We Were in a Discussion 3

There is one more point to make out of that review we asked the unbelieving friend to write. It is at the end where his final words were:

In many ways it feels like David has written this book to appeal to people who already believe in his interpretation of the Bible.

Of course, our books, this website, our Hub articles, and other writings are written for believers. They are not written for unbelievers as we are not attempting to do evangelism with what we write.

Many years ago, we got tired of hearing salvation messages every Sunday night in church. Then we really got tired of it when those sermons and alter calls were moved to the traditional worship hour.

Not only could we not get any spiritual food but the majority of Christians attending those churches were being deprived of spiritual nourishment. We also grew tired of being kept at square one every week.

Not being able to grow and get good spiritual insight from the local churches we decided, after years of research and study, to write for believers the information they needed to get past square one and grow in their faith.

All of our books found over at https://theoarch.wordpress.com/contact/ are designed to get believers the type of information they need in order to live stronger Christian lives as well as build their faith.

This website, while actually targeting pastors, missionaries, and church leaders can be read by anyone who wants to know more and shore up any loose aspects of their belief in Jesus.

We encourage you to buy the books and get your friends and relatives to buy them as everyone needs more information and they need the truth. That is what we strive for when we write.

Moving on, in that discussion we posted our opinion on democracy v. God we have a couple more issues to discuss.

Fundamentalists are fond of saying that humanist morality isn’t “universal”. They argue that we humans cannot distinguish right from wrong without divine guidance, so humanist ethics are essentially a rudderless ship, with each person defining his own version of morality to suit his convenience.

While atheists and some unbelievers may lead very moral lives and are good to their wives, children, and so on, it is hard for them to live truly godly moral lives for many reasons.

#1. the rules they follow are not totally moral or just. Just because one obeys human laws does it mean that they are really being moral. Abortion is legal but those who take advantage of that legal status or support those who do are not truly being moral. They may be in obedience to the law but they are not being moral as killing was banned over 3,000 years ago.

#2. atheists and unbelievers may obey certain laws and do not steal, kill, rob, abuse, or commit assault, but if they lie to their children or to others, then they are not being moral. They may also fudge on their taxes while thinking they are still moral.

Morality covers more than just killing, harming, stealing, and so on.

to paraphrase Socrates, is something righteous because the gods deem it so, or do the gods deem it so because it is righteous?

The answer to that question is that God declares what is righteous. He is the only one qualified to do so and there is no other god above him.

If the ‘gods’ deem it so because it is already righteous, who needs those gods? They have proven they are not powerful enough to declare what is good or evil and there is another god or God more powerful than they.

These gods who deem something righteous simply because it is already righteous prove they are not worthy of adoration, honor, or even glory. They have not done anything to warrant or merit such worship.

Something is righteous because GOD deems it so and he also declares what is evil, sin, and wrong behavior.

If you are fundamentalist and you lean toward the former, then answer this: since your religion is not universal, then how can a system of morality which requires your religion be universal?

But Christianity is universal. It is open to all who are seeing they are in need of a savior and want to give up their sinful lives for something better. There is nothing better than salvation through Jesus Christ.

The fact there are so many different religions and faiths in the world today does not indicate that Christianity is not universal. Instead, it shows the nature of the people of the world and how they use their right of free choice.

What we are seeing in the world today, is the result of ‘men love darkness rather than light’ or if you want an example from the OT, Gen 6 tells us that the people God created thought only of evil.

In other words, people are not seeing a universal application of true Christianity is because most men and women do not want to live by true Christianity rules and instructions.

The morality described by Christianity is still universal as all men and women will be judged by the God who created Christianity, this world, and all the rules, commands & instructions he gave in the OT & NT.

Christian morality does not have to universally accepted and followed to be universal. the words of the Bible its command to be holy apply to everyone even government leaders, business owners, CEOs, and so on. No one is to ignore God’s words.

the argument that we cannot rely on human judgement to form governing policy doesn’t hold water

Proverbs tells us to ‘lean not unto our own understanding’ as our understanding, knowledge, and so on are very limited. We should be leaning on God’s words and following them correctly.

Exercising human understanding does not mean we only decide on laws, morality, and other issues that the unbeliever approves of. The exercising of human judgment also includes seeing how limited we are and that we are not capable of running courts, governments, schools, and more without the aid of God.

Opting to follow God’s objective standards and rules is not abdicating any use of human understanding, instead, it is using it to make the wisest choice possible. Just because the unbeliever claims otherwise does not make it so.

Remember we are to please God not unbelievers.

If you go to that website on democracy v. God, you will see some references to Hitler and his supposed faith. We have already dealt with that issue at this link and this one.  We also dealt with this topic here and a mention of the holocaust here.

When you have the time, you can read or re-read those articles. For those curious as to our thoughts on democracy, etc., here is what we wrote when the owner of that website wondered about what we thought

In thinking about it I will just post a short response here in the comment section to address the key issues. When it comes to democracy, it is the weakest form of any political governing system in existence today. The reason for saying that is because anyone with any ideology has the capability and ability to persuade the majority to vote in favor of their ideology no matter how liberal or conservative it gets.

Under socialism, totalitarianism, theocracy, and communism that is not possible unless you go to open revolt. Then democracy generally follows the moral rules set out in the Bible whereas those other systems generally follow the morals of a specific individual or group of people. That includes a theocracy that follows a false religion or one of the many bad protestants, cultic or other religions associated with Protestantism.

The problem with the response given in the above article is that it does not account for the presence of evil in the world, its influence, and how many people are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Nothing is untainted by evil unless one follows the one true God and his ways correctly which most people refuse to do.

The unbelieving world does not understand spiritual things. they need the help of the Holy Spirit to have their eyes opened to see the truth. While you wait for that to take place in the lives of family or friends, etc., continue reading our books and websites to build your faith and be prepared for their questions.

You can’t win people to Christ when you are claiming Christ and God are both different from the way they represent themselves in the Bible.

Sponsored Post Learn from the experts: Create a successful blog with our brand new courseThe WordPress.com Blog

WordPress.com is excited to announce our newest offering: a course just for beginning bloggers where you’ll learn everything you need to know about blogging from the most trusted experts in the industry. We have helped millions of blogs get up and running, we know what works, and we want you to to know everything we know. This course provides all the fundamental skills and inspiration you need to get your blog started, an interactive community forum, and content updated annually.

We Were in a Discussion 2

We are doing 2 posts back to back to give you a lot to read and ponder as you go through your weekend. We decided to do this because we do get busy and do not have the time to get the posts up in a timely matter.

This past week we were in a discussion over at Meerkat Musing and the reason We got involved was that the owner of that site wondered what our views would be on the topic of democracy vs. God.

Our post was only intended to be a one-off comment and not part of a larger discussion. Here are our words:

In thinking about it I will just post a short response here in the comment section to address the key issues. When it comes to democracy, it is the weakest form of any political governing system in existence today. The reason for saying that is because anyone with any ideology has the capability and ability to persuade the majority to vote in favor of their ideology no matter how liberal or conservative it gets.

Under socialism, totalitarianism, theocracy, and communism that is not possible unless you go to open revolt. Then democracy generally follows the moral rules set out in the Bible whereas those other systems generally follow the morals of a specific individual or group of people. That includes a theocracy that follows a false religion or one of the many bad protestants, cultic or other religions associated with Protestantism.

The problem with the response given in the above article is that it does not account for the presence of evil in the world, its influence, and how many people are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Nothing is untainted by evil unless one follows the one true God and his ways correctly which most people refuse to do.

Unfortunately, the owner of that site decided to create a discussion instead of simply thanking us for providing him his wish. But one good thing came of the discussion and it was the following point

My ideals include following evidence and they include following a humanist moral code that has existed for thousands of years

There are problems with that statement. the first problem comes in with the word ‘evidence’. The author of those words fails to realize that evidence is very vulnerable and it depends on who is describing it as to what that evidence will prove.

We have seen many different archaeologists and other scientists look at the same evidence and come up with 3 to 4 different possibilities. None of which have any hope of being verified in the present.

Then there is the problem of secular scientists declaring something as evidence when there is no ancient confirmation or objective manuscript stating what the evidence should be and should not be.

In other words, the unbelieving scientist is creating their own evidence to support their own theories. That is not logical, rational, or even close to being right.

Finally, what people say is evidence is usually incomplete and archaeologists, anthropologists, and other secular scientists are always saying we need to wait till new technology, methodologies, and so on are created to find more information.

In the meantime what are people supposed to do? Most will die before those new items are invented and any possible new information is uncovered. They will die in their sins and lose out on salvation because they listened to scientists, etc. That is not right, nor is it love or anything healthy.

Evidence is often incomplete, actually, it is almost always incomplete, and too many archaeologists, etc., come to the wrong conclusions based on that incomplete evidence. Do we allow ourselves to be misled and do so wilfully?

That attitude may be fine with unbelievers as they do not want to humble themselves and obey God but for the believer, we cannot do that as it would be sin and allowing evil to destroy the truth and our lives.

God did not say govern by evidence or even live by it. He said to obey Him and his rules and have faith.

Second, the person we were having a discussion with said the following (we are requoting it here as it is a ways back):

they include following a humanist moral code that has existed for thousands of years

As you may have guessed, there are problems with this comment as well. First, the humanist code may have been in existence for thousands of years but it is NOT the first code to exist. The biblical code was.

Next, the biblical code was followed for a long time and still is being followed although on a minority and individual level. Also, the author needs to take into account that the supposed humanist code did not suddenly appear one day and was created by some unbelieving king.

It came from the biblical code and was altered by unbelievers as they strayed further and further away from God and his word. The humanist code is actually a fulfillment of the verse, man loves darkness rather than light.

Their code expresses that love for darkness in all of the permissions it grants to sinful activities. The next mistake found in that statement is the fact that the humanist code is not static nor objective.

It changes from person to person, leader to leader, civilization to civilization. Which humanist code does that person want to abide by? He may say his own and that will expose his true feelings in that he wants to dictate to others how they should live instead of, again, humbly obeying God and his commands.

Then what benefits has that humanist code brought to the world at any time in history? Once the humanist code was established we have seen no end to wars, no end to crime, unfair and unjust legal systems, poor educational systems, bias, and prejudicial treatment and it lets sin and evil destroy nations as well as paradise.

The biblical code brings life, truth, fairness, justice, shows people how to live correctly and what not to do if they want to live in paradise. It stops crime, hatred, sinful behaviors that ruin paradise as well as have people living peacefully with their neighbors and so on.

The only problem with the biblical code is that sinful men use and misuse it for their own personal and sinful gain. if followed correctly, life on earth would be next to paradise but since evil exists do not expect the biblical code to have a lot of impact on those aforementioned issues.

Also, the biblical code tells us to get educated, get wisdom, understanding, as well as obey the laws of the government, not rebel against governments, and more.

In other words, the biblical code stops sin and evil while the humanist code encourages it and helps it to grow. Which society would you rather live in? One that promotes evil, injustice, unfairness, crime, and so on or one that helps people stop those behaviors and allows everyone to live freely and p[eacefully?

The humanist code, while being in existence for thousands of years, has failed all the civilizations it has been used in. Even though it came from the biblical code and many biblical laws are seen in this code, it has not produced the utopia many unbelievers expect to take place at some point in time.

Unfortunately, none of them will live long enough to see it take place. That is because the humanist code cannot create a utopian society. It is too corrupt and sinful to achieve anything remotely close to paradise.

The desire to live under a humanist code only shows one thing- that the unbeliever still does not want Jesus or God in their lives and they do not want to live as humble servants to the one who created them.

We have a lot of work to do still before the Lord comes.

 

We Were in a Discussion

Over at Meerkat Musing when we saw this little tidbit on one of their web pages

If you’re an author and you would like me to review your book, you can contact me at ____________and I’ll review your material

We see those words as a promise and while we made it a challenge, we mentioned the word promise, and the owner of that site, someone we have known for years, said he did not see it that way.

Since he said those words we challenged him to review our 4 most recent books. He decided to review our Much To talk About vol.2 work instead. Which is fine, not a problem with us as it was the exposure we wanted.

Keep in mind that that website owner holds vastly different views than we do and speaks to a very different audience than we do. So we were not expecting too much from his review but we did appreciate his candor and honesty

Between the dotted lines, we will post the unedited review and we got permission to post it. We will make a few comments after the quote is done. Knowing how the unbelieving world thinks, helps evangelism, apologetics as well as just getting along with those who do not believe.

———————————————————————–

Allow me to preface this review with a statement – I have sparred on many occasions with the author of this book, across a range of subjects, many of which are covered in his book. As such, I freely admit that I may be biased in my appraisal of his work. I cannot guarantee this review is neutral, so to speak. I can only offer my honest thoughts and opinions on what David has written.

I will confess that the style of the book is not what I expected, but it appears to be a series of website articles brought together in one place, with bits of original material added here and there. I may be mistaken about that, however that is my early impression. As such, I’m not sure as to the structure of the book. It lifts a series of links to websites but if reading a physical copy, you’d not be able to use those links to gain more context for David’s arguments; some of the arguments are critiques of other websites and I can’t help but feel a lot of context is missing.

Make no mistake, I have a measure of respect for anyone who is prepared to put their work (and by extension themselves) out into the world for scrutiny. It’s clear that David has confidence in his arguments (is faith a better term?!), and he doesn’t waver from his positions, which points to conviction. I do not agree with many of his positions (I’ve made that clear over the last few years), but I respect his right to share them.

My chief issue is that David takes the Bible as inerrant, an absolute truth, and everything else, from society to politics to science, is filtered through this lens. In taking this approach the book feels like it’s taken a conclusion as the premise, and everything else must either bend to that conclusion or be rejected and denounced as sinful and evil. I’ve found myself considering what I view as several ironic claims from David in respect of fairness and ‘evil’, and this book has not persuaded me to reconsider those claims.

There are elements to David’s writings that I find to be hypocritical. When speaking about the apparent selfishness of the LGBT community, David suggests their desire for equality is unreasonable. He suggests they force their wishes for society upon everyone, which to me is a falsehood. The desire to be treated equally does not equate to forcing views upon others. Expecting to receive service from public-facing businesses (who have agreed to obey laws and regulations regarding equal treatment) is not ‘forcing beliefs’ upon others. Civil marriage ceremonies do not infringe upon anyone else. Pushing to be able to get a job (or keep a job), or to be able to rent or buy a home without the threat of dismissal is not forcing values upon others, but merely a desire to be treated equally.

Contrast with the conservative religious right, that have long desired to establish greater influence over others, regardless of what others may wish. In some parts of the world this involves using considerable financial influence to lobby institutions towards their way of thinking. It may involve door-to-door canvassing and even open defiance of laws. In some parts of the world being gay can mean imprisonment or even death. To suggest that wishing for the same freedoms as anyone else is ‘selfish’ isn’t a reasonable position to take.

David also indulges in the Slippery Slope Fallacy. We are led to believe that the LGBT community’s wish for equality is hypocritical, as no one is campaigning for bestiality or as David puts it, other forms of sexual perversion’. As always that argument is largely resolved by the position of consent. What two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is entirely up to them. The Church or the state has no right to interfere, yet this appears to be David’s wish, whilst simultaneously decrying the allegedly pushy agenda of the LGBT community. Naturally any non-consensual form of sexual activity sit sits outside the realm of what’s acceptable.

I’m digressing here, turning this review into something of a detailed analysis, which isn’t my intention but it feels inevitable, given the subject matter. Suffice to say, I don’t share David’s views on science and the application of it, nor do I share his views on society. I can only say, once again, that I appreciate David is willing to present his ideas in a manner that leaves them open to criticism and counterpoints. I cannot agree with the claims David makes about science, archaeology and society.

In many ways it feels like David has written this book to appeal to people who already believe in his interpretation of the Bible. That is his right.

In the end, if I am to rate this book, it scores 3/5, which is actually generous in some respects, if only because I am fully aware of my own bias and trying to reign it in. 

——————————————————-

The author of that review does make several mistakes.

In taking this approach the book feels like it’s taken a conclusion as the premise, and everything else must either bend to that conclusion or be rejected and denounced as sinful and evil.

At some point, unbelievers have to stop demanding that Christians must begin at the same position as the unbeliever sits and recognize that the Christian has already been in his position but has had Christ revealed to them and they made a decision to accept salvation.

We are not starting with a conclusion but revealing the truth to others so they can participate in the same life as we enjoy. We have already been where they sat, and we do not have to start all over again and travel the same road more than once.

He also makes the mistake of thinking that good and evil are subjective and anyone is capable of declaring what is sinful and evil. That is not so, and many pastors and church leaders need to stop adding to God’s list, only God declares what is good, evil, sinful, holy, and so on.

Nothing is being bent by the Christian, they are merely telling others the reality.  God created this world and he gets to set the rules, not unbelievers.

Contrast with the conservative religious right, that have long desired to establish greater influence over others, regardless of what others may wish.

To a point this is true and many Christians in some very strict church congregations have experienced this as well. This is one of the mistakes the evangelical world has done over the years.

They are forcing their views in the form of passing laws to mandate certain behavior. But then, so is the unbelieving world doing the exact same thing through legislation called zero tolerance, political correctness, cancel culture, and many more.

A fact that escapes the unbelievers’ thinking is that the Christian is part of the public and have the same rights as they do as to what laws can be passed. They have the right to try to pattern the society they live in to fit their preferences just like the unbeliever has.

Society is not just for the unbeliever. There is also no law stating that the government has to be secular only. The concept of the separation of church and state is not found in the American constitution and although it is said to be implied, in the First Amendment that is not so.

The keyword in that amendment is ‘establishment’ and that usually is taken to mean creating a national religion like some other countries in this world have. It does not mean that Christians cannot be president, etc., and help create laws that follow biblical principles.

If it did, then almost all the laws of America must be scrapped as they were built on biblical principles. This is a discussion for another day. The important fact is that Christians have the right to see their society be governed in a manner that is safe for everyone even if that means passing certain laws that prohibit specific behaviors like abortion, drug use, sexual preferences, same-sex marriage, and so on.

Society does not belong solely to the unbeliever and their evil or sinful ways.

As always that argument is largely resolved by the position of consent. What two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is entirely up to them. The Church or the state has no right to interfere

This argument always comes up and it is based on a misconception of the role of government. basically, governments have the right to rule and govern every aspect of life within their borders.

They are the government, they set the laws, and so on. And no, what 2 consenting adults do in their own home is not up to them. It is also up to God and he has set the rules for relationships very clearly.

The LGBTQ issue is not about personal preference but obedience to God and his rules. That means that both the Church and the State have a right to tell people what is the right way and the wrong way to conduct a relationship.

Also, since society belongs to the Christian as well as the non-Christian, Christians still get a say in what laws should or should not be passed. If they do not want LGBTQ preferences conducted openly, in public and in movies, television shows, and so on, then they have the right to create laws banning those actions.

If they do not like those preferences, then by all means they also have the right through free speech to advocate for laws that fit their beliefs. if the unbeliever doesn’t like this then too bad.

They do not care if the church does not like the laws that they get passed so they cannot expect anything different in return.

We are led to believe that the LGBT community’s wish for equality is hypocritical, as no one is campaigning for bestiality or as David puts it, other forms of sexual perversion’

It is hypocritical and selfish of the LGBTQ community to force their views and preferences upon those who disagree with them. Their preferences are sin and evil and the only lead to the destruction of society and a nation.

Remember, God makes the rules, and only his rules matter. While man has been given permission to rule, that permission does not mean they are free to rule outside of God’s instructions immune from God’s punishment and judgment.

If they listen to evil and pursue their own path, then they can expect to be judged by God as the Bible has laid out. Those governments are not going to get any rewards for their following evil and establishing secular governments that allow sin to destroy nations.

LGBTQ preferences are not normal, natural, right, or even good. There is no place in any society for such practices. Forcing their views on others is selfish, arrogant, and sinful.

It is also hypocritical as the LGBTQ community and individuals do not treat others in the same manner as they wish to be treated. Where they were once the abused, etc., they are now the abuser, etc. That is not correct behavior in any society.

If LGBTQ preferences and attitudes are so good and of God why are they not treating others like the bible says to do? That is one of the key signs of being hypocritical- not doing as you claim to believe.

The key for the believer is when they want to change society, do it God’s way to be successful.

They See the Evidence

yet they do not believe or accept the Bible. Here is a video, a bit long, by Graham Hancock on ancient societies and catastrophes. Click here to get to the video.

If you have read our e-book on Noah’s flood you would know that we have used the information uncovered by Mr. Hancock to help prove that the biblical flood did happen and is true. We do not use his theories or anything like that just the evidence he uncovered.

This video has a lot more evidence proving that a flood occurred the catch is that neither the discoverer of that information, the unbelieving scientists, and Mr. Hancock himself do not accept this evidence for physical evidence for the biblical flood.

Instead, they become very creative with the evidence and state that anywhere between 8 and 80 floods took place during ancient times. The physical evidence is presented at about the 40-minute mark and ongoing.

If you listen to the video, you will see that they turn their nose up at anything that would even remotely connected to the Biblical account. This is why we are not concerned about any discovery for Noah’s ark.

If discovered, the ark will not be the game-changer many people think it will be. One reason for saying this is that you would have a very hard time proving it was the actual ark and get people to accept that result.

Two, it doesn’t matter what physical evidence you present, it will be dismissed and credited to other events that could not possibly be the source for the evidence that is uncovered.

If you read our book, you will also know that we started it off using a quote told us by a militant atheist we have debated often over the years– ‘go and start digging’. Well, we never did for we knew it would be a wasted effort.

Not only would the atheists and unbelievers be placed in a position of superiority where they can deny any real evidence for the flood on a whim but they will say that it is not enough physical evidence to convince them.

One of the problems we pointed out in our book was the fact that there has only been one global flood. No one has any idea what physical evidence for that event would look like.

Then 4,000+/- years of natural disasters, storms, wars, destruction, and construction, etc., would have changed that evidence immensely. So much so that most people would not recognize it as evidence even if they saw it.

It is very difficult to convince an unbeliever or anyone that you have evidence for the flood when no one knows what the evidence is supposed to look like. This is what we are seeing in that video. They are looking at the evidence yet, credit the results to something that could not have done the deed if they accept it at all.

If you watch the video, you will also notice that Mr. Hancock places a large time frame on when different ancient sites were built, when those supposed alternative floods took place, and so on.

Since archaeology cannot see into the past, those dates are suspect at best. While the site sare old. archaeologists cannot accurately place a date on those sites because they are dating the wrong material. Mr. Hancock does point that out and those are spots where we do agree with him.

The supposed independent dating systems are dating the wrong material and giving the unbeliever what they want to see and hear and not the truth. The reason for that reaction and the dismissal of the physical evidence for the flood is because the archaeologists, Mr. Hancock, and other scientists are deceived.

Their eyes are blind and they can look but not see what is before their eyes. We have said that Noah’s flood has more physical evidence proving it took place than any other biblical event recorded in the Bible. This video just adds more evidence to the body of work we already know and have written about.

The physical evidence is there, but only enough to build up our faith, and not so much that faith is ruined. Faith will always be a part of the equation. If the unbelievers you talk to dismiss that fact, remind them that it takes a lot more faith to believe that an asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

The asteroid theory mentioned in the video is ridiculous and has no real evidence proving it true. Any evidence presented for its impact and destruction cannot be verified.

But that is the way it is with unbelieving science. It creates alternatives to biblical events and cannot verify one thing they say. We see the physical evidence found by both believers and unbelievers and we know the biblical flood has been verified.

If you can ignore the alternative theories and evolutionary viewpoints, you will find that unbelievers do uncover lots of evidence for the biblical events. The key to finding that evidence is to ask God to help you stay clear of those false ideas and lead you to the truth.