Much To Talk About- 129

29 May

#1. No it Is Not A New Species Of Human

In 1974, anthropologists in Ethiopia found the astonishing fossilised remains of a human-like creature who last walked the planet some 3.2 million years ago.

Was “Lucy,” as the hominid was called, the direct ancestor of Homo sapiens? Was she “The Mother of Mankind,” as some headlines claimed?

Over the years, the dramatic assertion has come under attack by doubters, who point to ancient yet inconclusive finds in Kenya and Chad.

But a new fossil, reported on Wednesday, may have dealt Lucy’s claimed status an irreversible blow.

Over the past month or so there have been a few discoveries on the evolutionary side of things but I decided not to talk about them as it is the same old story– the discoverer uses his imagination to fabricate a history for his find. We have the same thing with this discovery and what they claim doesn’t mean anything because all they have are a few bones and the wild imagination of the people involved.  That is it.

They have no ancient records describing the bones, no documentation of any kind to support the tale created by the evolutionist. All they have is the pure creative speculation read into the discovery and that is it. It is amazing that any intelligent people would fall for these cock and bull stories published by evolutionists but they do and that is the sad part.

By the way, there is nothing on the bones that dates them to millions of years ago thus the discoverers are presumptuous when they place an age on the bones. For all they know the creature died 100 years ago and was lucky enough to be placed in older material as its burial site.  This is one reason I do not talk about evolution that much, its followers live in fantasy land and you can’t get them to come back to reality.

#2. They Can’t Discuss

If you want to know my response to your repeated assertions, just read what I have posted so far. You can copy and paste my replies as responses to anything further you post.

It’s the truth. It’s Bible. It’s Jesus.

I have been in on a discussion for a couple of weeks over at Ms. Evans’ website and the above quote represents the past 7 made by that person. It is all he can say in response to my points. As you can see in the last line he thinks he is correct BUT he never points to one biblical passage where Jesus or any biblical author grant permission for women to be pastors. He doesn’t present any biblical argument for his point of view nor can he cite one time where Jesus over-turned God’s instructions.

This is the thing for those who support alternatives to the biblical record. They have nothing to stand upon to bolster their point.

As I said and will continue to say: The truth is that women can be pastors, women can be teachers, women can be leaders, women can be anything that men can be in the kingdom of God, the church, and the body of Christ.

The Spirit gives the giftings and God builds the body, placing the members where he wishes. And there are no gender restrictions.

When I pointed out that that pastoral criteria do not include those items, he returns to repeating the mantra in the first quote. When I point out that spiritual gifts do not over-rule pastoral criteria he again returns to that same mantra and when I asked that if he was right, why did God have Paul write his instructions or not have another biblical author over-rule them, he again spouts some response that make shim sound like he has been brainwashed and cannot think for himself.

Those who opt for sinful alternatives to biblical record really can’t discuss their point of view because they are building their houses upon the sand and have nothing with which to use to provide them a solid foundation for their points. They abuse and misuse scriptures in their presentations but they can’t discuss because they do not have God on their side.

#3. What Bothers Me About J. West–

Is that he is not a true believer but he does say some very good things. from time to time. He is a minimalist which means he does not accept most of the Bible yet he considers himself a Christian which means that from time to time he will say some very poignant things one needs to think about and the above link is one of those times.

I realize, know, and understand that not everyone has the opportunity to attend college and graduate school in order to learn in great depth and detail what Scripture teaches, theology informs, and church history illustrates.  Not everyone can learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.  I also realize that having those opportunities is a real blessing and privilege.

But that doesn’t excuse you, dear Parson, if you lack those opportunities, from doing your dead level best to become better informed in your calling’s text (the Bible) than any physician in his anatomy text or lawyer in her law books.  You OWE it to your congregation, your sheep, your flock, to feed them bread and not stones or scorpions.

I agree in part with these words because yes, not everyone can learn the ancient languages, go to bible school and other academic institutions but I disagree with him that these things are essential to being a preacher. I do agree with him that the man taking a job as pastor of a church does owe his congregation something. But I disagree with him on what that something is. The pastor owes his people the truth and that he should do all things that he can to follow the HS to that truth and then learn how to teach it to his congregation.

One does not have to be a scholar to do the job God has called him to do. That is a human criteria, a J. West criteria not a biblical one. Oh we can go to seminary and study more but we need to make sure God is leading us to the truth not theological or historical ideology that has nothing to do with God or his word. In other words, we can study the Documentary Hypothesis so we can refute it not adopt it and then teach our people that Moses did not write the first 5 books of the Bible.

We do need to learn about false teaching, not to incorporate its alternative into our church methodology or hierarchy but in order to instruct our people on why it is false teaching and why it should be ignored.

So why advise people as to the meaning of Scripture when you have no idea what it actually says?  Away with such incompetence.  ‘Study, to show yourself to be a workman who can rightly divide the Word of Truth’.  Otherwise, shut up.  For your sake, and for the sake of your congregation.

Those folk aren’t yours.  They belong to God and he has given you the task of leading them.  If you lead them astray, you’re cursed.

Strange words coming from a man who leads his people astray every week. The first lesson, one that West ignores, is, FOLLOW THE HS TO THE TRUTH for as the Bible says- they can do nothing against the truth. In fact one of the pieces of spiritual armor is

14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, (Eph. 6)

If you read the whole passage on the armor of God, you will not find one piece of equipment labeled– interpretation. Strive for the truth and you will not let God or you people down.

#4. Another Article On Hell

I agree with Tozer and would take it one step further: what comes into our minds when we think about hell tells us a lot about God’s character– or at least what we envision God’s character to be.

These articles fail because the authors do not believe God nor accept most of the Bible as written. To answer the question, the existence of hell tells us that God is just, and fair.  He penalizes people for their rejection of salvation, just like he said he would and he is being fair to all those people who believed His word and died either as a martyr for their faith or believing God and the Bible.

He is telling them that their lives were not wasted or lived in vain but that it meant something. How just or fair would God be if he let those who rejected salvation into paradise or gave them an early release from hell? It would be a slap in the face to all those who lived by God’s instructions throughout their lives to do so. People who complain about hell and write alternative ideas about it do not think everything through and only look at the issue through their own selfish eyes. They do not care about justice, fairness, integrity, character etc., they just want to change what God has said because they do not like his words and their eternal destination.

Cook touches on this point by arguing that if God created a universe where hell exists, and being tortured eternally in flames was a high probability for the pinnacle of his creation, he is at least partly culpable in that result. While he uses one illustration to make the point, I’ll use another: if I had a five-year-old child and let them play near the road instead of on the lawn, I would at least be partly culpable if they got hit by a car, since I would know in advance that getting hit by a car was a very real possibility of allowing them to play near the street.

This is looking at things the wrong way.  A person is only partly culpable if they do not take measures to bring the child back from the road. That author forgets that God sent messengers to tell them where to safely be, he wrote the Bible to tell people how to live safely and he sent his son then apostles to do the same. If God had done nothing then he could be accused of aiding the disaster BUT God did something thus he is not culpable

What those authors are doing is saying that God is to blame for their refusal to listen to and follow God’s efforts to get them to safe ground and when they are threatened with being sent to hell, they turn around and make it God’s fault for their refusal to comply. They are not being honest in their assessment of the situation. They reject God’s offers then blame God because hell exists and they are going to be sent there. They do not take into account their own culpability here. They refused salvation, they refused to believe God’s words, they refused to listen to God’s messengers and they refuse to take responsibility for those refusals.

They are at fault and they deserve to be sent to hell but not in their minds. They think they should be excused because they went to church, fed the poor and other good works all the while calling God a liar, disbelieving his word and ignoring his offer of salvation.

#5. What The Duggar Scandal Teaches Us

That’s why the Duggar scandal is so important: it exposes starkly the evil of the New Christian Right. We see what they’ve always been: people who privilege the hegemony of men, and specifically heterosexual men, over the well-being of girls, women, and LGBT persons. These are people who act as if confessed molestation of children is a small thing. That’s crucial here: these aren’t just allegations. No one is denying that Josh Duggar molested at least five female persons younger than himself, at least four of whom were his own sisters. They’re just saying that it’s not that big a deal. And I’ve yet to hear a single person in the New Christian Right camp express any concern for the well-being of his victim. There is not an ounce of compassion towards the victims, even as we’re called upon to show mercy to the barely repentant perpetrator.

It is not what that author claims. The answer to the title is– the Duggar scandal teaches us that good people are tempted, they fall to temptation, that they sin. BUT it also tells us that God’s way works, that we can turn our lives around, that forgiveness can be had even for difficult crimes as those. Then it teaches us that the secular world does not forgive but holds our actions over our heads every chance they get and never think that restoration or punishment is enough and that someone got a raw deal usually the victim.

There is one thing more it teaches us–that sins or crimes are subjective and depends upon who is doing the observing and how they personally feel about the events in question. Very few people carry with them the views of honesty, justice, fairness and so on when evaluating what has taken place. They want their ideas of justice and restitution and not God’s.

Yes, the Duggar scandal can teach us a lot if we let God do the teaching.

#6. I Am In Another Discussion

McGrath has unbanned everyone which means that I am included in that amnesty. I made one comment on the above thread, possibly two and it is his responses that bother me. Here they are:

“That you think that disagreeing with you and/or the human authors of the Bible is disagreeing with God shows that you have missed the warnings in the Bible about idolatry, too.”

“You are not banned, but if you don’t say things that are worth discussing, you will not necessarily get a reply. You claim to know what was in the minds of the Biblical authors. You assume that what certain ancient humans wrote – but not others – are the words of God. Unless you are willing to provide a rational argument for adopting those stances, there isn’t really anything to discuss, nor any way to discuss it, is there?”

I have yet to respond to the latter one but in his words, you can see that while he claims I am assuming about ancient authors he turns around and assumes that he knows what I am doing even though he cannot read my mind or now my sources. The dishonesty that comes with talking with alternative believers gets me angry. Then comes the word ‘rational’ which also makes me upset because he does not clarify what definition of rational will be used or if he is sole judge and jury on what is rational or not.

In other words, he will use his rules whether I am aware of them or not and he will label my words regardless of their rational and logical arguments irrational and illogical if he does not like them. This means that no matter what I say, he will always have an out to avoid the truth and continue on his merry alternative way. The truth stands no chance when discussing with McGrath.


Comments Off on Much To Talk About- 129

Posted by on May 29, 2015 in academics, Bible, church, controversial issues, creation, faith, General Life, history, leadership, science, theology


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: