Much To Talk About- 106

15 Mar

#1. I Have Never Liked This Guilt Trip Logic

If morality and ethics didn’t have any influence over your interest in buying antiquities, maybe the fact that funding ISIS by doing so will…

Where do you draw the line as there are so many unbelieving businesses and spending opportunities that you will be funding some sin somewhere at most points in your life. Maybe someone buying those antiques is doing so to preserve them for the public instead of seeing them lost to private collections. But then West is not known for his thinking abilities.

#2. Is The Self-Criticism Divinely Led Or Human Sourced

that we are strong enough to be self-critical

There is nothing wrong with being self-critical but one needs to be sure that the criticism is real, constructive, and is prompted by the HS not from some human who simply doesn’t like you , what you do or believe.  When it comes to a nation or a church, we need to make sure the criticism is divinely led or the church or country will simply be running around in circles changing everything because some minority or other group doesn’t like how things are done.

You cannot please all the people all the time so it is better to please God and get it right.

The President has faced criticism in recent months for acknowledging that American history, and indeed Christian history, includes racism, violence, injustice, and oppression — particularly against minority and indigenous people —

if you are going to criticize, then you cannot over-generalize or lump everything into one category.  Yes Christian history is not peaches and cream but then we need to ask, were those acts committed by people who were truly christian or not? Were the committed by those who believed yet made an honest mistake? Were they done by those who had backslid and have since repented and made amends?

Then were those acts truly labeled correctly? In other words, is what one person calling an injustice really unjust or an attempt to appease sinners who refuse to change? Is it oppression or merely obedience and someone doesn’t want to obey so they whined and complained till they distorted the issue making everything worse than before they had complained?

Then, are those charges being brought by God who is convicting people of sin or are they present because someone disagrees with God and wants things done their way?

When I write about gender inequality in Christian leadership, I’m often called “divisive.”

Ms. Evans is being divisive because she is advocating something God did not teach. She i snot correcting a wrong but instilling a wrong into the practice of the church.

Christians don’t have to choose between loving the church and working for reform.

If Christians are going to work for reform, then it needs to be God’s reformation not one fueled by humans who cannot agree with God. See King Josiah as an example for this.

#3. Go For The Truth Not The Scholarship

I am not going to quote from this site as Patheos just messes with my spacing. The link goes to an article attacking how true believers present inerrancy. And all I can say is, ‘just go for the truth’ because that is what Jesus said to do. There is no command to fit the Bible into secular academic rules and standards. We believers can talk and discuss intelligently without falling into the traps set by secularists who do not want to hear the truth.

This may mean that we do not get published in secular academic media but then it is no great loss. We believers are free to start our own research outlets and put in place God’s rules that will guide the contributors to excellence in research and presentation. We need to get away from the idea that the secular publication is the only way to go. It isn’t.

We believers are not here to please the secular world and the sooner our academics get this message the better it is for the church in general. Our research cannot be a compromise with secular ideas and demands. It needs to be the truth so we can bring God’s light to everyone.

#4. Academic Research

But having said that, Walton’s far more honest inerrancy is certainly far better than one which seeks to preserve inerrancy by bending over backwards either to harmonize the Bible with modern science, or worse still, by denying the legitimacy of modern science.

There are several issues that need to be contended with here. 1). Christian academics do not need to ‘bend over backwards and harmonize the Bible with science.’ Agreeing with secular science is not our concern. Secular science is a corrupt and deceived field of research vulnerable to sin and distortions,etc., of those who participate in that field of research. The only thing that Christianity has to do with that field is to bring the truth and the light to it, then clean it up so that all people will get the truth and not the deception.

2). We do science correctly, following God’s rules,the real method for origins, and the real way everything works. We do not propose theories etc., but seek the truth so that all people will get the right and correct information. We do not change our ideas unless they are truly wrong. But most importantly we do not contradict the Bible or say God lied. True science starts with the truth, goes down the right paths and looks for the answers in the right places.

Christian scientists are not trying to ‘do science’ but they are to seek the truth using science to find what truths that lie with science’s scope and boundaries.

3). There is no legitimacy in secular science, modern to otherwise. That part of science is deceived, looking for lies and not true answers. There is no legitimacy in not answering questions correctly. There is also no legitimacy in changing your minds about something every 5-10-20 years nor by saying one set of ideas are true then turning around a decade or so later and saying the new ideas are the truth and the previous ones were mistakes.

Always changing your mind makes one unstable not self-correcting.

Walton acknowledges that the Bible uses language that reflects a viewpoint invalidated by modern science

Secular, modern science has not invalidate done thing about the Bible. If the proponents of secular science claim that they have done so, then they are the ones who are mistaken and have misunderstood what the Bible is referring to. The Bible is NOT wrong.

For instance, he suggests that when God causes a deep sleep to fall on Adam before the creation of Eve, it is not anaesthesia to prepare him for surgery, but a trance-like state to prepare him for a vision of being split in half, which in turn leads to Adam understanding that Eve is his “ontological equal”

This is just wrong and far-fetched. Adam went to sleep, how and what method God used are not known to us and we must be content with the word ‘sleep’ and accept its actual definition as to what truly happened in the Garden.

But for those who cannot draw such conclusions, Walton’s book provides a thoughtful biblical way of embracing the conclusions of modern science

If it is any different from, placing the claims of modern science under the microscope of true and false teaching then it is not a ‘biblical way to embrace modern science’ . It is just another secular way in a different dress.

He had previously made the case that Genesis 1 and 2 be understood sequentially, and thus Adam and Eve being two members of an already existing humanity – something that is also indicated in the story of Cain going away and yet fearing for his life and then building a city.

Clearly McGrath does not understand scripture nor the beginning of human life and it seems that Walton does not either. We believers are not advocating any sin nor supporting any sinful action if we admit that God allowed for modern incest to take place to populate the world until that time there was enough variations to keep people healthy.

God is wise and we must trust his judgment to be able to understand the methods God employs to further his will. Sometimes people are so focused on excising sin that they err and sin by trying to alter what God used in the beginning just so that we can appear to be spiritual. We are to learn and spread the truth not try to look spiritual.

And so he makes the case that Evangelicals need not and should not reject the scientific account of evolution on the basis of what the Bible says, but should allow that account to be evaluated in the only appropriate way, i.e. in terms of its account of the evidence, scientifically considered.

So here is the whole point of the book– disregard the truth and accept false teaching. Ignore God and embrace the lies spoken by those who do not believe. So sad that that author chose to use his gifts to mislead people of God.

I would only recommend that book if the believer used it to learn from God how to refute those arguments. That is its best value.

#5. Over-Dramatic Writing

Lately there seems as if there is a growing fear and hostility towards Muslims in America. While there will always be racism in culture, and there will always be Islamophobia, the current level of fear and hatred toward our Muslim brothers and sisters is ramping up to levels that I haven’t seen since the early days following 9-11.

So let’s all be naive and just blindly accept people regardless of what secrets they may be hiding? Given the evidence of late, it is not surprising that people are becoming suspicious of those of another country or two. Granted we cannot paint the innocent in with the truly guilty but we must also be careful and make sure we are not opening ourselves up to trouble, whether spiritual or physical, by blindly accepting people on their word alone.

But you know what? I’m not buying it. I’m not scared of my Muslim neighbors. But you know who I am scared of? Who I think we should really be concerned about?

White guys with guns, that’s who.

Here is why I titled this Over-dramatic. That is exactly what that author is being along with unrealistic and paranoid.We should be more concerned with the person’s sin nature than the items they carry or the color of their skin.

Who I am scared of however, are people who see no reason that a person should undergo a background check prior to owning a firearm.

I have fought this mentality in this country when the Korean government decided to install background checks for western teachers. Such things are a false sense of security and do not  provide any indication that the person with a bad background check will commit a crime with a gun or that a person with a good one will stay good and not go off the deep end and do irrational acts with a weapon.

Criminals all start off life with clean background checks.

I’m scared of people who have been so indoctrinated into the acceptability of violence, and who have been filled with so many fear-based stereotypes about others, that they are only a blink of an eye away from pulling that weapon out from under their shirt and using it.

i would say that his trust in God is very low if he thinks that there is a person behind every bush and corner about to blow and shot him. His paranoia is extremely high and that makes him more dangerous than the people he claims to be afraid of. His type of person is the one who will remove the rights and freedoms of people  without cause simply and only are motivated by their fear.

FDR once said, ‘There is nothing to fear but fear itself’ and for believers we should not be afraid of the mentally unstable person because we have life insurance and we have aid in dealing with those type of situations. That author’s claims tells me that he is not tuned into God or his guidance in these situations and that he depends upon human systems that cannot help when the crap hits the fan.

The Bible is a good guide even when someone is waving a gun around or shooting it at others. We should be the first ones to knock others out of danger, not be the ones hiding behind pieces of paper that are titled ‘background checks’. Our concern is the other person first,not ourselves and the Bible says ‘Greater love hath no man that he lay down his life for his friend’ & ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ so we should be looking after our neighbors, no matter what the situation, over ourselves.

We should not be letting fear drive us into allowing our freedoms and rights to be taken away.

I’ve seen nothing in my Muslim neighbors worthy of a general fear of them, as some Christian leaders want us to hold. The absolute worst-case-scenario with my Muslim neighbors is being invited over for food and tea on a day where I have a super busy schedule.

Maybe he should apply his feelings to more than just the Muslim, then maybe he wouldn’t be so afraid. His argument fails because of his hypocrisy and uneven treatment of white people. In other words, he seems to be practicing reverse discrimination, bending over backwards to please one set of people over another. Much like what McGrath and Walton want us to do with secular science and evolution.

The key is, believers are to obey the Bible and please God. Not these alternative seekers who do not want to do that. When it comes to people we are wise not naive, open-eyed, not blind to reality and we let the true love of God for others motivate our actions not our fears.

Comments Off on Much To Talk About- 106

Posted by on March 15, 2015 in academics, Bible, church, education, faith, General Life, leadership, science, theology


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: