Where Do I Begin- 3

Almost done. This should get me caught up for now.

#1. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/03/creationism-in-proverbs.html

Proverbs emphasizes that it is a fool who refuses to accept correction. Based on that, who are the fools when it comes to science?

Yes Proverbs does say that but it does not refer to Christians accepting correction from those who do not believe God. Nor does it mean that Christians do not take false teaching over the truth.

McGrath has it backwards. Science does not trump God or God’s word and he needs to consider the source before demanding that creationist accept any correction.  But as we see, those who accept alternatives, like McGrath does, distort scripture to force believers to drop the truth and head for their falsehoods.

That whole post is based upon some new discovery in Brazil and you can click on the link in McGrath’s post to get to the story but that discovery has nothing to do with migration.  It isn’t just the dates that are off but the idea that the stone tools imply any sort of evidence for migration.

Anyone can make stone tools and their construction is not limited to one era. There is no way to tell when those stone tools were made or for what purpose. Because scientists have no way of knowing how people moved in ancient times or what implements they had the best they can do is make things up.

I say make things up because they do not know where the pierces of the puzzle actually go so they are left blindly placing them in a pattern until they have had enough guessing and just go with whatever sounds good.

The people who need correction are the scientists, not the creationists.

#2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewell-Why-I-will-never-be-converted-to-gay-marriage.html

What is the marriage of two men or two women other than a public declaration of their partnership, a natural, secular and universal institution almost as old as civilisation? What then are the differences between marriage and a civil partnership? None, if they take place before a registrar in a registry or other authorised setting; only if Christianity is involved is there any distinction.

Without Christianity, no one would know right from wrong and the above quote demonstrates that fact.  This is why so many people want to eliminate or omit Christianity from any aspect of life. It gets in the way of their doing what they want and makes them realize that they are wrong.

Jesus said his followers are the light of the world and the world hates having that duty fulfilled. Same-sex marriage is more than just a public declaration of their partnership, it is sin and we all know that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Nothing good comes from same-sex marriage or the support of homosexuality.

Those who practice abnormal activities will always find a way to attack those who participate in normal ones:

The conventional marriage between a man and a woman now seems almost always to be an occasion of absurd extravagance, a white dress never to be worn again, toffs’ clothes previously worn by a thousand other sweating men, a white Rolls-Royce or two, food, drink, dancing and embarrassment, but it was not always so.

Not everyone celebrates a heterosexual marriage in the same way thus this attack falls short. These attacks are common and they are usually very generalized to emphasize their point. They are blind and deceived thus their analysis of past practices are very altered and unable to produce the truth.

They also ignore the role that God plays–he sets the boundaries for he is the one who created marriage and he alone declares what marriage is. Not the courts, the governments or those who do not want to play by God’s rules.

#3. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/03/heaven-is-for-young-sociopaths.html

How can the eternal torment of others not impact the bliss of those in heaven?

First, I doubt that God placed hell very close to his home where his followers would be troubled by the screams of the tormented. It wouldn’t be heaven if the suffering of those who rejected Christ were heard all the time.

Second, Those sent to hell made their choice after being told about the gospel or Jesus and God all their lives. If they weren’t told by people, there were many churches built and everyone knew their purpose.

For those who were not privy to all of that had God’s creation pointing them to God not evolution. They made their choice as well.

Third,the author’s of that quote doesn’t understand anything about heaven or God. God is just thus the eternal torment is the sentence they got, after being told that would be their sentence for their failure to repent. One cannot feel sorry for those who received a just sentence for their crimes. Even those receiving their sentence understand they have nothing to be angry about when the punishment is just. They know they did the crime so do those who reject Jesus as their savior.

The question of how there can be an eternal paradise with beings like us in it is a conundrum for most visions of heaven.

People who refuse to follow God’s way for salvation want heaven to be just like earth– inclusive and for everyone. It would not be heaven if sin was allowed to enter in. Nor would it be paradise if suffering were allowed to continue. People want to go to heaven but they do not want to give up sin in order to do so.

#4. http://unsettledchristianity.com/2014/03/an-ethical-take-on-homosexuality-in-scripture/

Yet, that is not the case. I believe that as a Christian, Scripture is an authoritative guide; however, we must use it reasonably within the framework of our theological tradition and not simply how we desire to read it.

After reading those words one must ask, why have a Bible at all if fallible man gets to change what it says to fit their desires? The author accuses Christians of using scriptures for their own desires when they speak against homosexuality but that is exactly what he proposes with that statement.

He wants to use scripture to support his desires, one being that homosexuality is not wrong. Believers cannot listen to a person like that simply because he is disallowing others to do what he does and that isn’t of God or just, let alone fair.

Those who support homosexuality do not want it to be a sin or wrong because they want to think of themselves as upstanding people worthy of heaven. They do not want to think about heading to hell, in other words they like to deceive themselves in order to enjoy their earthly lives.

The post linked to in Watts’ website is just another jealous and anger-filled speech that refuses to accept the truth and tries to rewrite scripture to make it say something it doesn’t.

Watts has another article on homosexuality

http://unsettledchristianity.com/2014/03/sodom-and-insert-your-community-here/

where he talks about the sins of Sodom but he isn’t convincing here. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t just do one sin even though one gets the most press. If one takes a close look at homosexuals and homosexuality  getting past the surface face homosexuals put on for the public and one would see how vile that preference really is.

Since there is nothing of God in the homosexual preference then there are no moral boundaries guiding the homosexual. Sure they can say they have morals but since their preference is already immoral then their supposed morality is tainted and ineffectual.

They will commit many sins if they so desire and the constant lawsuits we see taking place today brought by homosexuals lends support to this point. Like the pre-flood world, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah pushed God too far and went well past the point of no return. Homosexuality was a part of the sins those people practiced and it helped lead them to destruction for it broke down the barriers that guarded against the other sins.

#5. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/03/my-spot-on-editorial-on-a-movie-i-havent-seen-or-omg-noah-gets-the-bible-wrong/

For generations of children’s Sunday School classes and Vacation Bible Schools, conservative Christians have already done a fine job of getting the Noah story wrong, so to get upset now strikes me as a stunning lack of self-awareness.

Peter Enns has his take on the Noah movie and how it relates to the Christian life. As you can see, he calls Christians who believe the truth wrong. Here is his point:

The caption, which reflects perfectly how the flood story is often spun, reads, “God’s love never fails.”

I’m completely down with that idea, but I certainly don’t get that from the flood story.

What I do get, and which I suggest as an alternate caption, is, “God’s love never fails (for Noah and his family).”

People like Enns focus on the real issue here and start to blame God for being immoral, failing in love and so on. What he and others ignore is that only Noah and his family obeyed God, the rest of the population did not.

God’s love never failed the rest of the world for he provided a way our from the destruction to come but NONE of them chose that option. SO how did God fail them? It seems that they fail God by choosing to reject his offer.

Or better: “Ancient Israelites, living in a world of already very ancient stories of a catastrophic deluge (likely occurring around 2900 BCE) that left ancient peoples scrambling for answers about why the gods would do such a thing, adapted that story to say something of theological significance for them by way of contrast with these other ancient stories.

The ancients weren’t scrambling for answers, they already knew them because the Flood was real and Noah and his family lived for a long time after the flood, telling their descendents about the judgment of God.

Why would God do such a thing? The answer is something Enns and others like him do not want to hear. It is because they disobeyed God and sinned. Again, Romans backs this up–for the wages of sin is death– and we get a very clear picture of that message from God to his creation with the Flood.

There was no adaption by the biblical authors, Enns just can’t believe the truth. Enns goes on talking about the Christian reaction to the movie and how they think the gospel is at stake with this version.

I do not know who would think the gospel is at stake but I do know they might not like the lying about the Bible. Enns just doesn’t grasp this fact and misdirects people’s attention from the truth.