I didn’t personally come from a “huggy” family that often told each other “I love you.” Even now, I find it somewhat uncomfortable to tell someone besides my wife or children that I love them. I believe I may show it to others by my actions, but to have the words flow from my mouth seems maybe even harder than saying, “I’m sorry.”
Scripture teaches us there should be a love between husband and wife (Ephesians 5:25, Ephesians 5:33, Colossians 3:19, Titus 2:4), a love between parents and children (Proverbs 13:24, Ephesians 6:4, Titus 2:4), a love between friends (Proverbs 17:17, John 15:13), a love between Christians (John 13:34-35, Romans 12:10, 1 Peter 3:8-9), and even a love concerning our enemies (Matthew 5:43-45, Luke 6:35).
Paul covers the act of love with his use of the word charity in 1 Corinthians 13. For it is not the mere mention of “I love you” that only matters to God, but that which lays in our hearts toward others that God judges us also. We are to live both inwardly and outwardly as Christians concerning the Word of God. Remember, man sees the outward, but God judges the inward, so both must be done if it is to be a pure act of love before man and God. (1 Samuel 16:7)
It is written, “Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you. And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you: To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.” (1 Thessalonians 3:11-13)
This is just a few things I hope to consider not only this Valentine’s Day, but each and every day of the year. As Christians, we should be a people of love, and not ashamed of it.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Christians in Heaven or Sleeping Elsewhere
A friend of mine just sent me a link to an article where an “Anglican challenges widespread belief, [and] says believers [are] asleep until God returns.”
Article notes: “A bishop described as "one of the most formidable figures in the world of Christian thought" is now challenging the widely held belief that Christians go to heaven when they die.”
Mr. Wright’s rejection of Biblical Truth is as follows (from the article):
“"There are several important respects in which it's unsupported by the New Testament. First, the timing. In the Bible we are told that you die, and enter an intermediate state. [The Apostle] Paul is very clear that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead already, but that nobody else has yet. Secondly, our physical state. The New Testament says that when Christ does return, the dead will experience a whole new life: not just our soul, but our bodies. And finally, the location. At no point do the resurrection narratives in the four Gospels say, 'Jesus has been raised, therefore we are all going to heaven.' It says that Christ is coming here, to join together the heavens and the Earth in an act of new creation."”
And with it, he quotes John 3:13, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
I would like to note the fact that John 3:13 comes before the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ himself, so to claim it clearly means no man SINCE the resurrection has not ascended up to heaven is reading into the white of the pages. For did not Paul say, “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.” [2 Corinthians 12:2] Who then is the liar, Christ or Paul? Neither, for we cannot play them against one another, but see that one is yet before the resurrection and one is yet after.
Mr. Wright goes on to say, “"We know that we will be with God and with Christ, resting and being refreshed. Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep.”
So this will not be heaven, although both God and Christ are in heaven [Mark 16:19]? And what in the world does he mean by “Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep?” How exactly does Mr. Wright know this? Granted, maybe he has the answers hidden away in one of his chapters of his book, but what about in the Good Book?
Then Mr. Wright mentions, “There is Luke 23, where Jesus says to the good thief on the cross, 'Today you will be with me in paradise.' But in Luke, we know first of all that Christ himself will not be resurrected for three days, so 'paradise' cannot be a resurrection.”
But of course, we again have a time BEFORE the resurrection of Christ. Yet, then do we have at the resurrection of Christ, “the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” [Matthew 27:52-53]
Does Mr. Wright not know when Paul (or the man he “knew”) was called up to the third heaven, it was indeed in “paradise” to which he went?
Knowing also that Christ is in Heaven, and Mr. Wright even admits “We know that we will be with God and with Christ, resting and being refreshed”, we have “Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” [Jude 1:14-15]
I must ask then, if not from heaven, whence do the saints cometh with Christ?
Article notes: “A bishop described as "one of the most formidable figures in the world of Christian thought" is now challenging the widely held belief that Christians go to heaven when they die.”
Mr. Wright’s rejection of Biblical Truth is as follows (from the article):
“"There are several important respects in which it's unsupported by the New Testament. First, the timing. In the Bible we are told that you die, and enter an intermediate state. [The Apostle] Paul is very clear that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead already, but that nobody else has yet. Secondly, our physical state. The New Testament says that when Christ does return, the dead will experience a whole new life: not just our soul, but our bodies. And finally, the location. At no point do the resurrection narratives in the four Gospels say, 'Jesus has been raised, therefore we are all going to heaven.' It says that Christ is coming here, to join together the heavens and the Earth in an act of new creation."”
And with it, he quotes John 3:13, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
I would like to note the fact that John 3:13 comes before the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ himself, so to claim it clearly means no man SINCE the resurrection has not ascended up to heaven is reading into the white of the pages. For did not Paul say, “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.” [2 Corinthians 12:2] Who then is the liar, Christ or Paul? Neither, for we cannot play them against one another, but see that one is yet before the resurrection and one is yet after.
Mr. Wright goes on to say, “"We know that we will be with God and with Christ, resting and being refreshed. Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep.”
So this will not be heaven, although both God and Christ are in heaven [Mark 16:19]? And what in the world does he mean by “Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep?” How exactly does Mr. Wright know this? Granted, maybe he has the answers hidden away in one of his chapters of his book, but what about in the Good Book?
Then Mr. Wright mentions, “There is Luke 23, where Jesus says to the good thief on the cross, 'Today you will be with me in paradise.' But in Luke, we know first of all that Christ himself will not be resurrected for three days, so 'paradise' cannot be a resurrection.”
But of course, we again have a time BEFORE the resurrection of Christ. Yet, then do we have at the resurrection of Christ, “the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” [Matthew 27:52-53]
Does Mr. Wright not know when Paul (or the man he “knew”) was called up to the third heaven, it was indeed in “paradise” to which he went?
Knowing also that Christ is in Heaven, and Mr. Wright even admits “We know that we will be with God and with Christ, resting and being refreshed”, we have “Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” [Jude 1:14-15]
I must ask then, if not from heaven, whence do the saints cometh with Christ?
Friday, February 08, 2008
Clarence Larkin on "The Book of Revelation"
The complete web verison of "The Book of Revelation" study by Clarence Larkin, 1919. An insightful and interesting read.
The printed version may be purchased here, along with his "companion" study of "The Book of Daniel".
Enjoy!
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Vox Day - The Irrational Atheist
Vox Day's book "The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens" is now available from Amazon.com, though he also has the download here.
I am thinking this should be an interesting read...
He is also the writer of:
Possible Misunderstanding Concerning "Oh, the Bigotry of Bigotry"
I appreciate Austin Cline taking the time to read my blog post and posting his opinions concerning it at his blog. I do however believe there may have been a slight misunderstanding as to the thoughts he pulled forth from my posting though.
The title of my post was “Oh, the Bigotry of Bigotry” whereas Austin Cline entitled his reply/rebuttal of such “Anti-Atheist Bigot Denying Own Bigotry”. Though my original thoughts were in reference to another blog entry entitled “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate”.
At the very onset of the topic “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate”, the writer begins their thought of bigotry as they see it from “many Republican campaigns” towards race, to sexual preference (called “anti-gay”, namely homosexuality), and atheism (called anti-atheist).
They make the notion that although bigotry of race is not tolerated whereas bigotry toward homosexuality and atheism is, for they state “I long for the day when anti-gay and anti-atheist bigotry will disqualify a candidate as quickly as racism.”
With that said, I simply made the obvious claim that, “First off, I would like to note the simple fact of the comparison made by the writer: Race (whether African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, etc.) is not the same type of issue as homosexuality and atheism. A person does not choose what race they are born into, whereas a person does make a spiritual decision to embrace atheism and a moral decision to embrace homosexuality.”
Austin Cline begins his post with “One of the more interesting tricks which bigots use to defend themselves is to admit that, yes, they are bigots — but so is everyone else, so why are you picking on me? Logically speaking this might be little more than the tu quoque fallacy: "you're doing it to, so you can't criticize me for it." Sometimes the bigot does go further, though, by arguing that bigotry is the natural human condition and shouldn't be condemned so forcefully.”
The title of my post was “Oh, the Bigotry of Bigotry” whereas Austin Cline entitled his reply/rebuttal of such “Anti-Atheist Bigot Denying Own Bigotry”. Though my original thoughts were in reference to another blog entry entitled “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate”.
At the very onset of the topic “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate”, the writer begins their thought of bigotry as they see it from “many Republican campaigns” towards race, to sexual preference (called “anti-gay”, namely homosexuality), and atheism (called anti-atheist).
They make the notion that although bigotry of race is not tolerated whereas bigotry toward homosexuality and atheism is, for they state “I long for the day when anti-gay and anti-atheist bigotry will disqualify a candidate as quickly as racism.”
With that said, I simply made the obvious claim that, “First off, I would like to note the simple fact of the comparison made by the writer: Race (whether African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, etc.) is not the same type of issue as homosexuality and atheism. A person does not choose what race they are born into, whereas a person does make a spiritual decision to embrace atheism and a moral decision to embrace homosexuality.”
Austin Cline begins his post with “One of the more interesting tricks which bigots use to defend themselves is to admit that, yes, they are bigots — but so is everyone else, so why are you picking on me? Logically speaking this might be little more than the tu quoque fallacy: "you're doing it to, so you can't criticize me for it." Sometimes the bigot does go further, though, by arguing that bigotry is the natural human condition and shouldn't be condemned so forcefully.”
Whereas, if he would have continued to the end of my post he would have noted my words, “I just find it interesting that most of the time the one that uses the word bigot can be found to be one themselves if one would simply observe and listen to their message long enough.”
Since apparently Austin Cline seems to take my post (as he sites other comments) to mean, “Is it the case that bigotry isn't possible against choices, or that bigotry isn't possible against choices which a Christian deems to be sinful?” I thought I might elaborate a little here.
First, I would like to note that I never claim that [1] “bigotry isn’t possible against choice”, nor do I claim [2] “bigotry isn’t possible against choices which a Christian deems to be sinful” in my post. I indeed acknowledge there is indeed bigotry of such, for I said “I would agree that each of these groups can be dealt blows by hate speech and ungodly actions from without.”
As a Christian I am to hate sin (that of my own life, and that of another’s life) simply because Scripture teaches against such and the holy Almighty God is against such. Notice I said hate the sin, not the person from whom it flows. Therefore, concerning race, one is not to hate one simply because of their color nor should one simply hate the color itself therefore despising all of that particular race. Whereas hating the sin of homosexuality and/or unbelief is based in Scripture, from the very mind of God, which is not based on something one cannot change, but something they can. I cannot change my race, but I can decide whether to be hetero or homo sexual and whether a Christian or Atheist.
Since apparently Austin Cline seems to take my post (as he sites other comments) to mean, “Is it the case that bigotry isn't possible against choices, or that bigotry isn't possible against choices which a Christian deems to be sinful?” I thought I might elaborate a little here.
First, I would like to note that I never claim that [1] “bigotry isn’t possible against choice”, nor do I claim [2] “bigotry isn’t possible against choices which a Christian deems to be sinful” in my post. I indeed acknowledge there is indeed bigotry of such, for I said “I would agree that each of these groups can be dealt blows by hate speech and ungodly actions from without.”
As a Christian I am to hate sin (that of my own life, and that of another’s life) simply because Scripture teaches against such and the holy Almighty God is against such. Notice I said hate the sin, not the person from whom it flows. Therefore, concerning race, one is not to hate one simply because of their color nor should one simply hate the color itself therefore despising all of that particular race. Whereas hating the sin of homosexuality and/or unbelief is based in Scripture, from the very mind of God, which is not based on something one cannot change, but something they can. I cannot change my race, but I can decide whether to be hetero or homo sexual and whether a Christian or Atheist.
So, whereas a presidential candidate should not speak out against race (for no race is sinful within itself nor can it be changed), their stance against the blatant acts of rebellion of homosexuality and atheism in the very face of their Creator, which cut against the conscience of the presidential candidates should not disqualify them as candidates. For are they not free to exercise their First Amendment rights as much as the Atheists who speak often openly bigoted thoughts against Theism? Would an Atheist disqualify an Atheist’s candidate who spoke as much concerning their views which boast against the thoughts of Theistic Americans?
The denial of presidential candidates to support homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and atheism as a popular belief is not “mak[ing] [a] law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” but simply a moral standard of such candidates of which governs their life. To require such to lay their moral standards aside to govern the people of the United States as president is absurd. There may be many things I do not like concerning the ideals of some candidates, but to claim they should be disabled to run merely for reason of which I disagree with them, would not the list continuously grow as to there would be no one able to run at all?
I fail to see how Austin Cline read my entire article and came away with, “If it isn't possible to be bigoted against a choice, then it isn't possible to be bigoted against a Christian — don't Christians make a choice to be Christian?”
I note, “The hype of the article seems to be that of “anti-atheist bigotry” mostly, but I believe I have discussed the topic of bigotry concerning theist/atheist belief concerning homosexuality before where I note, “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.””
Austin Cline claims, “Besides, I've never heard any atheists say that a Christian is being a bigot for simply observing that, under traditional Christian theology, atheism or homosexuality is sinful.” But, truth be known, the atheist does not mind the Christian having such views in the privacy of his own house or his little church, but as soon as he makes his voice heard aloud or as in running for president the same instantly becomes a bigot by the very bigots (one that is stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own) that demand America change its policy on marriage and to remove God from all walks of life.
The denial of presidential candidates to support homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and atheism as a popular belief is not “mak[ing] [a] law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” but simply a moral standard of such candidates of which governs their life. To require such to lay their moral standards aside to govern the people of the United States as president is absurd. There may be many things I do not like concerning the ideals of some candidates, but to claim they should be disabled to run merely for reason of which I disagree with them, would not the list continuously grow as to there would be no one able to run at all?
I fail to see how Austin Cline read my entire article and came away with, “If it isn't possible to be bigoted against a choice, then it isn't possible to be bigoted against a Christian — don't Christians make a choice to be Christian?”
I note, “The hype of the article seems to be that of “anti-atheist bigotry” mostly, but I believe I have discussed the topic of bigotry concerning theist/atheist belief concerning homosexuality before where I note, “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.””
Austin Cline claims, “Besides, I've never heard any atheists say that a Christian is being a bigot for simply observing that, under traditional Christian theology, atheism or homosexuality is sinful.” But, truth be known, the atheist does not mind the Christian having such views in the privacy of his own house or his little church, but as soon as he makes his voice heard aloud or as in running for president the same instantly becomes a bigot by the very bigots (one that is stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own) that demand America change its policy on marriage and to remove God from all walks of life.
So, whereas Austin Cline asks “Which atheists, exactly, say this? I notice that Timothy Waldrop doesn't actually offer any quotes and Vjack's post certainly doesn't make any such statement.” I reply, keep looking for their words and speech are spread throughout the news, books, and blogsphere.
At the end of Vjack’s article, he states, “It is time for Americans to ask ourselves whether bigotry is a characteristic we desire in our leaders.”
Which is why I note, “An atheist candidate could be no less a bigot than a theist one. For the atheist is “stubborn and complete intoler[ant of the] creed, belief, or opinion” of the theist. Just as the Christian tells the atheist they may not believe in God and the homosexual they may live in sin unto themselves, though calling on them to repent, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle, so does the atheist tell the Christian to keep their beliefs of God, against non-belief and immorality in their churches and homes, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle.”
I do appreciate the fact that Austin Cline writes, “Presidential candidates who say they are theists aren't being bigoted and they aren't doing anything wrong. Presidential candidates who want to use their office to promote their theism or other religious beliefs are not necessarily engaged in bigotry (it's theoretically possible, depending upon what exactly they do), but they are at the very least violating the spirit of the First Amendment because being elected president confers upon a person specific civil authority, not any religious authority.”
However I do disagree with his thought that “Presidential candidates who want to use their office to promote their theism or other religious beliefs” “are at the very least violating the spirit of the First Amendment because being elected president confers upon a person specific civil authority, not any religious authority.”
Again, for the President to speak out against homosexuality and atheism is not “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; therefore, how can one be in violating the First Amendment? And for the record I did notice Austin Cline’s use of “the spirit of the First Amendment” which is usually based on the spirit within the one trying to make the words of the forefathers stand by their claim which most often it is not the case – which is why the letter of Jefferson is often quoted in conjunction with such, although letters are not U.S. documents such as the First Amendment is.
We see again the twisting of the tide of Austin Cline upon my post where he writes, “Here we have a more explicit statement of what appears to be Timothy Waldrop's position: everyone is a bigot, so what's the big deal if Christians are bigoted against atheists?”
My claim was never in favor of bigotry, of the Christian nor the Atheist, I merely noted the fact that bigotry (whether great or small) often lies within each of us.
Then Austin Cline continues down his slope of misunderstanding by stating, “If you pay attention, though, you'll find that Timothy Waldrop has contradicted himself. Waldrop originally admitted that bigotry against people because of their race is real and is wrong, but based on the definition he is using bigotry against race isn't possible — after all, race isn't a "creed, belief, or opinion."”
I did not say that bigotry against race was not possible, but that it was different than bigotry concerning homosexuality and atheism in the fact that one cannot change their skin but they can decide to change their lifestyle and beliefs.
As for Austin Cline’s question, “I'm not aware of any "judgment" which "Atheism" may be threatening against Christians — even if we accept as valid the treatment of atheism as an ideology or philosophy which should be capitalized, there are no atheist "judgments" against Christianity which Christians might in theory have to be worry about. The closest to this might be the assertion that Christianity is wrong, but I can't believe that's what Timothy Waldrop has in mind. ”
As concerning: “Atheists are scared of the judgment Christianity may bring upon them” Atheist are indeed scared that God (though they deny God, Christians know it is He who works through us) through Christianity could possible bring forth a spiritual revival within our nation thereby exposing all of the lies of Satan and ungodliness making it extremely difficult for one to live in open rebellion against the God of Heaven and the Scriptures. (**Not by force, but mere shame and conviction**)
As concerning: “Christians are scared of the judgment Atheism will bring upon them” Christians realize (or should) that if we continue to allow the god of this world to proceed as he has to rid the nation of God and that which is right, we will find ourselves sinking further into sin, and will soon been judged by the very wrath of God.
At the end of Vjack’s article, he states, “It is time for Americans to ask ourselves whether bigotry is a characteristic we desire in our leaders.”
Which is why I note, “An atheist candidate could be no less a bigot than a theist one. For the atheist is “stubborn and complete intoler[ant of the] creed, belief, or opinion” of the theist. Just as the Christian tells the atheist they may not believe in God and the homosexual they may live in sin unto themselves, though calling on them to repent, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle, so does the atheist tell the Christian to keep their beliefs of God, against non-belief and immorality in their churches and homes, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle.”
I do appreciate the fact that Austin Cline writes, “Presidential candidates who say they are theists aren't being bigoted and they aren't doing anything wrong. Presidential candidates who want to use their office to promote their theism or other religious beliefs are not necessarily engaged in bigotry (it's theoretically possible, depending upon what exactly they do), but they are at the very least violating the spirit of the First Amendment because being elected president confers upon a person specific civil authority, not any religious authority.”
However I do disagree with his thought that “Presidential candidates who want to use their office to promote their theism or other religious beliefs” “are at the very least violating the spirit of the First Amendment because being elected president confers upon a person specific civil authority, not any religious authority.”
Again, for the President to speak out against homosexuality and atheism is not “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; therefore, how can one be in violating the First Amendment? And for the record I did notice Austin Cline’s use of “the spirit of the First Amendment” which is usually based on the spirit within the one trying to make the words of the forefathers stand by their claim which most often it is not the case – which is why the letter of Jefferson is often quoted in conjunction with such, although letters are not U.S. documents such as the First Amendment is.
We see again the twisting of the tide of Austin Cline upon my post where he writes, “Here we have a more explicit statement of what appears to be Timothy Waldrop's position: everyone is a bigot, so what's the big deal if Christians are bigoted against atheists?”
My claim was never in favor of bigotry, of the Christian nor the Atheist, I merely noted the fact that bigotry (whether great or small) often lies within each of us.
Then Austin Cline continues down his slope of misunderstanding by stating, “If you pay attention, though, you'll find that Timothy Waldrop has contradicted himself. Waldrop originally admitted that bigotry against people because of their race is real and is wrong, but based on the definition he is using bigotry against race isn't possible — after all, race isn't a "creed, belief, or opinion."”
I did not say that bigotry against race was not possible, but that it was different than bigotry concerning homosexuality and atheism in the fact that one cannot change their skin but they can decide to change their lifestyle and beliefs.
As for Austin Cline’s question, “I'm not aware of any "judgment" which "Atheism" may be threatening against Christians — even if we accept as valid the treatment of atheism as an ideology or philosophy which should be capitalized, there are no atheist "judgments" against Christianity which Christians might in theory have to be worry about. The closest to this might be the assertion that Christianity is wrong, but I can't believe that's what Timothy Waldrop has in mind. ”
As concerning: “Atheists are scared of the judgment Christianity may bring upon them” Atheist are indeed scared that God (though they deny God, Christians know it is He who works through us) through Christianity could possible bring forth a spiritual revival within our nation thereby exposing all of the lies of Satan and ungodliness making it extremely difficult for one to live in open rebellion against the God of Heaven and the Scriptures. (**Not by force, but mere shame and conviction**)
As concerning: “Christians are scared of the judgment Atheism will bring upon them” Christians realize (or should) that if we continue to allow the god of this world to proceed as he has to rid the nation of God and that which is right, we will find ourselves sinking further into sin, and will soon been judged by the very wrath of God.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
When Time Shall Be No More
“And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” [Matthew 24:3]
According to Discover, brought to my attention by a friend of mine:
“The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.” (emphasis mine)
Here is my question to: “The possibility that time may not exist is known among physicists as the “problem of time.””
If time does not exist, what does that do with the rest of science’s theories based on time? Would they then become nonexistent as well?
Oh, to understand the mind and magnificence of the Almighty, Holy God, though a lifetime would not allow such mortals as us to comprehend.
Retirement (Book III, Hymn 45, page 583)
According to Discover, brought to my attention by a friend of mine:
“The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.” (emphasis mine)
Here is my question to: “The possibility that time may not exist is known among physicists as the “problem of time.””
If time does not exist, what does that do with the rest of science’s theories based on time? Would they then become nonexistent as well?
Oh, to understand the mind and magnificence of the Almighty, Holy God, though a lifetime would not allow such mortals as us to comprehend.
Retirement (Book III, Hymn 45, page 583)
Far from the world, O Lord, I flee,
From strife and tumult far;
From scenes where Satan wages still
His most successful war.
The calm retreat, the silent shade,
With prayer and praise agree;
And seem, by Thy sweet bounty made,
For those who follow Thee.
There if Thy Spirit touch the soul,
And grace her mean abode,
Oh, with what peace, and joy, and love,
She communes with her God!
There like the nightingale she pours
Her solitary lays;
Nor asks a witness of her song,
Nor thirsts for human praise.
Author and Guardian of my life,
Sweet source of light Divine,
And, -- all harmonious names in one, --
My Saviour! Thou art mine.
What thanks I owe Thee, and what love,
A boundless, endless store,
Shall echo through the realms above,
When time shall be no more.
William Cowper
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Oh, the Bigotry of Bigotry
Looking in the blog world of Atheism, again we have the use of the term bigotry. Dictionary.com defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”
Coming from the title “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate” we have a discussion of:
“Try to imagine what would happen if video got out in which one of the Presidential candidates used the dreaded "n-word." That campaign would be over in an instant. Why? Because that type of bigotry would not be tolerated and would be accepted by an overwhelming majority of the American people as grounds for disqualification. Unfortunately, other types of bigotry are not only accepted but are actually an important strategic component of many Republican campaigns. I long for the day when anti-gay and anti-atheist bigotry will disqualify a candidate as quickly as racism.”
First off, I would like to note the simple fact of the comparison made by the writer: Race (whether African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, etc.) is not the same type of issue as homosexuality and atheism. A person does not choose what race they are born into, whereas a person does make a spiritual decision to embrace atheism and a moral decision to embrace homosexuality.
Now, I would agree that each of these groups can be dealt blows by hate speech and ungodly actions from without, but even this issue remains different concerning each. For a person to use the “n-word” (as noted by the writer) is a derogatory word used against the entire race or directly to the individual it is said to, whereas stating that Biblically speaking homosexuality is wrong and immoral and atheism makes one a sinner or lost is not the same type of speech.
Why do I say this? Because skin color is not something someone can change or needs to be repented of, whereas homosexuality and atheism is a rejection of the truth, thereby sin, and needs to be repented of to the holy, almighty God.
Now, back to the topic of the writer, they write, “And yet, bigotry directed at the secular and GLBT communities is not only acceptable but appears to be an intentional part (some would even say a central part) in the campaign strategies of many Republicans.”
The hype of the article seems to be that of “anti-atheist bigotry” mostly, but I believe I have discussed the topic of bigotry concerning theist/atheist belief concerning homosexuality before where I note, “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.”
Let’s face it, the atheist cry of bigotry is due to the idea that the presidential candidates wish to claim or promote their theistic beliefs. But, would they not be willing to embrace the candidate which claimed atheism over theism, and desired to rid the country of the “Pledge of Allegiance”, “In God We Trust”, “Moment of Silence”, and any other objectives atheists have presented to the courts of America?
Simple facts:
Theism says there is a God, therefore denies atheism.
Atheism says there is no God, therefore denies theism.
Christianity believes Scripture declares homosexuality a sin, therefore denies it is moral.
Atheism believes Scripture is not authoritative, therefore denies homosexuality is a sin.
Although Christianity and Atheism agree to a certain degree on some moral issues, the morality of Christianity and Atheism varies based on the authority given such, and to the ideas which pertain to each thought.
Again, “Dictionary.com defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”
I agree one should not be abused, hurt, etc. simply because of race, religion, or sexual choice, but the fact remains that each person is laced within their being with ideas which are “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”
Trying to say “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate” would be simply removing every candidate from ever running for office.
An atheist candidate could be no less a bigot than a theist one. For the atheist is “stubborn and complete intoler[ant of the] creed, belief, or opinion” of the theist. Just as the Christian tells the atheist they may not believe in God and the homosexual they may live in sin unto themselves, though calling on them to repent, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle, so does the atheist tell the Christian to keep their beliefs of God, against non-belief and immorality in their churches and homes, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle.
Atheists are scared of the judgment Christianity may bring upon them, just as the Christians are scared of the judgment Atheism will bring upon them.
I just find it interesting that most of the time the one that uses the word bigot can be found to be one themselves if one would simply observe and listen to their message long enough.
Coming from the title “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate” we have a discussion of:
“Try to imagine what would happen if video got out in which one of the Presidential candidates used the dreaded "n-word." That campaign would be over in an instant. Why? Because that type of bigotry would not be tolerated and would be accepted by an overwhelming majority of the American people as grounds for disqualification. Unfortunately, other types of bigotry are not only accepted but are actually an important strategic component of many Republican campaigns. I long for the day when anti-gay and anti-atheist bigotry will disqualify a candidate as quickly as racism.”
First off, I would like to note the simple fact of the comparison made by the writer: Race (whether African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, etc.) is not the same type of issue as homosexuality and atheism. A person does not choose what race they are born into, whereas a person does make a spiritual decision to embrace atheism and a moral decision to embrace homosexuality.
Now, I would agree that each of these groups can be dealt blows by hate speech and ungodly actions from without, but even this issue remains different concerning each. For a person to use the “n-word” (as noted by the writer) is a derogatory word used against the entire race or directly to the individual it is said to, whereas stating that Biblically speaking homosexuality is wrong and immoral and atheism makes one a sinner or lost is not the same type of speech.
Why do I say this? Because skin color is not something someone can change or needs to be repented of, whereas homosexuality and atheism is a rejection of the truth, thereby sin, and needs to be repented of to the holy, almighty God.
Now, back to the topic of the writer, they write, “And yet, bigotry directed at the secular and GLBT communities is not only acceptable but appears to be an intentional part (some would even say a central part) in the campaign strategies of many Republicans.”
The hype of the article seems to be that of “anti-atheist bigotry” mostly, but I believe I have discussed the topic of bigotry concerning theist/atheist belief concerning homosexuality before where I note, “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.”
Let’s face it, the atheist cry of bigotry is due to the idea that the presidential candidates wish to claim or promote their theistic beliefs. But, would they not be willing to embrace the candidate which claimed atheism over theism, and desired to rid the country of the “Pledge of Allegiance”, “In God We Trust”, “Moment of Silence”, and any other objectives atheists have presented to the courts of America?
Simple facts:
Theism says there is a God, therefore denies atheism.
Atheism says there is no God, therefore denies theism.
Christianity believes Scripture declares homosexuality a sin, therefore denies it is moral.
Atheism believes Scripture is not authoritative, therefore denies homosexuality is a sin.
Although Christianity and Atheism agree to a certain degree on some moral issues, the morality of Christianity and Atheism varies based on the authority given such, and to the ideas which pertain to each thought.
Again, “Dictionary.com defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”
I agree one should not be abused, hurt, etc. simply because of race, religion, or sexual choice, but the fact remains that each person is laced within their being with ideas which are “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”
Trying to say “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate” would be simply removing every candidate from ever running for office.
An atheist candidate could be no less a bigot than a theist one. For the atheist is “stubborn and complete intoler[ant of the] creed, belief, or opinion” of the theist. Just as the Christian tells the atheist they may not believe in God and the homosexual they may live in sin unto themselves, though calling on them to repent, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle, so does the atheist tell the Christian to keep their beliefs of God, against non-belief and immorality in their churches and homes, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle.
Atheists are scared of the judgment Christianity may bring upon them, just as the Christians are scared of the judgment Atheism will bring upon them.
I just find it interesting that most of the time the one that uses the word bigot can be found to be one themselves if one would simply observe and listen to their message long enough.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Make a Joyful Noise unto God
The Scripture is full of verses asking us to Make a Joyful Noise unto God, with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs of praise, not only to ourselves but also to others.
There is probably not a Christian that would object to such teaching from Scripture, even from those which may not sing aloud themselves while sitting in the pews during worship services.
The thing I would like to ponder is the idea of children verses adult singing specials in the church. In fact, I’ll just come right out and ask the question:
Why do we accept and applaud a child that sings a special, though it may be off key, but seem to dare not let an adult sing that does not have the “voice of angels”?
Is it simply because they “look cute” and the adult may not? I know that sounds silly, but it appears this is indeed the reasoning behind it. I mean, what else could be justifiable reason to allow a child that does not have the prefect voice to sing, but not the adult?
Should not the underlying factor be the heart of the person desiring to sing? “Why do you want to sing a special in church?” should be the question we ask, not make them audition for a singing solo. Am I wrong to think this way? I heard a pastor once say, “Sometimes the only reason people want to sing specials in church is because they can’t sing anywhere else.” Meaning self gratification is the reasoning behind it, and not the love for God.
Consider the child that sings, or wishes to: Is it truly their heart wanting to glorify God by their praise to Him in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, or is it their parents which desire to see their child upon the stage in church bringing notice more to their child’s voice (a talent from God) than to God Himself?
Indeed, we can become too legalistic in trying to peer into each heart before we allow them to sing within our churches, but have we not done so by allowing talent to judge whether one is worthy to sing unto God within the church service?
Now, with this said, I am not against special music in church and most often enjoy it, so I am not saying that we need to cast out special music in church but to allow each heart the opportunity to sing praise unto God. I say, “Let the children sing unto to Lord, but hinder not the heart of the adult who wishes to Make a Joyful Noise unto God.”
There is probably not a Christian that would object to such teaching from Scripture, even from those which may not sing aloud themselves while sitting in the pews during worship services.
The thing I would like to ponder is the idea of children verses adult singing specials in the church. In fact, I’ll just come right out and ask the question:
Why do we accept and applaud a child that sings a special, though it may be off key, but seem to dare not let an adult sing that does not have the “voice of angels”?
Is it simply because they “look cute” and the adult may not? I know that sounds silly, but it appears this is indeed the reasoning behind it. I mean, what else could be justifiable reason to allow a child that does not have the prefect voice to sing, but not the adult?
Should not the underlying factor be the heart of the person desiring to sing? “Why do you want to sing a special in church?” should be the question we ask, not make them audition for a singing solo. Am I wrong to think this way? I heard a pastor once say, “Sometimes the only reason people want to sing specials in church is because they can’t sing anywhere else.” Meaning self gratification is the reasoning behind it, and not the love for God.
Consider the child that sings, or wishes to: Is it truly their heart wanting to glorify God by their praise to Him in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, or is it their parents which desire to see their child upon the stage in church bringing notice more to their child’s voice (a talent from God) than to God Himself?
Indeed, we can become too legalistic in trying to peer into each heart before we allow them to sing within our churches, but have we not done so by allowing talent to judge whether one is worthy to sing unto God within the church service?
Now, with this said, I am not against special music in church and most often enjoy it, so I am not saying that we need to cast out special music in church but to allow each heart the opportunity to sing praise unto God. I say, “Let the children sing unto to Lord, but hinder not the heart of the adult who wishes to Make a Joyful Noise unto God.”
Friday, January 11, 2008
No Preaching Zone
Taking a glance over at Atheist Revolution, it appears that one may “Curb "door-to-door disciples" in your neighborhood!” by purchasing a “No Preaching Sticker ” or “"No Preaching Allowed" door plaque ” from Ring of Fire Enterprises.
Interesting…
Interesting…
Mark of the Beast Confusion
Sent to me, by a friend of mine, was a news article from FOXNews.com about a young man who had apparently “believed he bore the "mark of the beast" [and] used a circular saw to cut off one hand, [and] then he cooked it in the microwave and called 911, authorities said.”
There has been discussion concerning “mental health” in these articles, but they all seem to leave a lot to be desired as to fully understand the context of what may have transpired for this man to do such. The article truly falls short when it comes to much of the story, but I noticed they made sure to include the Scripture references of Revelation and Matthew. They are as follows:
Revelation 14:
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Matthew 5:
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.
First off, these two references quoted are two totally different contexts. Revelation is speaking of prophecy of the Tribulation period, concerning the Antichrist and end times, whereas Matthew is speaking of the Sermon on the Mount, concerning what the things of God really mean (concerning our daily lives) verses what the Pharisees claimed they meant.
Second, when it comes to the mark of the beast, it will not be “thy right hand offend thee”, but the heart and depravity of the individuals which “worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand” instead of placing faith in the One True Holy Almighty God.
They will be deceived by the beast (Antichrist) and the false prophet, whereby they will setup a system that only those which receive the mark may partake, but shall be cast into the lake of fire by God, along with Satan and all those who take the mark and reject Christ.
Repent and put faith in Jesus Christ, and He will forever keep you from taking the mark, “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”
There has been discussion concerning “mental health” in these articles, but they all seem to leave a lot to be desired as to fully understand the context of what may have transpired for this man to do such. The article truly falls short when it comes to much of the story, but I noticed they made sure to include the Scripture references of Revelation and Matthew. They are as follows:
Revelation 14:
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Matthew 5:
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.
First off, these two references quoted are two totally different contexts. Revelation is speaking of prophecy of the Tribulation period, concerning the Antichrist and end times, whereas Matthew is speaking of the Sermon on the Mount, concerning what the things of God really mean (concerning our daily lives) verses what the Pharisees claimed they meant.
Second, when it comes to the mark of the beast, it will not be “thy right hand offend thee”, but the heart and depravity of the individuals which “worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand” instead of placing faith in the One True Holy Almighty God.
They will be deceived by the beast (Antichrist) and the false prophet, whereby they will setup a system that only those which receive the mark may partake, but shall be cast into the lake of fire by God, along with Satan and all those who take the mark and reject Christ.
Repent and put faith in Jesus Christ, and He will forever keep you from taking the mark, “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Ekleipsis: In the Land of Erde - Review Proposal
Beast, a regular, Atheist commenter to Splinters of Silver has proposed the following concerning my recently finished book Ekleipsis:
Books, books, books: You seem to be churning them out by the dozens! Am I supposed to be impressed?
May I propose this to you: Send me a softcopy of your book, and then I will evaluate it and write a book review, after which you can put it up on your blog.
As with all my comments, I will be as objective and truthful as I can.
Dare you accept the challenge?
Beast
Beast,
As concerning your proposal of me sending you the PDF file of my book, Ekleipsis:
You propose:
“May I propose this to you: Send me a softcopy of your book, and then I will evaluate it and write a book review, after which you can put it up on your blog.”
You claim:
“As with all my comments, I will be as objective and truthful as I can.”
My reply and stipulations:
1. I will send you the current, complete PDF file for my book entitled Ekleipsis. This will be the file that has been edited and reread by myself, before the proof copy has arrived and I have had the chance to reread it one final time.
2. You will agree to not alter the PDF file in any way, and to refrain from distributing or making available the file in anyway (whether free or for monetary gain) to any individual besides yourself, unless first approved by myself.
3. You have the right to be “objective and truthful” concerning all comments regarding your review of my book, Ekleipsis, which should be sent to me via email.
4. I reserve the right to refrain from posting your review if I, and those I may share it with, feel that it is not “objective and truthful” in our opinion. Although, you do have the right to post your review on your own blog, if you feel lead to do so.
If you agree with the terms, please reply back stating as such, also sending me the email address as to where I should send the file.
Tim
As concerning your proposal of me sending you the PDF file of my book, Ekleipsis:
You propose:
“May I propose this to you: Send me a softcopy of your book, and then I will evaluate it and write a book review, after which you can put it up on your blog.”
You claim:
“As with all my comments, I will be as objective and truthful as I can.”
My reply and stipulations:
1. I will send you the current, complete PDF file for my book entitled Ekleipsis. This will be the file that has been edited and reread by myself, before the proof copy has arrived and I have had the chance to reread it one final time.
2. You will agree to not alter the PDF file in any way, and to refrain from distributing or making available the file in anyway (whether free or for monetary gain) to any individual besides yourself, unless first approved by myself.
3. You have the right to be “objective and truthful” concerning all comments regarding your review of my book, Ekleipsis, which should be sent to me via email.
4. I reserve the right to refrain from posting your review if I, and those I may share it with, feel that it is not “objective and truthful” in our opinion. Although, you do have the right to post your review on your own blog, if you feel lead to do so.
If you agree with the terms, please reply back stating as such, also sending me the email address as to where I should send the file.
Tim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
