oddXian: Challenge the Consensus

Puritan Lad brought this to the team's attention from this blog... So my question to all true believers is this: How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc ) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is ? I hate to seem simplistic, but truth is only as good as the reliability of the source. Jesus Christ said - "I am the way, the truth and the life..." The reliability of his claim is supported by the facts of his sinless life, death, resurrection and ascension, thus my source of truth has proven it trustworthiness. I have additional support to his claims through the guidance of the Holy Spirit of which I am a receipient. Thus, I know what truth is by measuring truth claims against the proven reliability of God's Word and the confirmation of the Holy Spirit - both truth sources affirmed by my primary truth source. A syllogism: p1 Jesus Christ is a reliable truth source p2 ...

Eerdman's Commentary puts it well stating that in 1 Cor 1:18,19 "Paul contrasts human wisdom, which leaves God out of account and is man-centered , with the wisdom of God." This explains that human wisdom (a presuppositional approach which denies or fails to acknowledge God) not only will not lead to God, but is inferior to the wisdom of God. ... hence the message of the cross - the means (rather than human wisdom)of salvation. Not stopping there, the same source goes on to say "...true rightness comes from a broken heart, not from brains." (Note: Human wisdom also denies or fails to recognize sin, but Christ crucified does! Hence Christ is the power and wisdom of God leading to salvation, not human wisdom.)

When Atheists presuppose and argue there is "NO EVIDENCE" for intelligent design (before allowing evidence or arguments to be presented), and when atheists DISCREDIT believers on account of their faith (without consideration of evidence and argument...simply because they do not hold to atheist presuppositions and worldview), then atheists expose the truth not only concerning their own blindness, biases, and brainlessness, but concerning their WILLFUL ignorance, obstinance and unreasonableness...the very thing charge laid upon them in Scripture. ... It's interesting this (at least the latter position)is the agreed upon method of attack currently in operation by atheist leaders (See The Four Horsemen ). It would be like going to court and hearing one side of a case argue they will prove their case and do so by arguing the evidence on the other side is not only all inadmissable but does not exist to begin with. Seems they want to close the case before allowing the opening ...

Jay Richards and Christopher Hitchens recently debated "intelligent design" at Stanford. Here is a sample of the exchange. Hitchens then requested the chance to ask Richards a question. “Do you believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin?” he asked when Richards assented. “Do you believe he was resurrected from the dead?” Richards said that he did. “I rest my case,” said Hitchens. “This is an honest guy, who has just made it very clear [that] science has nothing to do with his world view.” Who can point out the logical error(s) here?

A new book out by David Robertson. Some may have read his letter(s) to Dawkins .

And sure enough, fish in different lakes have evolved a variety of similar features, repeatedly and independently. Read the article here: The Repeater You know - I seem to remember a day that this was called adaptation which does not carry the same presuppositional baggage as evolution - that variety within species is normal and observed - our intrepid reporter is simply following the party line by begging the evolutionary question, then structuring her strawman to support it. A modern fish tale ...

Just recently, I have started to have some interest in defining, refining my views on the meaning of the 1000 years of Rev. 20 - I have shied away from this topic, as it seems to be controversial rather than edifying, but I am putting it back in my "hopper" for a bit. I thought this graphic was very good: I tend toward amillennialism, simply because of my view of Revelation to be virtually 100% symbolic - I believe much trouble has come to the church by many folks over-literalizing the symbolic portions. Anyway, the distinctions have come back into my field of view, so I will be looking at them some. Here is a good starter site . Here is the discussion thread I started on the Puritanboard Here is an excellent summary of the doctrine and it's adherents.

Good article on ideology and U.S. Birth Rates

Forgive me for I realize this falls more in the category of homiletics than apologetics, ...but I couldn't resist. Read Mother Delays Cancer Treatments So Baby Can Live . What makes this story so touching is that one level it resembles the example set for us by Jesus. Note the voluntary choice, the great personal sacrifice, the courage and selflessness of the one making the sacrifice, and the fact that the one making the sacrifice was overjoyed in view of the outcome. "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

In Report: Muslim Cleric Issues Fatwa Against Bollywood Star for Wax Figure , it's reported that not just one but two Muslim actors have KNOWINGLY VIOLATED SHARIA LAW by allowing wax figures to be made of them. Of particular interest is a statement made by film critic Parsa Rao who says Salman Khan (who violated Sharia law)doesn't have much to worry about, saying; "This is just nonsense that no one pays any attention to ...These fatwas are becoming a joke." Seems the Muslim authorities and Sharia law have taken significant hits in the press recently first with Ghadaffi and now by Khan. What kind of authority is it that when it's in the interest of the individual can EASILY, OPENLY AND WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANT RETRIBUTION be set aside? Seems Islam is beginning to have more and more of a public relations problem, but that's understandable when one considers that in religions where legalism is preached, violations often occur, and the more the rules differ from ...

In Three Pigs story ruled ‘offensive to Muslims’ a children’s story based on the tale of the "Three Little Pigs" was rejected for an award after judges became concerned that it would offend Muslims and "The Three Little Cowboy Builders" was also criticized for its potential to offend builders. Suppose books which promote same sex lifestyles or that espouse evolution and/or deny intelligent design will be rejected for their potential to offend Christians?

Reuters has an article about a a girl who considers herself a "human pet". She is led by her fiance on a leash and says she generally acts animal-like..." What's interesting is the the basis for justification she provides for her behavior and actions, saying: "It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone." Perfect example of what all can and is considered acceptable when not only the Scripture (and our ultimate calling) is set aside but when one looks to happiness and whether one's actions hurt someone else as the ultimate criteria for evaluating one's actions. And yet how often do we hear it argued that "It's my choice and if it makes me happy and if I'm not hurting anyone", then it must be okay?

Those who claim the Bible is dated and therefore irrelevant and of no value today often go unchallenged. Their assertion is that just because a text was written many years ago, it must therefore be outdated, of little to no use, and incapable of speaking to, addressing, or affecting things in the present. Response: 1. Such arguments fail to recognize the ways and the power of the word and the truth. 2. Such arguments fail to acknowledge an inconsistency in that other documents of age are considered enduring and of present use and relevance. 3. Such arguments fail to recognize not only the common questions, issues, and struggles of humanity, but the timeless principles of God's Word which are found to be of great value when faithfully and appropriately applied. 4. Such arguments fail to recognize the continuing revealed power and effect of the gospel over time, geography, and opposition in regard to the advance of the kingdom and the souls of men.

[Note: the intent of this post is not to show or encourage disdain for those with issues of weight, but specifically in the area where obesity (especially beyond other factors) is sought to be justified, to show the similaries of the arguments between some who seek to justify obesity (and for some - all forms of it) and those who seek to justify homosexuality.] In the NY Times article "In the Fatosphere, Big Is in, or at Least Accepted", one may see the arguments for accepting obesity sound an awful like those for accepting homosexuality, including the following: 1. In the fatosphere, there's now speak of an "acceptance challenge"; those with "50% more fat" call on others to accept their bodies; and there's a "celebration" of who one is. It's not just the condition but the lifestyle that others must accept. 2. Fat has nothing to do with morality. In fact "fat is not a result of moral failure or a character flaw, or of gluttony...

I recently saw a commercial advertizing "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. The commercial ended with the statement "Imagine No Religion." If I'm not mistaken, we don't have to imagine this, doesn't history provide numerous examples of places where that experiment has been tried? (Note: It's not surprising that immigration issues and law were/are not a big issue in these locales.)

Islamic law, practices and mindset. Note what this article says concerning human dignity (of all?)/values, women's rights, marriage/divorce, killing/suicide, justice, etc. No wonder some are so concerned about Islam being exposed . Shine the light and what's hidden will be exposed. Evidence like this puts Muslims in a precarious situation. Either they must distance themselves from the teaching of the Koran, deny the Koran teaches what it does, live inconsistly when the Word they hold as their authority, or hold to their teachings and be seen for what stand for before the world. Greater openness and communication works to the advantage of Christianity and against the centers of darkness found in the world. ...... Type rest of the post here ......

LOL - hilarious! :))

Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism. When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed–i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were. It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism “…outdoor relief for the upper classes?”) But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was “owned” (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a ...

Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs? Wow - you gotta be astounded at the lengths of imagination Man goes to in order to prop up the religion of naturalism...

POSITION PAPER on INTELLIGENT DESIGN: A BALANCED, RESPECTFUL and RATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

It should not be surprising when once the door of re-defining relationships has been opened there's no telling what will come through next. It appears Eddie Murphy and Tracey Edmonds traded vows with one another but their's was not a marriage, nor a civil union, but a celebration of "friendship". What's next? ... And here's another question for down the road: In the future, should "friend-spouses" be entitled to benefits, etc., though they admit their vows and their relationship were not "legally binding"? (Do they not have rights, entitlements, etc., and if so, what rights, entitlements, to what degree, etc., etc., etc., etc.?) Murphy's publicist revealed a statement on the “friends joined in symbolic union”’s behalf saying: "After much consideration and discussion, we have jointly decided that we will forego having a legal ceremony as it is not necessary to define our relationship further..." If that doesn't elate ...

Simon Cowell said to Randy on the opening night of American Idol words to the effect "You know something about your country... people actually get excited when people they know receive good news and they go celebrate with them. I don't see myself doing that..." Should we not "rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn" (Romans 12:15)? As Matthew Henry puts it, does not "true love interest us in the sorrows and joys of one another, and teach us to make them our own."?

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9

In Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs? several things are revealed through the examination of modern science: 1. The biblical framework is being confirmed - "Astronomers now know the universe has not lasted forever."; The universe "was born" and things occurred such that the "primordal chaos" was endowed with "order"; "time seems to go in only one direction"; and in the universe in which we live there are not only "laws" but things in existence and taking place that leave man in amazement and awe. 2. The biblical prophesy is being revealed - The universe is such that even the most brilliant among men cannot figure out reality along with what has been done. Not only this, but apart from revelation and faith, humanity cannot discern or say with assurance what is real, and cannot even prove that they themselves (along with you and me) are not an "illusion." (The author just hinted, but was actually ri...

Note Michael D. Lemonick's conclusion in his Time in Partnership with CNN article " Did Insects Kill the Dinosaurs? " He states: "Taken together, the hothouse glaciers and the sickly dinosaurs suggest a conclusion that should serve nicely as the new conventional wisdom about the paleontological past: Don't take conventional wisdom too seriously."

Stephen Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, published an article in the New York Times entitled "The Moral Instinct". In it he refers to "the science of the moral sense". Interesting article, and perhaps an indicator of debates to come, as it not only indicates a rising interest in moral law ("These days, the moral law within is being viewed with increasing awe, if not always admiration") and that there is usefulness in studying morality, but also as he makes reference to the "evolutionary history and neurobiological foundations" of the human moral sense. ... and what's most telling of things to come is that all this comes after the author's remark that "our heads can be turned by an aura of sanctity, distracting us from a more objective reckoning...", along with an opening illustration where it is the one clothed in religious garments (Mother Theresa) whose past definition and recognition of ...

No matter what your view - good discussion over on the Puritanboard .

I've read several articles today about mutualisms in nature. See In Battle of Elephants and Ants, Trees Win Big and In Life’s Web, Aiding Trees Can Kill Them . One comment in the NPR article caught my attention. It states: "It's a co-evolutionary war," he says. "People used to think of mutualisms as friendly situations but it's really more of a battlefield." From this perspective, relationships are either defined as "friendly situations" or a "battlefield" (two opposite extremes). My question to evolutionists (or co-evolutionists): Which is it? Here again, the Scripture provides the answer that even ecologists are having difficulty defining... and that is that creatures simultaneously possess both an independence and dependence upon others. It's not just about "survival of the fittest", or even co-survival of the co-fittest, but discovering and both working toward and looking toward the order and restoration of God...

NYTimes has an article on Colorado being sacred ground for many followers. Reasons given in the article for this being sacred ground include things like "the twilight", "less distractions", "two dozen different religious centers", a "serene 210-acre Sacred Land Trust", "An abundance of arrowheads and spears found in the area", "There’s an epic quality to these crags that rise out of the plains ...", "Deserts, forests and mountains figure so prominently in humanity’s quests for the divine that Crestone’s geographic hat trick seems ideal for universal worship", etc. All these are to confuse experiences with creation with the presence of the Creator. As the Scripture teaches, it's not the place or the circumstances that makes a certain ground holy, but rather the presence of God. Holy ground can be found even in a sweltering desert if the Lord is present. At the same time, the absence of the Lord can keep even the...

According to "scientists", the election of a president who doubts evolution will doom us: " This is a way of leading our country to ruin. The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming" US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists I am sure that the irony is not lost on those who read this...referring to logic in the statement, and then employing the fallacy of the non-sequitor in the same sentence is quite funny. Because rejecting the theory of evolution does not necessarily lead to rejecting "science". This is an age-old canard rolled out by evolutionary scientists, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Sorry.

Common descent, the backbone of evolutionary theory, is assumed to be both a definition and proof for the theory. This is based on several "proofs". The creationist comeback is that the same evidence apply equally well to common design, proof that a single designer was responsible. The one shortcoming of the creation side is that of a mechanism, which, for better or for worse, the common descent side claims to have identified and described. In this post I will try to elaborate on the descent/design argument a bit, and also posit an ex-nihilo creation hypothesis by analogy. Morphology, DNA similarities and the combination of both in a dated sequence is proof positive of common descent. If you assume of course, a-priori, that common descent is true. Morphological proof, the way things look, states that because there are anatomical similarities, it is proof that they shared a common ancestor. But the same morphological evidence is what first raised the possibility of common desc...

I just listened to Bill Maher - the rampantly anti-religious talk show host - hold court on the Conan O'Brian late night show. (Look it up on youtube, if you can stomach it...ugh) Anyway, Bill was making the case that you cannot harmonize science and religion - that all religious people are, at best, schizophrenic. To emphasize this assertion and support his false dilemma , he posed this "challenge" to Conan using a popular anti-apologetical question, "Do you believe in a talking snake?" This had all the makings of a complex question and Conan played the perfect straight-man for the fallacy - to wit - there are at least 2 assumptions "built-in" to this seemingly straightforward question: a. It assumes a naturalistic worldview. b. It assumes the Bible account is ridiculous and irrational. Thus, the only "rational" answer is an emphatic "NO" ! (although, to Conan's limited credit, it seemed as if he struggled a bit against the tr...

By Katherine T. Phan "From jellyfish fossil finds to the newly discovered function of the appendix, a science and technology watchdog group has released a list of some of the year's top news that reflect mounting evidence supporting intelligent design. The Access Research Network – which reports on science, technology and society from an intelligent design perspective – recently released its "Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories" list for 2007." Read More...

I thought this was an excellent response that defends the Lord's preserving work on His Word through His people.

NYTimes reports the National Academy of Science has a new 70 page textbook out for the lay public entitled "Science, Evolution and Creation". While on the one hand those who worked on it assert that "... acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God" and the book itself even suggests " “attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.”; ...the book then is said to go on and "denounces the arguments for a form of creationism called intelligent design, calling them devoid of evidence, 'disproven' or 'simply false.'" While most are familiar with arguments that seek to allow evolution within a religious framework, this still seems to be a means of softpedaling or fooling the public through pandering appeasement into blindly accepting their product which continues to be filled with their same propaganda... or what's better known as the ol' bait and switch tec...

From this article , not only can prostitution be explained, but it can be historically, genetically, and foundationally justified ... that is...at least according to an EVOLUTION standpoint. I've been told by some homosexuals that even most of them look down on prostitution, but here it seems evolution serves not only not to condemn prostitution, but to justify it! For evolutionists, not only is talk cheap, but SEX is CHEAP, for it's the "biological market" that determines its value.

Is it just me, or does it seem like scientists who presuppose evolution are arbitrary in thier standards and selection as to "how" and "when" to apply lessons learned from monkeys in relationship to the human condition?