Check out this page and the book they mention. Eric Johnson and Sean Mcdowell have written a great book about: Sharing the Good News with Mormons.
Sharing the Good News with Mormons.
http://seanmcdowell.org/blog/sharing-the-good-news-with-mormons
Another good article:
http://seanmcdowell.org/blog/new-student-resource-on-mormonism-author-interview
Blog dedicated to sharing truth with the world. Truth is not relative, therefore we cannot create it, we must seek it.
Friday, June 29, 2018
Monday, May 21, 2018
Mathew Vines Debates with Sean McDowell on Gay Christian Marriage
Quick Publish. May need edited more:
Youtube video of the debate here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFY4VtCWgyI&t=5005s
Here are some comments, thoughts, and quick notes on this debate:
Sean McDowell
Jesus raised the bar on sexual standards, not lowered it. Jesus went more conservative on sexual standards not progressive. Jesus went farther than he needed to in his response to convey details that we should not miss. He mentioned Genesis when he did not need to. Jesus mentions male and female, when he did not need to.
Matthew Vines
Experience and feeling being used to share are views. Driving us to scripture is one thing, but shaping how we see reality and truth is different.
Matthew vines mentions Exodus international closing down to prove a point that they did not "convert" any homosexuals to heterosexuals. It appears the point he is making, or at least directing listeners toward, is that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable. He fails to mention that many people have lived a homosexual lifestyle and then transitioned to a heterosexual lifestyle and they are glad they did.
The Exodus International case is just one case where an organization failed and imploded. To generalize about ex-gay's using only this case is to make the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. To learn more about the Exodus International situation and those who do a better job at ministering to homosexuals, read this:
http://www.firststone.org/articles/post/concerning-our-transition-from-exodus-international-to-restored-hope-network
Here are some other articles and organizations that deal with reaching homosexuals with truth:
https://www.firststone.org/
https://everlastinghills.org/
* some of those links are posts from "gay" Christians who are choosing not to act on their impulses, because they care what God says on the subject.
Here is a man with same sex attraction doing exactly what Matthew vines says in unacceptable: living a single life:
Side Note: sometimes you may be asked "Did you choose to be heterosexual?". If you say "no", they are making the point that sexual orientation is not chosen. However, stories like the ones above make the counter point that some people change orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. I don't have to say "Yes" to make a counter point. I only have to prove that at least one person existed at some point in history who did. Also, I do choose to deny my impulses often, so I have personal experience with self control.
Comparing geocentric views versus sexuality. Apples and oranges or a good comparison? I think this comparison is poor. Matthew appears to be saying that because the Church was wrong about what they thought the bible said about the sun orbiting the earth, so the Church is fallible and could be wrong on homosexual topics too. This seems like a hasty generalization as well. You have to deal with issues like this on a case by case basis. The church's previous geocentric views were not explicitly in the bible (homosexual behavior is), but were deduced by humans from the text of the bible and they got it wrong.
Calling on a group of humans to be celibate for life. Calling on humans to deny their impulses for life? The bible is constantly calling on believers to deny their sinful nature and to follow God. This is not a demand being made only on a single class of believers. All believers are called to suppress their impulses when those impulses are directing them to sin. i.e. sometimes we want to: steal, or lie, or hurt someone.
What about environmental celibacy like shipwrecked on an island with only your family for life? Under the right circumstances heterosexuals are expected to be celibate for life.
I noticed that Matthew vines appears to be using different arguments then his original speech / paper. Why new arguments? I've read most of his original arguments being refuted pretty well. I will guess that is why his arguments have changed. I think this shows a few things: Matthew Vines has a goal of finding some scripture to support what he wants to be true. If some scripture he puts forward for his goal gets refuted well, he will just find more. He wants his view to be true. He appears to not be seeking what is true, but only searching for what will support the view he wants to be true.
Now I may seem harsh, but I actually understand his view. He sees all this pain, suffering, and death and wants to find a way to resolve this. This is a noble effort to help these people, but he is making some crucial flaws at the root of his quest.
1) If Christians are contributing to this pain and suffering, this does not mean the bible is wrong. Maybe it is Christians not seeking understanding and compassion. Treating people as fellow humans.
2) If God’s commands and standards cause pain, even infinite pain, does that mean his standards are wrong? If I run into a guard rail an infinite number of times and I get more hurt each time until I die, is the guard rail at fault? The guard rail is not moving. If the pain is being caused by how a Christian is behaving, then the Christian is probably not behaving properly. If the pain is being caused by an internal struggle between what a person wants and what the bible says, then the person is wrong and it is sin (sin = disobedience to God) that is causing them pain, not God. Sin is always painful, even if not at first.
Experience driving us to scripture is good, because reading God's words are always a good idea. However, if every time we hit a conflict and we go to the bible and we find a new way of reading the bible to support our desired view, then we have a problem. If we can always find what we want when we look at the bible hard enough, then we are not really trusting in the bible at all. We are trusting in our self and our views of the bible. The bible is not meant to be an easy, pleasant view. If a person reads the bible and it isn't convicting them to change some thing in their life, then they are not reading it correctly. They should take a class on proper biblical interpretation.
Monday, May 7, 2018
Tragedy or Comedy? Meaining in Life. Atheism vs. Christianity
I just listed to this Unbelievable podcast:
Is death a tragedy for atheists, is resurrection wishful thinking for Christians.
with Glen Scrivener and atheist journalist Michael Collett.
It was good episode of the Unbelievable radio show. I thought the most interesting parts were learning about Collett's views and opinions on things.
Here are some of my thoughts on this and related topics.
Picking the Beliefs that Feel Food
Collett made some interesting comments like: Atheism is taking the easier way out and is more pleasant in some situations like the tragic death of a non-Christian friend. For a Christian, painful; for an atheist, not so much. I found this interesting because it is often said that Christianity is just a pleasant fairy tale. Comments like this show that people may be atheists for the same type of poor reasons that atheists claim people choose to be Christians. Choosing a worldview (belief system) based on which one you find to be more attractive or more pleasant or more appealing is missing the point of a proper worldview. A worldview should be about shaping our beliefs and ideas to the ones that match reality. In other words, is is about which ideas and beliefs are true. Something may be very true and still unpleasant or painful. The inverse is also a possibility, that something may be very pleasant to believe, but be extremely false.
I applaud Collett for many of his comments during this radio show. They show that he was being transparent and authentic about what motivates his belief. This is something that does not always happen when an atheist is publicly talking with a Christian.
In my constant journey towards truth I have been reading and hearing more comments about what motivates someone to be an atheist. I am starting to notice some themes. I cannot say all atheists seem to fit into one of these themes, but I will say that many seem to. One of these themes, is not to posit compelling evidence to show there is not God, but instead to show how a certain aspect of Christianity or attribute of God is unjust, unthinkable, unpleasant, or difficult to accept. They do not normally attempt to show the logical falsehood of the aspect or attribute that they don't like. They just present how unfair/unjust/unpleasant it is, and then jump to their belief that flows from that. They seem to be skipping, or not taking seriously, whether or not their is reasonable evidence indicating whether it is true or not.
Can a Christian and an Atheist both find meaning?
Near the end of the show Collett made some comments about how he does find meaning in his atheist life that is just as meaningful as Scrivener finds in Christian life. I think Collett was trying to say that Scrivener's comments implying that people cannot find meaning with God, were false. I would like to point out that felling fulfilled and feeling like your life has meaning is often a subjective, personal viewpoint. Two people could both feel 100% fulfilled and feel 100% meaning, but one of them could be right and one could be wrong, when measured against an objective standard of meaning. The question should not be can an atheist find equal meaning to life as a Christian can. The real question(s) should be: Is there an objective standard to measure life's purpose and meaning? If yes, which worldview best directs people on a path towards this objective purpose and meaning?
If these is no God, no higher power, no afterlife, then life's purpose and meaning are whatever we want it to be for each one of us. We can all have perfectly valid purpose and meaning even though we each choose different answers.
If there is a God and he created us for a reason and a purpose, then we can feel however we want about meaning and purpose, but it may be wrong if it does not align with God's intended purpose for our existence.
Truth Quest or Happiness Quest
Frank Turek has said it many times on is show: "It seems many people are not on a Truth quest. They are on a happiness quest. "
The more I hear from non-Christians the more this claim seems to be true. Atheists say many things and make many comments, but often they boil down to something like:
- I cannot believe in a God who would....
- If I were God, I would do ____ better, because....
- God cannot exist because he is doing certain things wrong/poorly.
Frank Turek has mentioned asking this question to an atheist: If Christianity were true, who you become a Christian?
They can say yes or no, but the comments to justify the "no" are interesting to hear. Many of them seem to be judging God as unjust or unfair. Sometimes they just do not agree with the way God does things so they would not follow him. Unfortunately for us humans, if something God does seems unfair or unjust does not mean it is. If God does exist, and I believe he does, then when are views conflict with God's, we are the ones who are wrong. An act may appear extremely unjust, but in fact be very just when viewed from God's all knowing perspective.
Is death a tragedy for atheists, is resurrection wishful thinking for Christians.
with Glen Scrivener and atheist journalist Michael Collett.
It was good episode of the Unbelievable radio show. I thought the most interesting parts were learning about Collett's views and opinions on things.
Here are some of my thoughts on this and related topics.
Picking the Beliefs that Feel Food
Collett made some interesting comments like: Atheism is taking the easier way out and is more pleasant in some situations like the tragic death of a non-Christian friend. For a Christian, painful; for an atheist, not so much. I found this interesting because it is often said that Christianity is just a pleasant fairy tale. Comments like this show that people may be atheists for the same type of poor reasons that atheists claim people choose to be Christians. Choosing a worldview (belief system) based on which one you find to be more attractive or more pleasant or more appealing is missing the point of a proper worldview. A worldview should be about shaping our beliefs and ideas to the ones that match reality. In other words, is is about which ideas and beliefs are true. Something may be very true and still unpleasant or painful. The inverse is also a possibility, that something may be very pleasant to believe, but be extremely false.
I applaud Collett for many of his comments during this radio show. They show that he was being transparent and authentic about what motivates his belief. This is something that does not always happen when an atheist is publicly talking with a Christian.
In my constant journey towards truth I have been reading and hearing more comments about what motivates someone to be an atheist. I am starting to notice some themes. I cannot say all atheists seem to fit into one of these themes, but I will say that many seem to. One of these themes, is not to posit compelling evidence to show there is not God, but instead to show how a certain aspect of Christianity or attribute of God is unjust, unthinkable, unpleasant, or difficult to accept. They do not normally attempt to show the logical falsehood of the aspect or attribute that they don't like. They just present how unfair/unjust/unpleasant it is, and then jump to their belief that flows from that. They seem to be skipping, or not taking seriously, whether or not their is reasonable evidence indicating whether it is true or not.
Can a Christian and an Atheist both find meaning?
Near the end of the show Collett made some comments about how he does find meaning in his atheist life that is just as meaningful as Scrivener finds in Christian life. I think Collett was trying to say that Scrivener's comments implying that people cannot find meaning with God, were false. I would like to point out that felling fulfilled and feeling like your life has meaning is often a subjective, personal viewpoint. Two people could both feel 100% fulfilled and feel 100% meaning, but one of them could be right and one could be wrong, when measured against an objective standard of meaning. The question should not be can an atheist find equal meaning to life as a Christian can. The real question(s) should be: Is there an objective standard to measure life's purpose and meaning? If yes, which worldview best directs people on a path towards this objective purpose and meaning?
If these is no God, no higher power, no afterlife, then life's purpose and meaning are whatever we want it to be for each one of us. We can all have perfectly valid purpose and meaning even though we each choose different answers.
If there is a God and he created us for a reason and a purpose, then we can feel however we want about meaning and purpose, but it may be wrong if it does not align with God's intended purpose for our existence.
Truth Quest or Happiness Quest
Frank Turek has said it many times on is show: "It seems many people are not on a Truth quest. They are on a happiness quest. "
The more I hear from non-Christians the more this claim seems to be true. Atheists say many things and make many comments, but often they boil down to something like:
- I cannot believe in a God who would....
- If I were God, I would do ____ better, because....
- God cannot exist because he is doing certain things wrong/poorly.
Frank Turek has mentioned asking this question to an atheist: If Christianity were true, who you become a Christian?
They can say yes or no, but the comments to justify the "no" are interesting to hear. Many of them seem to be judging God as unjust or unfair. Sometimes they just do not agree with the way God does things so they would not follow him. Unfortunately for us humans, if something God does seems unfair or unjust does not mean it is. If God does exist, and I believe he does, then when are views conflict with God's, we are the ones who are wrong. An act may appear extremely unjust, but in fact be very just when viewed from God's all knowing perspective.
Friday, March 16, 2018
Are We Really Being Tolerant and Do We Listen?
Those who claim tolerance often behave very intolerant, but they do not seem to be aware of the contradiction. When we encounter those we disagree with, our goal should be to educate them. If we try to silence them, or punish them, or insult them, then we are not being tolerant or compassionate.
“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”
― Rick Warren
(!) Do not fall for those lies!
Don't Prejudge me and I won't Prejudge you
If I hold some view you disagree with and you want to judge me, draw your conclusions, and end our conversation; that is up to you. It is your loss that you will never get to know the real me. Peoples views are complex and we can only know what someone believes by asking them about their beliefs..... all of them. If we assume that since they believe A they also believe B; we are judging them prematurely. If we assume someone holds certain views just because of who they associated with or once quoted on Facebook, then again, we are judging them prematurely. I can like one quote that someone said without endorsing every action they have ever done! I can call myself a follower of Christ without agreeing with every action every taken by Christians throughout all of history. If you want to know my views on a topic, ask me. Then we willing to listen for a while. My views won't make a good headline. Any well developed belief on a topic will require a significant amount of time to convey. If you ask my view on a topic, but start writing your rebuttal in your head after my fifth word, then you really didn't want to know my view. You just wanted to tell me I was wrong.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
Saving a Sick America
I just listened to this podcast. It was good.
Saving A Sick America With Dr. Michael Brown
https://play.google.com/music/m/Dkrxukca2htawaegdyixvqtu5l4?t=Saving_A_Sick_America_With_Dr_Michael_Brown-Cross_Examined_with_Dr_Frank_Turek
The podcast was about this book:
Saving a Sick America: A Prescription for Moral and Cultural Transformation
https://www.christianbook.com/saving-america-prescription-moral-cultural-transformation/michael-brown/9780718091804/pd/091804
By: Michael L. Brown
Could America's best days be ahead of us? Could we turn our country back to God?
Near the end of the podcast the author mentioned how predictions can be wrong. He mentions these magazine covers:
Time Magazine
April 1966
Time Magazine
June 1971
Saving A Sick America With Dr. Michael Brown
https://play.google.com/music/m/Dkrxukca2htawaegdyixvqtu5l4?t=Saving_A_Sick_America_With_Dr_Michael_Brown-Cross_Examined_with_Dr_Frank_Turek
The podcast was about this book:
Saving a Sick America: A Prescription for Moral and Cultural Transformation
https://www.christianbook.com/saving-america-prescription-moral-cultural-transformation/michael-brown/9780718091804/pd/091804
By: Michael L. Brown
Could America's best days be ahead of us? Could we turn our country back to God?
Near the end of the podcast the author mentioned how predictions can be wrong. He mentions these magazine covers:
Time Magazine
April 1966
Time Magazine
June 1971
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Can We Have Too Much Democracy?
Our culture is obsessed with majority rule and democracy as the best, most just way of making decision for a nation. Well at least we seem to be until the majority votes against what we wanted. Then we seem to insult the majority or say that somehow the results are invalid. When things do not go as expected, our culture's dislike of rule by the majority is fleeting. Soon they will have forgotten about the time "rule of the majority" did not go well and they will be back in love with determining what the majority wants so we can pick a direction. This would be great if the best direction is always what the majority decides. However truth, reality, and the best outcomes are often not what the majority votes for. There are many times where we ought not to do what the majority wants.
Tyranny of Majority
Our founders wanted a government for our country that was authorized by "the people", but they knew this came with risks. They feared tyranny of the majority in similar way that they feared the tyranny of government structure they were replacing. Our founding fathers decided to give us "A constitutionally limited representative democratic republic". This is a hybrid form of traditional government structures with specific parts to help avoid the majority of the people abusing their power against the minority. The most obvious part to this being that each state gets two senators, regardless of population size. This helps a small state to have equal power in the senate as a large state.
Another thing to mention is that I have heard some people posit the idea that our founders would have created a pure democracy if our current technologies had existed to allow all citizens to vote instantly on an issue. I can't say that I know their thoughts, but based on what we do know and how they structured our government, I have many doubts that this would be true. Our founding fathers were not perfect, but they were not fools either. They knew that what the majority wanted, would not always be what was best for the country. Also, I've seen the majority to be fickle at times, which does not fit well with law making. Laws need to be well thought out and given time to be implemented and evaluated.
Polls and Data
News and current events frequently mention statistics and polls. You ever wonder why? This is because most of our culture believes that what the majority of people want is what we ought to do. If we take enough polls and gather enough data we can figure out what most of Americans want. Then we can ignore the minority and proceed with pursuing what Americans really want. The polls and statistics rarely deal with determining what we should or ought to do, but rather what most of Americans think or want to do.
How Shall We Decide Then?
So if pure democracy is not the best way to run a country, and our current form of government while good in theory has become paralyzed, what is the answer? The short answer is that there is no easy quick solution.
Corruption and moral failure like we have now did not grow over night and cannot be fixed with any new form of government. All forms of government fail to function if the people running it our corrupt and immoral. We first must change ourselves at the individual level and then let that transfer to our government as one generation replaces another. We can only change ourselves in the right direction if we align ourselves with The standard of rightness, God. Having a proper view of reality and a proper view what ought to be done and then spreading that to others is the only solution to our lost, confused, and apathetic generation. Once we have a proper view of God, we can develop a proper view of reality. Once we have a proper view of reality, we can start heading in the right direction that we ought to be heading in.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
A rebuttal to: Why I reject a Young Earth
I love Cross Examined and highly recommend their ministry. However, that does not make them infallible. So here is some comments on a post they made.
In response to this article:
Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakers
http://crossexamined.org/why-i-reject-a-young-earth-view-a-biblical-defense-of-an-old-earth/
The three main subtopics of that article:
- The proper interpretation of Genesis One.
- The question of the fall of man, human sin and its consequences.
- The scale and scope of the Flood of Noah.
The writer is starting with a false assumption that the English language bible is the proper language to critique the bible in. Genesis 1 was originally written in Hebrew, so his point about a perfect tense verb has no value. Hebrew has no verb tenses. See here:
https://creation.com/syntax-in-genesis-1
Also, creating the universe and stars, but not creating light until much later!?
"(This is of course illogical, for why should God create light in Genesis 1:3 if stars were already shining brightly?)"There is a lot of information in the syntax article I link to above, including references to Exodus and Jesus' words in Mark 10.
https://creation.com/syntax-in-genesis-1
Another reason to read Genesis 1:1-2 without a gap:
https://creation.com/genesis-13-undermines-gap-theory
Regarding Subtopic 2: death before the fall
The writer seems to leave out his logic for arguing why death preceding the fall is important for his view to be correct. Normally you only need death before the fall in order to argue for evolution and survival of the fittest. However, Cross Examined does not support macro evolution. I believe their article is trying to say that the earth may have existed lifelessly for billions of years between verses 1 and 2. If true, this would allow for an old earth and Genesis 1 to co-exist. So why try to posit pre-fall death?
I will try to respond still.
"Some type of death and degradation preceded the fall."
Response: https://creation.com/nephesh-chayyah
"The Tyrannosaur was a machine designed for killing."
Dinosaurs are not always what they appear: https://creation.com/vegetarian-theropod-dinosaurs
"Then we have the fact that the names of the animals which Adam named prior to the Fall have connotations of violence."
Not so fast. See here: https://creation.com/fall-fish-death
a quote from that article: "The names in the Hebrew Bible for specific animals came after the Flood."
"As I said previously, Adam did not die physically on the day that he ate of the tree, but lived a full life afterwards."
A better translation would have said: "… for when you eat of it you will surely begin to die."
see here: https://creation.com/adam-tribe
Regarding subtopic 3: The Flood
There is a ton of good biblical articles regarding the flood here:
https://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers
They do a much better job than I at showing why the flood should be taken literally and historically.
The writer of "Why I reject a Young Earth" does not make a watertight argument against the flood in his three paragraphs.
Regarding the reading of Genesis 7:19:
Genesis 7:19, which reports that “They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.”
Even if we allow for "on the earth" to be ambiguous between the entire earth or just the known earth, what about the later portion of the verse that says, "under the entire heavens"? To draw the conclusion that the author of this verse did not mean the reader to understand this as referring to the whole earth is difficult when two separate sections of the verse seem to indicate the whole earth. This verse could have said "under heaven".
"Moreover, it must be borne in mind, the Hebrew word for mountains, har, is a general term referring to any geologic relief, from a small hill up to a towering peak"
I would think that the word "high" before the word mountains would make it clear which meaning of har is being used, but that is just me. Maybe that is too simple and I missed something?
It seems to me that the author of Genesis 7:19 went to great lengths to be clear. Stating things twice and using adjectives to make sure you knew how tall the mountains were.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)