Monday, 30 April 2007

The God Delusion (II or III, it depends where we started)

I have finished Dawkins’ book and I must say I am quite underwhelmed. For the most part I found the book to be totally unconvincing. He presented not one legitimate argument that, to me, was not blatantly transparent. Many of his arguments missed his stated point (that of God being a delusion) completely. I must say that I found some sympathy with him in his last chapter where he seemed like a small boy (I say this not in disapproving way, because I can identify with what he was saying) standing and staring in wonder and awe at the universe around him and the marvels of science -- at how much we have yet to look forward to discovering. Even as a Christian I can share this sense of wonder, but I marvel at what God has wrought, not at how it all came together only by time and chance and evolution.

However, the first comments I want to make regard the back liner notes. I read them first, of course, when I first got the book, but now in retrospect, after having read it, can I see how silly they are. Of course, the editors are going to find flattering comments, but these are blatant in their sycophantic fawning. I almost imagine a bunch of near-sighted “Mr Magoo’s”, sitting around in a circle nodding and murmuring their approval towards the book as if it were an idol.

Some of the comments congratulate Mr Dawkins on his brilliant intellect and forceful arguments, but in reading the book I found many of his arguments to be characterized by question begging, straw men, arguing from authority and just plain missing (or even avoiding) the point.

Two of the comments, however, go beyond even wishful thinking into flights of unabashed hyperbole. A comment by Desmond Morris hopes that this book will “…dump religious bigotry in the dustbin of history where it belongs…” Now, I must confess I don’t know whether Mr Morris wants to dump religious bigotry, which might be an admirable thing, or religion itself. I suspect the latter, but I hardly think it will. This has been the wish of atheists in every generation since the beginning of history (and before, for all I know) and it hasn’t happened yet. Morris makes this statement with the same arrogance that characterized the boast of Voltaire that the Bible would disappear within a century. Voltaire is long gone (we may safely assume that he is no longer an atheist) and the house in which he made his boast became the offices of a Bible society. The Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ still stand.

But then, my experience with Mr Morris leads me to believe that he tends to leap greatly and easily beyond logic into flights of speculation.

A comment attributed to Penn and Teller (the team of magicians) says, in part, “If this book doesn’t change the world, we’re all screwed.” A little over the top, I’d say. It must have been a slow day in the endorsement department and the deadline to complete the back cover must have been quickly approaching. I don’t know whether it was Penn or Teller or both who came up with this one but frankly, if I were either one of them I would blame it on the other and issue a quick and emphatic denial. If was indeed both, it disproves the adage that two heads are better than one.

If it appears that I am holding this book and the comments on the back cover up to ridicule, it is nothing personal. Mr Dawkins, Mr Morris and Misters Penn and Teller may be very nice and sincere people. But as for the atheistic position, ridicule is the one thing of which it is truly worthy.

Take Care

Sunday, 29 April 2007

The Kalam Cosmoligical Argument

Here is a discussion I had online with an atheist trying to debunk the existence of God. He put forward, so he thought, a refutation of this particular argument.

First, he stated the argument:
Kalam's Cosmological Argument says:
1.Everything of type X has a cause.
2.There is something of type X.
3.For some reason (namely, Y), the series of causes of an X must terminate in a first cause.
4.This first cause can be identified with God.

Then he paraphrased it:
More succinctly:
Whatever exists, has a cause; the universe exists therefore the universe has a cause.

Then he attacked it:
Are there no problems with these lines of reasoning? Are these, then, the proofs needed to believe in a god or gods?
My answers are simple. There are huge problems with the lines of reasoning and these are not proofs of the existence of a god or gods.

Here is his ‘rebuttal’:
In the first line of reasoning, we run into problems at step 3. Why is it that we must accept that there is a first cause? We are given no reason to accept this step other than it is a necessary stage to reach the conclusion. As a step in the argument should not be relied on as necessary but believed due to evidence, we must reject step 3. Without this step, the entire argument falls.
The second line of reasoning, while better, also fails the test. It is argued that the cause of the universe is a god. But does this god exist? Surely if it exists, it must also have a cause. If we are to follow this line of reasoning, there must be an infinite number of causes to an infinite number of effects. This is a dead end in thinking.

Here is my Response:
The atheist’s response to this argument is extremely weak. It is obvious that he hopes by bluffing past it no one will notice his own weak reasoning. It is as if his mere assertion of “huge problems” makes them so. I call this debating technique the argument from bombast.

In fact, the principle of cause and effect is a foundation stone of all scientific knowledge. Nothing happens without something causing it to happen. Obversely, everything that happens, happens for a reason, in other words, has a cause. There must either then, be a first cause, or there must exist something uncaused. Take your pick. Either matter and energy have existed eternally or the source of matter and energy has.

The atheist’s faulty reasoning is apparent in his own answers to the argument. In his answer to the first line of reasoning he questions why we must accept the idea of a first cause at all. Then he contradicts himself in his answer to the second line of reasoning by insisting that God must have a cause.

This argument is one that cannot be brushed aside by mere blustering and aggressive posturing. In my opinion it is one of the soundest reasons that the theist can be confident in his beliefs.

Take Care,

Edited to add: This point that God must have a cause is one of atheists favourite arguments and is self defeating. It is an argument used by Richard Dawkins in his book, “The God Delusion” with amazing self-congratulatory naivety. As I stated above, it seems plain that one of two things has existed forever; either matter or the Creator of matter. Something has existed without cause. Atheists will insist that God must have a cause, but conveniently avoid explaining how matter (or energy, if they claim that matter came from energy) doesn’t.

Friday, 27 April 2007

Lincoln Continental Mark III



My blogging has been a little sporadic lately. I've been slogging through 'The God Delusion' and trying to organize my thoughts for what I hope might be a fairly comprehensive critique of it. So for now, here is another car I used to own.

It is a Lincoln Continental Mark III. They were made from the 1969 to 1971 model years. Again, the one shown is not mine, although it looks exactly like the one I had, and if you were wondering, that is not me in the picture. Mine was a 1971. I owned it around 1981 and paid $1400.00 for it. It was slightly smaller that the Titanic, but was a better "floater".

The Mark III was a brainchild of Lee Iacocca and apparently was the most profitable car, per unit, Ford had ever produced. That's because it probably didn't cost too much more to make than a regular Ford, but sold for several times the price. After all, how much does extra sound deadening cost? It came standard with a 460 cu. in. (over 7.6 litre) engine and had to burn premium fuel. Not very Kyoto friendly at all!

I remember one snowy day being stopped at a stop sign and rear-ended by a Chev Corsica. The Corsica's front end was totally demolished. My rear bumper was pushed up a bit.

I really enjoyed owning this car. It is still my favourite of all the Lincoln 'Marks'. As impractical as it was as a daily driver, it was a wonderful cruiser and I actually wouldn't mind finding another one. These big early '70's luxury cars are not very politically correct to own, so can be bought relatively cheaply, especially compared to the 'muscle cars' of the same era.

Take Care

Sunday, 22 April 2007

The God Delusion

I have been reading Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion". I intend to post on it at greater length once I have finished the book and organized my thoughts. Suffice it to say, for the moment, that I was worried before I began reading it that it would somehow have the effect of introducing doubts into my mind that might shake my faith, especially if I read it thinking arrogantly that I might refute it in my own strength and intellect. I prayed for some time before opening it that God would give me discernment and strength by His Holy Spirit to see throught Dawkins' arguments.

I must say that God is faithful. I have only read a little over half the book, so final comments must be reserved for a future post, but what I have read so far I have found to be extremely shallow, and his arguments extremely hollow. Dawkins criticizes what he calls the "God Hypothesis", but what he puts forward as obvious might legitimately be called his, "Natural Selection Hypothesis." He constantly quotes other authors with whom he agrees, just as a Christian might quote Scripture, and my impression is that he quotes them with almost the same reverence.

Darwinism is his replacement for religion and other "believers" are his prophets.

More to come. My original hope was to post on the book chapter by chapter. We'll see how it works out.

Take Care

Sunday, 15 April 2007

More Chicken Stuff

I had lunch at McDonald’s yesterday. The paper placemat on the tray was advertising their, “Egg McMuffin” and so had all sorts of trivia about eggs and chickens. One of the items caught my eye. In response to the question, “Why do roosters crow in the morning?” they gave this answer:

“Roosters crow to attract a hen. The evolutional belief is that they used to crow all the time… but the crowing sound attracted predators as well. So they took to crowing when they wouldn’t be such easy targets. This was usually during times of low light, like dawn or dusk.” (emphasis mine, JK)

I hardly know where to begin. I don’t think the average person understands what “evolution” is supposed to be. For this behaviour (crowing only in the morning) to be truly evolutionary, the following would have to occur. There would have to have been a mutation in rooster genes whereby, at some point in the distant past, one rooster was born (hatched?) that crowed only in the morning. I’m not sure how such a gene would have come about, but such is evolutionary theory. This mutant morning-only crower would then pass the mutated gene to its offspring, so they would also crow only in the morning. Mind you, this would begin with only one rooster among the entire population of roosterdom, all those normal roosters who crowed all day long. Gradually, according to the evolutionary model, the all-day crowers would be killed and eaten by predators more often that the part-timers, and the mutant roosters would increase until they became, as is the case today, the dominant, nay the only, strain.

This raises a number of queestions in my mind. for one thing, one might think that the roosters who crowed all day would attract more mates and thereby reproduce more, increasing the size of their gene pool and enabling more of their offspring to survive.

Are there any roosters left who crow at different times of the day? It seems a little too cut and dried to think that 100% of uninhibited crowers would have been killed off, especially now that they are protected from predators by domestification. There aren’t nearly as many predators in a chicken coop. In fact, now that they have this protection, the point above should apply. The profligate crowers should reproduce in greater numbers and their ranks should swell.

Then again, it may be that rosters crow only in the morning because after the first crow they attract a hen and don’t need to crow anymore. I’m not sure how promiscuous roosters actually are.

But my theory is this: maybe roosters just learned this behaviour. Perhaps they just discovered that crowing attracted predators so they shut up after their first amorous appeal. Birds are not stupid creatures. After all, crows have learned that when I put out my garbage in a black plastic bag they might find food if they rip it to shreds and spread the contents all over the street.

But the bottom line is this: evolution, schmevolution! What was a rooster then is still a rooster now and not something else. I'm still waiting for the day when deer evolve to the point where all the ones with genes that allow them to cross highways in front of traffic are killed off and the only ones left are those whose genes know better.

Take Care

Saturday, 14 April 2007

Prehistoric Chicken?


Here's a quote from story in the story in the Baltimore Sun.

"New evidence unveiled in today's edition of Science puts the fearsome Tyrannosaurus rex embarrassingly close - in evolutionary terms - to the modern-day chicken." (emphasis mine, JK)

I find it amusing how evolutionists must attribute all living things to evolution, even in the face of common sense. They could never acccept that God would use common building blocks to create all forms of life.

I can imagine two cave men sitting around a fire. One is cooking up a T-Rex steak for his buddy who has never had one before.

"Don't worry", he says, "It tastes just like chicken."

Take Care

Wednesday, 11 April 2007

All Scripture Is God-Breathed

In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul is referring to exactly what he says: all Scripture. This means all Scripture, past, present and future from where he stood. All Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and Paul had confidence that He (the Holy Spirit) would know what would be included in the canon as Scripture and what wouldn’t. Of course, the apostle Peter later does indeed validate Paul’s own writings as Scripture, including them with “other Scriptures”. (2 Peter 3:16)

In a trivial way, it’s like General Motors saying, “All Cadillacs are made in Detroit.” (I don’t know whether they are or not, but for the sake of this argument, let’s say they are.) They are referring not only to all Cadillacs that have been made in the past, but all those yet to be made in the future as well.

It would follow then that if it’s a Cadillac, it’s made in Detroit. The corollary is; if it’s not made in Detroit, it’s not a Cadillac.

If it’s Scripture, it’s inspired. If it’s not inspired, it’s not Scripture.

Take Care

Our Faith Is Reasonable Indeed

Somehow atheists claim that to disbelieve in God is the more reasonable thing to do and that people of faith are the gullible ones. The atheist suggests that faith is a matter of accepting something as true without proof or evidence, painting Christians as feeble-minded and gullible. The proper definition of faith, from a Christian perspective, is that faith is, “...confidence or trust in a person or thing”, an actual dictionary definition, by the way. In our case, our confidence is in God – the very God we know to be true. We know it based partly on evidence, but ultimately on the witness of the Holy Spirit living within us. All other evidence merely affirms what we know by the Holy Spirit to be true.

Atheists like to put forward the impression that they have considered the facts coldly and clearly, while Christians merely accept things on groundless faith. Actually, just the opposite is true. There is no convincing evidence that I have ever seen to disprove God’s existence and loads of confirmation for it.

Believers believe, in part, because they have examined the evidence for God and judged it to be true, but in the end because God has opened their eyes to see and know Him. Atheists disbelieve because their dogma cannot allow them to acknowledge His existence.

Take Care

Tuesday, 10 April 2007

Riley 1.5

This is a Riley 1.5. I owned two of them in the mid- to late sixties. The first was a maroon ’59, the second a black ’61. They were a sort of poor man’s Jaguar, with real leather seats, burled walnut dash, full Smith’s instrumentation and an MG 1500cc engine with 2 SU carburetors and a 4-speed transmission. They were quite the sporty sedan in their time.

The black ’61 I owned when I first met my wife. It was a running joke between us when we were dating that the car didn’t like her because every time it rained, water poured into the passenger footwell. There were holes rusted in the floorboards. Eva remembers a drive we took on blossom Sunday to Niagara Falls while we were dating. It snowed a heavy wet snow. By the time we returned home to my parents’ house she was sopping wet. However, I thank God every day (I really do) that she married me anyway. That was in 1968, so you can do the math if you wonder how long we've been married.

I used to race the car occasionally, just for fun, at the Niagara Falls NY or Cayuga Ontario drag strip. The stock rear-end gear ratio was 3.73:1, but I discovered that the Morris Minor rear-end bucket would fit, with a 5.12:1 ratio. I actually got quite adept at changing out the rear end gears whenever I wanted more acceleration. The downside was that it turned about 4,000 RPM at 60 mph on the highway. In any case, the car was never very fast. It raced in the absolute bottom class and turned about a 20 sec ¼.

I chuckle now at how much more accepting I was of imperfection in the innocence of my youth. If a child of mine now entrusted their life to some of the cars I drove back in the day I would fear for their life. But then any child of mine would have better taste (and more sense) than I did.

Take Care

Monday, 9 April 2007

He Who Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear

A man goes to the doctor and complains that his wife can't hear him.
"How bad is it?" the doctor asks.
"I have no idea", says the husband.
"Well, here’s a test. Stand 20 feet away from her and say something. If she doesn't hear you, get closer and say the same thing. Keep moving closer repeating the comment until she does hear you. That way we'll have an idea of her range of hearing loss."

So the man goes home and sees his wife in the kitchen making supper.
From 20 feet: "What are we having for dinner?" No answer.
From 10 feet, same thing.
From 5 feet, same thing.
Finally he's standing right behind her ... "What's for dinner?"

She turns around, looks at him and says "For the FOURTH time ... MEAT LOAF!"

Take Care

Saturday, 7 April 2007

Worship Songs I Don’t Like To Sing

Between Two Worlds links to Gene Veith, who has created a firestorm over his opinion of Rich Mullins’ ubiquitous “worship” song, Awesome God. I must say I agree somewhat with the criticism. This is not to denigrate Rich Mullins personally. Many commenters have leapt to his defense because he was a Godly man and they liked a lot of his other music. I don’t dispute those points at all. But “Awesome God” contains one of the silliest worship song lyrics ever written,

“When He rolls up his sleeves he ain't just puttin' on the ritz,”

It may be fine for a group of kids sitting around a campfire, but in church on a Sunday Morning, I just shudder.

Frankly, I do like the chorus. In the little part-time worship team of which I am a part, we use the chorus at the end of, “You Are Mighty”, changing the words to, “God, You’re an Awesome God, You reign from Heaven above…etc.” The two songs are keyed alike and it fits right in. But it’s almost as if Mullins was given the chorus, felt he had to come up with verses to go along with it, and then said, “OK, that’s good enough”.

Another song that makes me wince is, “Days of Elijah”, by Robin Mark. Again, it is very popular in various worship circles, but it contains a pretty glaring error of Biblical history.

“These are the days of Your servant, David, rebuilding the temple of praise.”

Well, according to 2 Samuel chapter 7 and other passages, it was not David who built the Temple, it was Solomon.

When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name... (2 Sam 7:12,13a; emphasis mine)

One would think that, when writing a song for the church, one would at least make sure of one’s facts. We shouldn't compromise just because a certain word fits the rhyme or the metre better.

A third song that makes me cringe is, ”Above All”, by Lenny LeBlanc and Paul Baloche. It’s fine until we get to the part, “Like a rose, trampled on the ground, you took the fall and thought of me, above all”. That lyric, to me, is just a head-shaker. "Like a rose, trampled on the ground...?" What's that got to do with anything Biblical? "You took the fall...?" That's a line out of the Soprano's or something. "Thought of me above all...?" That just smacks to me of egotism. I have heard that the song was started by one author and finished by the other, and I’m confident I can tell where one left off and the other began. Again, it’s almost as if the author just felt he had to come up with some words to finish the song and, again, said, “OK that’s good enough.”

Call me a stickler, but perhaps we should consider the content of what we sing in church, not just do it because it has a nice melody or because it is popular in the worship music world.

Take Care

Friday, 6 April 2007

O Come And Mourn With Me Awhile

O come and mourn with me awhile;
And tarry here the cross beside;
O come, together let us mourn;
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.

Have we no tears to shed for Him,
While soldiers scoff and foes deride?
Ah! look how patiently He hangs;
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.

How fast His hands and feet are nailed;
His blessed tongue with thirst is tied,
His failing eyes are blind with blood:
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.

Seven times He spoke, seven words of love;
And all three hours His silence cried
For mercy on the souls of men;
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.

Come, let us stand beneath the cross;
So may the blood from out His side
Fall gently on us drop by drop;
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.

O break, O break, hard heart of mine!
Thy weak self-love and guilty pride
His Pilate and His Judas were:
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.

A broken heart, a fount of tears,
Ask, and they will not be denied;
A broken heart love’s cradle is:
Jesus, our Lord, is crucified.

O love of God! O sin of man!
In this dread act Your strength is tried;
And victory remains with love;
For Thou our Lord, art crucified!

(Frederick W Faber, 1814-1863)

Our community’s evangelical churches have a pancake breakfast on Good Friday at our local Christian school, but I chose not to go today. I have discussed my motives with a few people with whom the subject has come up, but I have not felt the need to raise the issue or “editorialize” about it. However, I will put forth a few of my thoughts here. These are merely my own thoughts. I neither judge nor begrudge others who feel differently and I hope they would extend to me a similar grace. I pray that those who attend the breakfast will be blessed by a wonderful and glorifying time of worship, and that the message will drive home the true meaning and the purpose of our Lord’s death on our behalf. In fact I know it will be a good message. I know the preacher :-)

But for myself, I want Good Friday to be a more sombre and reflective day than what I remember these breakfasts to be. Granted, there will be a worship service and teaching, but I just don’t fancy laughter and conversation over pancakes and syrup this morning. I will be attending a service later today at the Anglican Church that I must admit is more to my sombre disposition on what I feel is this saddest of days. I am trying to remember that today is Friday, when the original followers of Jesus were devastated by what was unfolding It is not yet Sunday, when the reasons for it all were revealed.

So, while the local Wal-Mart is open, and my own employees probably use the holiday as an excuse to stay up a little later Thursday night and sleep in Friday morning, while the world wakes up and begins to move around me, grateful for a day off work, I sit here at my keyboard, hoping, even praying that I can come up with words to express what I want to say. I’m afraid that either the time I have taken here or the extent of my vocabulary or indeed the limits of my human thinking limit me in my attempt to express my thoughts this Good Friday morning. I hope I do not offend any of my brothers or sisters in the Body of Christ.

It’s Friday, but soon it will be Sunday. Then I trust we can celebrate the glorious resurrection and victory of our Lord Jesus Christ! Together.

Take Care

Thursday, 5 April 2007

Mother (?) Nature

Another post inspired by an idea from G.K. Chesterton; from his book, Orthodoxy..

You will hear talk, especially among new age circles, that Nature, or the earth, is our Mother. Of course, Christians cannot think this way. We have only one spiritual Parent aside from our natural ones, and it is God, our Father.

But if nature is to be personified at all, and personified in the feminine, then she is our sister -- because we have the same Father.

We can admire her beauty, but she must not become an idol to us. We may respect her, but we must not worship her. We should protect her, as we might protect a more delicate sister, but she does not have any authority over us. In fact, it is the other way around. God has given us dominion over Nature.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Gen 1:26, KJV)

We are stewards of the earth, not children. We may be lovers of the earth, but never worshippers.

Take Care

Tuesday, 3 April 2007

Tim Challies Testimony Tuesday

Tim Challies did something today called Testimony Tuesday, giving bloggers an opportunity to link to his site with their testimonies. Mine is there. It is also linked to at the upper left hand side of this blog.

Reading many of those of others, I am struck by the common phrase, "I grew up in the church", or words to that effect. Although I don't specifically mention it in my on-line testimony, I have said it many times when giving it verbally. It is this: Parents, keep your kids in Church, even if they give you a hard time about going; even if they don't seem to be getting anything out of it. I am convinced that there is a certain process of osmosis that takes place. God's word will not return to Him void (Isaiah 55:11)

Take Care

If The LORD Had Not Been On Our Side

If the LORD had not been on our side—let Israel say- if the LORD had not been on our side when men attacked us, when their anger flared against us, they would have swallowed us alive; the flood would have engulfed us, the torrent would have swept over us, the raging waters would have swept us away. Praise be to the LORD, who has not let us be torn by their teeth. We have escaped like a bird out of the fowler's snare; the snare has been broken, and we have escaped. Our help is in the name of the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth. (Psalm 124, NIV)

I spent yesterday in the hospital.

Sunday afternoon I developed pains in my upper left chest that shot through my left shoulder and part way down my arm. I have had these before but, like whistling past the graveyard, I always put off having them checked out, trying to convince myself they were nothing. Yesterday morning, however, they were still present so I finally gave in to common sense and went to the hospital to be tested. As it turns out, they were nothing, at least nothing in the sense that I was not having a heart attack.

They had to do two series of tests, six hours apart, so I was in there for virtually the entire day. The second set of tests confirmed I was OK and free to go. But as soon as he had heard I was in the hospital, my dear friend Wade had put me on the prayer chain.

Now, some might have wondered whether it was appropriate to act that quickly, to put me on the prayer chain before we knew if anything was serious. But the question that entered my mind is this: what might have happened if he hadn't? What if God’s people had not been praying for me – if the LORD had not been on my side, so to speak?

I am convinced that God can answer prayer “retroactively”. Being completely sovereign, and not constrained by time and/or space, He can answer prayer before it has even been prayed.

Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear. (Isaiah 65:24)

I remember Nicky Gumble in the Alpha Course  quoting someone to the effect that God has all eternity to answer the split-second prayer of a motorist who is about to crash.

What might have happened? We may never know. But I am grateful for the prayers of God’s people and that the LORD was indeed, “on our side.”

Take Care

Monday, 2 April 2007

THE EVOLUTION OF POLYTHEISM

GK Chesterton has crossed my path, so to speak, a number of times recently, and the seed of this idea I take from him. There is a theory; put forward by liberal anthropologists and those who would debunk Christianity that monotheism is a relatively modern concept in the religious scheme of things. In other words, ancient and prehistoric mankind is postulated to have been polytheistic and that the idea of one god is a more recent development; we began by having many gods and progressed to having only one.

First of all, any such theorizing is mere speculation at best, because prehistoric, by definition, means that we have no record, but I think that just the opposite is probably the case. Just because man was not yet able to write does not mean he was not able to worship. Before there were many gods there must have been few, and before the few, there must have been One.

The Bible says that this One God has revealed Himself to mankind since the beginning. (Acts 17:26,27; Psalm 19: 1-4; Romans 1:19,20). It follows that the original humans were monotheistic, and of course our first ancestors, Adam and Eve were just that. In the beginning there were one God and two people.

But I present these thoughts as an argument also to those who may not accept the authority of the Bible. In other words, I appeal to common sense as well.

As the first humans reproduced and multiplied and spread out around the world, people would have taken their faith with them. As they gathered and settled in family or small groups each group would have worshipped God (or their god) in their own way. Each group probably called their god by their own particular name. Over time, as these small groups came back together into larger groups, cities or nations, each group or family would have brought their own concept of God to the mix. Let’s say, for instance, that two groups met and decided to band together in a community. Each had a concept of God. Neither one would have been willing to give theirs up. So one, perhaps, would say, “Let our God be the god of the sun, and yours be the god of the moon.” A third family would come into the community and their god would become the god of the sea, and so on. This would have been how polytheism developed – through compromise; through consensus.

It is a movement that continues right up to the present day. Today it is called tolerance, but it means compromise. The effect is the same; the truth is diluted and ultimately lost. People lose sight of the one true God. A person may have a completely valid perception of God, but if he tries to acknowledge another person’s concept of “the Divine” (as they say in liberal circles) as equally valid, in the name of compromise and tolerance, he departs from the truth. There is only one God, not two, not many.

It may be that all legitimate religions claim to be a search for this God who has revealed Himself through nature and in the spiritual nature of mankind. However, to the extent that religions have tried to compromise and accept many different gods, they stumble and fail in that search. Ultimately, God has revealed Himself to the world in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the final revelation, and any who truly want to find God must now encounter him first. Any attempt to find God that does not go through Jesus Christ is in error and will fall short.

Those who refuse to compromise are often persecuted as intolerant and seen as a threat to the rest of society, but those who refuse to compromise become the guardians of the truth, keepers of the flame. I thank God for those who, throughout history have not compromised. For much of the history of mankind, before the incarnation of Christ, this was the people who were commanded by God, “You shall have no other gods before me.” They were given the message, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” These were the Jews. And they preserved this truth for the world while all around them nations and peoples celebrated a spiritually promiscuous orgy of beliefs. Jehovah God forbade them to make any graven images. To put a shape to God would diminish Him. Only a God without the limits of form can be everything the LORD truly is.

The world owes a great debt to the faithful remnant of the Jews.

Take Care

Sunday, 1 April 2007

Go Figure...

I just happened to come across Don Stewart (the guy with the green prayer handkerchiefs) on Vision TV. Another one I think of is Morris Cerullo. Their programs are full of "miracle" stories of healing and finance. They have all these people throwing away their canes, crutches and walkers, jumping up and down and running back and forth on the stage. People get the green prayer handkerchief and all of a sudden cheques for thousands of dollars show up in the mail.

But they both obviously colour their hair...

Huh?...

Take Care