"Our prayers lay the track down by which God's power can come. Like a mighty locomotive His power is irresistible, but it cannot reach us without rails." - attributed to Watchman Nee
Prayer is like breathing. We need to breath. We need to pray. If we are to be men and women of-the-Spirit. Sharing the life of God.
Through Jesus Christ.
The only Mediator.
The only Way.
The only Savior.
By Him all things were made.
Before Abraham, He was.
Word of the Father in flesh appearing.
The best possible Saviour and Lord this world or any other world could ever have.
Supreme.
By Him
I'm
Redeemed.
May all who read this be blessed.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The NDP are passing resolutions
The NDP wants to do great things; they just need all our capitalist-generated money to do it. They don't mind if we make it, just as long as they get to spend it. In fact, they pretty much need us to make it for them.
They don't mind if we abort all our children, just as long as we abort boys and girls in equal numbers.
And, to support same-sex equality, they are willing to trash the historical definition of marriage and support the notion that a child can have two men or two women as its legal parents on its certificate of live birth.
There's currently a court case working its way through the system where a lesbian mother wants to add her partner as one of the child's parents, legally giving the child three parents (two mothers and a dad). The NDP will likely support this. And why not? Once the male-female procreation thing is dispensed with, there is no necessary reason why marriage should be restricted to two persons, or why a child's parents should be limited to two.
Cruelly, though, the NDP's ears remain deaf to the call to end the bigotry, prejudice, hate and small-minded mean-spiritedness towards another marginalized and oppressed sexual minority -- those who are attracted to the under fourteen crowd and who have the same right to equality under the beloved Charter as everyone else.
Someone in the NDP should propose a motion guaranteeing the equality of all sexual orientations, and not just those that are state-approved or favoured by society.
Otherwise, the Charter's sexual equality guarantees aren't worth the paper they weren't written on.
They don't mind if we abort all our children, just as long as we abort boys and girls in equal numbers.
And, to support same-sex equality, they are willing to trash the historical definition of marriage and support the notion that a child can have two men or two women as its legal parents on its certificate of live birth.
There's currently a court case working its way through the system where a lesbian mother wants to add her partner as one of the child's parents, legally giving the child three parents (two mothers and a dad). The NDP will likely support this. And why not? Once the male-female procreation thing is dispensed with, there is no necessary reason why marriage should be restricted to two persons, or why a child's parents should be limited to two.
Cruelly, though, the NDP's ears remain deaf to the call to end the bigotry, prejudice, hate and small-minded mean-spiritedness towards another marginalized and oppressed sexual minority -- those who are attracted to the under fourteen crowd and who have the same right to equality under the beloved Charter as everyone else.
Someone in the NDP should propose a motion guaranteeing the equality of all sexual orientations, and not just those that are state-approved or favoured by society.
Otherwise, the Charter's sexual equality guarantees aren't worth the paper they weren't written on.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Scientists: ye shall be as gods
Scientists are only human.
In the theory of darwinian evolution (even if we accept the notion of progression from one species to another) the mechanism of evolution -- random chance vs. divine direction -- is equally unproveable on either side, although the apparent and exquisite design we see all around us provides practical evidence of the latter.
Yet the former is dogmatically embraced by scientists.
This opened the door to science based on worldview assumptions, in this particular case, the twin assumptions of the sufficiency of human scientific endeavor (God cannot exist because we cannot prove Him), and its attendant consequence, a commitment to the philosophy of materialism (the material universe is all there is).
The end result of all this is to, in effect, make scientists themselves gods.
And this brings us back to Genesis chapter 3. "Eat from the tree of knowledge -- you shall be as gods."
Advise many scientists apparently find impossible to resist.
In the theory of darwinian evolution (even if we accept the notion of progression from one species to another) the mechanism of evolution -- random chance vs. divine direction -- is equally unproveable on either side, although the apparent and exquisite design we see all around us provides practical evidence of the latter.
Yet the former is dogmatically embraced by scientists.
This opened the door to science based on worldview assumptions, in this particular case, the twin assumptions of the sufficiency of human scientific endeavor (God cannot exist because we cannot prove Him), and its attendant consequence, a commitment to the philosophy of materialism (the material universe is all there is).
The end result of all this is to, in effect, make scientists themselves gods.
And this brings us back to Genesis chapter 3. "Eat from the tree of knowledge -- you shall be as gods."
Advise many scientists apparently find impossible to resist.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Jean Coutu and the Wise Executive
The Jean Coutu chain branched into the States recently, and got clobbered. They bought the Eckerd and Brooks drug store chains from J.C. Penney and got mired in outdated stores requiring extensive renovations. Maybe they paid too much. At any rate, they had no money for the needed renovations.
Today it is announced that they are selling these stores to RiteAid for cash plus 30% ownership of RiteAid. Sounds like a good deal to me. Their stock was up yesterday on the news of a likely deal. Wel'll see what it does today.
----
The executives of a company makes critical decisions that either increase or decrease wealth and prosperity to the company, and, ultimately, to society. The result of wise decisions is profit -- something that is despised by many in Canadian society today as evil. The result of unwise decisions is loss. The value of a wise executive cannot be overstated. Let's hope this works out for the hard-working and industrious Coutu family and the enterprise they run, along with its shareholders, employees, customers, not to mention the governments and citizens that also benefit through the taxation system.
Today it is announced that they are selling these stores to RiteAid for cash plus 30% ownership of RiteAid. Sounds like a good deal to me. Their stock was up yesterday on the news of a likely deal. Wel'll see what it does today.
----
The executives of a company makes critical decisions that either increase or decrease wealth and prosperity to the company, and, ultimately, to society. The result of wise decisions is profit -- something that is despised by many in Canadian society today as evil. The result of unwise decisions is loss. The value of a wise executive cannot be overstated. Let's hope this works out for the hard-working and industrious Coutu family and the enterprise they run, along with its shareholders, employees, customers, not to mention the governments and citizens that also benefit through the taxation system.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Mushy Multiculturalism and the Islamic Threat
The Liberal Party is reportedly in a disunified state over their Middle East policies, as they strain to be all things to all people, or, at least, all voter groups.
The Liberal's mushy multiculturalism (in which all cultures, despite the evidence, are viewed as equally peaceful and productive), works when the world is at peace; it doesn't work as well when the modern civilized world faces the threat of global Islamic terrorism. For such times, a firmer, more clear-cut, policy is needed. And that is the policy being offered us by the Conservatives.
The Liberals are understandably in disarray as their philosophy of unending accommodation and appeasement collapses in the face of the very real threat of Islamic aggression against the West.
The Liberal's mushy multiculturalism (in which all cultures, despite the evidence, are viewed as equally peaceful and productive), works when the world is at peace; it doesn't work as well when the modern civilized world faces the threat of global Islamic terrorism. For such times, a firmer, more clear-cut, policy is needed. And that is the policy being offered us by the Conservatives.
The Liberals are understandably in disarray as their philosophy of unending accommodation and appeasement collapses in the face of the very real threat of Islamic aggression against the West.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Mathematician Guy who Lives with his Mother
The Mathematician Guy who Lives with his Mother in Russia must be intelligence squared. He's just won a big award which he has declined. Something about a Poincare conjecture. This from the Globe and Mail:
"The Poincare conjecture essentially says that in three dimensions you cannot transform a doughnut shape into a sphere without ripping it, although any shape without a hole can be stretched or shrunk into a sphere.
Proving the conjecture — an exercise in acrobatics with mindboggling imaginary doughnuts and balls — is anything but trivial. Colleagues say Mr. Perelman's work gives mathematical descriptions of what the universe might look like and promises exciting applications in physics and other fields."
Now this from a sensible Canadian:
This can only mean that the universe is either shaped like a doughnut or a Timbit.
If a doughnut, what flavour would it be? Would it be glazed? Sprinkled?
If a Timbit, would it be sour cream, or fruit-filled?
Maybe someone will come up with a unifying theory of everything in which they prove that the universe is actually a Timbit encapsulated in a donut. I figure that Timbits are always trying to return to Mamma, from whence they came.
"The Poincare conjecture essentially says that in three dimensions you cannot transform a doughnut shape into a sphere without ripping it, although any shape without a hole can be stretched or shrunk into a sphere.
Proving the conjecture — an exercise in acrobatics with mindboggling imaginary doughnuts and balls — is anything but trivial. Colleagues say Mr. Perelman's work gives mathematical descriptions of what the universe might look like and promises exciting applications in physics and other fields."
Now this from a sensible Canadian:
This can only mean that the universe is either shaped like a doughnut or a Timbit.
If a doughnut, what flavour would it be? Would it be glazed? Sprinkled?
If a Timbit, would it be sour cream, or fruit-filled?
Maybe someone will come up with a unifying theory of everything in which they prove that the universe is actually a Timbit encapsulated in a donut. I figure that Timbits are always trying to return to Mamma, from whence they came.
Hard of Hearing
A Canadian court has ruled that the deaf are entitled to expect professional sign language interpreters at all government-provided offices and facilities in the country.
This means that the government must now provide all services in English, all services in French, and all services in ASL.
And, since the court defined this as a right, it means that all Canadians have a duty to provide these facilities.
And that's what's wrong with this ruling.
The deaf community may have lobbied for these services, and our society may have democratically decided to provide them, and that would have been a good, even wonderful thing.
But when the deaf demand this as a right, and a court imposes it on the country, it becomes a bad thing.
If sign-language interpretation is a positive human right, then the rest of us become obligated to provide it; we are no longer free citizens, but slaves to the rights of others and to the Charter and its unelected, unaccountable judges.
This means that the government must now provide all services in English, all services in French, and all services in ASL.
And, since the court defined this as a right, it means that all Canadians have a duty to provide these facilities.
And that's what's wrong with this ruling.
The deaf community may have lobbied for these services, and our society may have democratically decided to provide them, and that would have been a good, even wonderful thing.
But when the deaf demand this as a right, and a court imposes it on the country, it becomes a bad thing.
If sign-language interpretation is a positive human right, then the rest of us become obligated to provide it; we are no longer free citizens, but slaves to the rights of others and to the Charter and its unelected, unaccountable judges.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Quote of the Day
William F. Buckley Jr. quoting a Viennese critic:
"The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists."
"The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists."
Thursday, August 17, 2006
The United Church vs. Jesus Christ
Someone has suggested that if Jesus were Canadian, he would be a member of the United Church of Canada, because of its far-left social views (the latest being the idea of banning bottled water).
Would Jesus join the UCC? I doubt it. Firstly, I doubt he would be attracted to its watered-down gospel. Secondly, unless he "repented" of his fundamentalist mindset, I doubt that he would be welcome. Actually, I take that back. The UCC welcomes everybody, regardless of belief. But would he be welcomed into the corridors of power within the UCC?
Perhaps the the question should be, "would the UCC accept Jesus' application to be an ordained UCC minister".
Let's consider the UCC vs. Jesus Christ:
"My Father..." -- offensive
"Our Father..." -- still offensive
"I am the Way, no person comes to the Father but by ME" -- offensive
"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned" -- offensive
"Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish" -- offensive
"I am THE Truth" -- offensive
"He who is angry with his brother without cause is in danger of hell fire" -- offensive
"Think not that I have come to bring peace on the earth" -- offensive
"This is the new covenant in my blood... -- offensive
I think it's pretty clear that Jesus just wouldn't be considered "Christian enough" to be ordained within the UCC.
Would Jesus join the UCC? I doubt it. Firstly, I doubt he would be attracted to its watered-down gospel. Secondly, unless he "repented" of his fundamentalist mindset, I doubt that he would be welcome. Actually, I take that back. The UCC welcomes everybody, regardless of belief. But would he be welcomed into the corridors of power within the UCC?
Perhaps the the question should be, "would the UCC accept Jesus' application to be an ordained UCC minister".
Let's consider the UCC vs. Jesus Christ:
"My Father..." -- offensive
"Our Father..." -- still offensive
"I am the Way, no person comes to the Father but by ME" -- offensive
"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned" -- offensive
"Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish" -- offensive
"I am THE Truth" -- offensive
"He who is angry with his brother without cause is in danger of hell fire" -- offensive
"Think not that I have come to bring peace on the earth" -- offensive
"This is the new covenant in my blood... -- offensive
I think it's pretty clear that Jesus just wouldn't be considered "Christian enough" to be ordained within the UCC.
Urination and the right to free speech
The woman who caused a US-bound plane to be diverted to Boston apparently urinated on the floor, as if this was some big deal:
"About 35 minutes later, when she tried to go to the bathroom, the flight attendants directed her to a different lavatory. Instead, she pulled down her pants and urinated on the floor..."
Given the context, she was clearly making a statement of protest. Surely urinating on the floor constitutes a form of speech, protected under the Constitution. Once again we see the Bush Republicans trampling on basic human rights by insisting that people use lavatories. Are we going to lose all our freedoms? Are we going to take this sitting down like women, or stand up like men?
I would just say to her, "Yer innately expressive, aren't you?
If we lose our Constitutional right to urinate on the floor of an aircraft, the Republicans and Terrorists have won.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
"About 35 minutes later, when she tried to go to the bathroom, the flight attendants directed her to a different lavatory. Instead, she pulled down her pants and urinated on the floor..."
Given the context, she was clearly making a statement of protest. Surely urinating on the floor constitutes a form of speech, protected under the Constitution. Once again we see the Bush Republicans trampling on basic human rights by insisting that people use lavatories. Are we going to lose all our freedoms? Are we going to take this sitting down like women, or stand up like men?
I would just say to her, "Yer innately expressive, aren't you?
If we lose our Constitutional right to urinate on the floor of an aircraft, the Republicans and Terrorists have won.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
The Well-Meaning Stephen Lewis
I have been to a hospital in Africa. The squalor, the stench, the deprivation, are unimaginable. Relatives have to bring the sick food to eat, or they go without. There are no elevators, so you walk the stairs, trying to ignore the stench and the decades-old peeling paint on the wall.
Now, into this context of extreme and pervasive poverty, where there is virtually no medical supplies or facilities, we have well-meaning western groups wanting to flood impoverished HIV/AIDS victims with life-extending drugs. It is all out of proportion. They barely have enough to eat.
There are just as many people who are sick with other ailments -- TB, malaria, etc. who are equally deserving, and yet we apparently care little or nothing for them; only for those inflicted with one particular disease transmitted through sexual promiscuity -- which is absolutely rampant.
I saw one of my students die before my eyes, in a public ward with about 40 other sick or dying patients. There was no money for care or treatment. Facilities were practically non-existent. The aid being suggested by the West is out of all proportion to the situation.
The only message that will save Africa is one of sexual responsibility involving abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within it. Period. And, that's the only message they can afford.
Now, into this context of extreme and pervasive poverty, where there is virtually no medical supplies or facilities, we have well-meaning western groups wanting to flood impoverished HIV/AIDS victims with life-extending drugs. It is all out of proportion. They barely have enough to eat.
There are just as many people who are sick with other ailments -- TB, malaria, etc. who are equally deserving, and yet we apparently care little or nothing for them; only for those inflicted with one particular disease transmitted through sexual promiscuity -- which is absolutely rampant.
I saw one of my students die before my eyes, in a public ward with about 40 other sick or dying patients. There was no money for care or treatment. Facilities were practically non-existent. The aid being suggested by the West is out of all proportion to the situation.
The only message that will save Africa is one of sexual responsibility involving abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within it. Period. And, that's the only message they can afford.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Branded
When it comes to brand recognition, here are some that immediately come to mind:
Western Brands: Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft, Mercedes-Benz, Rolls-Royce, McDonalds
Asian Brands: Sony, Toyota, Samsung, BenQ
Muslim Brands: al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah
What a bunch of under-achievers! No wonder they're mad at their underachieving status vis-a-vis the West. Western civilization has rolled right over them and they're stuck somewhere in the middle ages, dreaming of achieving Islamic domination by force. So, they attack our buildings, they attack our planes, they attack our trains, they attack our subways, they attack our religion.
I wouldn't trade my religion, rooted in the warm love of God, for theirs, rooted in cold submission to Allah, for anything. I can sleep peacefully at night knowing that Christ, not "Allah" is Lord, and that He has reconciled me to God His Father through His death on the cross.
I wouldn't trade this for anything.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Western Brands: Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft, Mercedes-Benz, Rolls-Royce, McDonalds
Asian Brands: Sony, Toyota, Samsung, BenQ
Muslim Brands: al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah
What a bunch of under-achievers! No wonder they're mad at their underachieving status vis-a-vis the West. Western civilization has rolled right over them and they're stuck somewhere in the middle ages, dreaming of achieving Islamic domination by force. So, they attack our buildings, they attack our planes, they attack our trains, they attack our subways, they attack our religion.
I wouldn't trade my religion, rooted in the warm love of God, for theirs, rooted in cold submission to Allah, for anything. I can sleep peacefully at night knowing that Christ, not "Allah" is Lord, and that He has reconciled me to God His Father through His death on the cross.
I wouldn't trade this for anything.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Monday, August 14, 2006
The Authenticity of Christianity: Too good not to be true
There is a difference between asking for evidence of something and demanding proof.
Of course Christianity remains a matter of faith -- that's the whole point. Christ said, "The person who believes, and is baptized shall be saved, the person who does not believe shall be damned".
Christianity, at its core, is a message, than can be accepted or rejected or ignored. The Originator claimed that what one did with this message would determine their eternal destiny.
The "evidences" (not "proofs") that come to mind for the authenticity of Christianity include the following:
1. The superior moral/ethical nature of the Jewish Scriptures -- especially when compared to what was being written by contemporaries, as evidence that the Jewish Bible is an authentic revelation of the one true God. Contemporary dieties were often capricious and arbitrary. Yahweh is a God of scrupulous justice.
2. The prophecies in the Old Testament which predict a coming Messiah and the establishment of a new covenant.
3. The numerous OT prophecies which were fulfilled in Christ -- many fulfilled on the day of his fateful death.
4. The ring of truth concerning the NT stories, such as the conversion of Peter, of Paul, the arguments, the disagreements, the successes, the failures, the realistic view of shortcomings and failures among those professing faith in Christ.
5. The eyewitness testimonies concerning the resurrection appearances of Christ.
6. The fact that the NT scriptures were not written hundreds of years and hundreds of miles away from the events they purport to describe, but, rather, written in the very milieu and within the same lifetime of the events portrayed. In other words, if miraculous healings had not in fact occurred, if the body of Christ had not "gone missing", etc. contemporaries could have easily disproved and dismissed the spurious claims of the apostles.
7. The missing body of Christ. Given the historical events surrounding Christ's death, including the posting of the Roman guard, etc., no satisfactory alternative explanation has been given concerning what happened to his body. Obviously, if either the Roman or Jewish authorities had his body, they would have produced it, and it would have been "game over". If the Christians had it, you have to ask how they could have gotten it, given the Roman guard, and why they would bother suffering the social ostracization, the imprisonment, and even death, for a message that they themselves knew to be false.
8. The uniform and unchanging witness of the apostles to the resurrection of Christ, to the point of death. Being willing to die for a belief does not make it true. And people may be willing to die for a belief that the believe to be true but is not, but how many people are willing to die for a belief that they know to be untrue? Even secular historians today admit that the evidence supports the idea that the apostles themselves believed Jesus to have risen from the dead.
9. The apostles were not fanatical or even prone to being particularly religious (with the exception of the apostle Paul). They came from a variety of backgrounds, from semi-literate fishermen to members of higher social standing.
10. The apostle Paul's message and ministry was accepted and validated by the apostles who were direct eye-witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
11. The early Church fathers quote almost every verse of NT Scripture in their writings, which precede the formal canonization of Scripture. This shows that the Roman Catholic Church did not "decide" which books would be authoritative, as some like to suggest to today. Rather, the Church met and ratified the books that were already in widespread circulation and which already enjoyed, unlike the spurious gnostic texts, widespread acceptance within the Church universal.
12. There is about 1,000 times more manuscript evidence for the text of the New Testament than any other ancient writing.
13. Jesus said that in the last days the nations of the world would surround Israel. For 1,900 years this could have not been fulfilled, since Israel ceased to exist. This prophecy of Jesus is now fulfillable, in our generation. The book of Revelation speaks of believers from every tribe and nation being gathered. If Christianity had fizzled, this Scripture would have gone unfullfilled. In fact, the gospel has prospered, and now has adherents in most if not all countries of the world.
14. The New Testament speaks of sin, and not just sin in an outward kind of way, but sin going down to the deepest motives and misdirected desires of the human heart. Its authentic and accurate diagnosis of the condition of the human heart lends credibility to its prescribed remedies.
15. Unlike other religions which allow for human merit and effort, Christianity is humbling to man's pride. It says that there is nothing we can do to be worthy of a holy God, or to merit his acceptance. The good news is that there is a way to God. But it is His way, not ours. It is His provision, and not our efforts. So it is very humbling -- exactly what we need.
16. Unlike Islam, which demands submission to Allah, the NT record makes it clear that God honours the free-will that he gave mankind in the beginning. A message is presented. This message can be believed, and acted upon, or rejected. The NT record says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance. But He is not going to force anybody to love Him or submit to His gentle yoke.
17. Moderns tend to think that they have a love for truth that the ancients did not possess. So we tend to think that we have a love for objective truth while the ancients were happy just to make stuff up. Reading the early Church historian Eusebius will correct this false idea. It is clear from his writings that Christians from the get-go were very concerned with the factual and truthful nature of their beliefs. Christianity is a faith that is rooted in historical events. The historical events are not just important to the Christian faith, they are indispensible.
18. For various philosophical and mathematical reasons, humans are stuck with the logical necessity for a Creator. The fact that we live in a space-time universe means that the universe had a definite beginning, a start-point, prior to which it did not exist. How do we know this? One "proof" is based on the logical finiteness of time. If time were eternal, that would mean that there were an infinite number of past points in time, meaning we could never arrive at the "present" -- there would be an infinite number of past prior moments which would preclude arriving at the present one. Anyone who believes that the present exists, logically must believe in a finite universe.
19. Another evidence is based on an argument first raised by Christian monks, but refined by Islamic thinkers. It goes like this. A) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. B) The universe began to exist. C) Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause we understand to be God.
20. Whoever or whatever created the universe must logically possess certain attributes. These include eternality, existence outside of time-space; great power; personality (since it is illogical for a greater Creator to create a lesser creation that has attributes that the Creator Himself/Itself does not possess); creativity; and we could even infer such things as goodness, love, etc. as we see these to a lesser degree in the created creatures.
21. While this kind of Creator can be logically deduced, we see in the world around us evidence of discreation, of chaos, of blight, decay, cruelty -- evil. The Old Testament witness to the entrance of evil into the world, and the despoiling of it is accepted as an integral part of the Christian worldview.
22. The NT testifies of a divine corrective to the disorder that is presently seen in the world. Sin will be destroyed. Death will be destroyed. The rebellion will be quashed. And God's order and kingdom will be established. It even gives the name of the Person who is going to pull this off. Without this, sin wins, rebellion wins, evil wins.
23. The words of Christ. Even is completely false, they are fantastic. "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me". "I am the Bread of Life". "I am the Resurrection and the Life". "Before Abraham was, I am". "I am the Door, by me if any many enter in...". Where did these thoughts, these words come from? Collusion on the part of the apostles? Or did Jesus really say them? And, if he really said them, then who is he? Delusional lunatic? Demented liar? Or,... "Who do men say that I am"? "Who do you say that I am". And Peter's confession, "You are the Christ the Son of the Living God".
Please note that I am not trying to meet your demand to "prove" anything. I am simply trying to show that Christianity is a faith that, while remaining faith, is based on reason and evidences, and that, given all the facts of observable human existence, including consciousness (difficult to describe in purely materialistic terms), conscience, ingrained sense-of-justice, the reality of immaterial things such as mathematics and logic, the longings of the human heart for immortality, the existence of love, the logical necessity of a Creator, etc. etc., Christianity provides the best explanation of reality as it exists, of the human condition as it exists, and, if we accept that there is a God, the best revelation of His character, and HIs program with regards to humankind.
The fact that He would sacrifice His Son to win us makes Him just about irresistible in my mind. The fact that He would not only forgive the repentant rebels, but elevate us to the status of adopted sons and daughters for eternity, makes Him a God worthy of worship. And this message -- adoption through propitiation -- is so mind-blowing, it provides the final evidence that the gospel is something other than of merely human origins.
The gospel -- too good not to be true.
Of course Christianity remains a matter of faith -- that's the whole point. Christ said, "The person who believes, and is baptized shall be saved, the person who does not believe shall be damned".
Christianity, at its core, is a message, than can be accepted or rejected or ignored. The Originator claimed that what one did with this message would determine their eternal destiny.
The "evidences" (not "proofs") that come to mind for the authenticity of Christianity include the following:
1. The superior moral/ethical nature of the Jewish Scriptures -- especially when compared to what was being written by contemporaries, as evidence that the Jewish Bible is an authentic revelation of the one true God. Contemporary dieties were often capricious and arbitrary. Yahweh is a God of scrupulous justice.
2. The prophecies in the Old Testament which predict a coming Messiah and the establishment of a new covenant.
3. The numerous OT prophecies which were fulfilled in Christ -- many fulfilled on the day of his fateful death.
4. The ring of truth concerning the NT stories, such as the conversion of Peter, of Paul, the arguments, the disagreements, the successes, the failures, the realistic view of shortcomings and failures among those professing faith in Christ.
5. The eyewitness testimonies concerning the resurrection appearances of Christ.
6. The fact that the NT scriptures were not written hundreds of years and hundreds of miles away from the events they purport to describe, but, rather, written in the very milieu and within the same lifetime of the events portrayed. In other words, if miraculous healings had not in fact occurred, if the body of Christ had not "gone missing", etc. contemporaries could have easily disproved and dismissed the spurious claims of the apostles.
7. The missing body of Christ. Given the historical events surrounding Christ's death, including the posting of the Roman guard, etc., no satisfactory alternative explanation has been given concerning what happened to his body. Obviously, if either the Roman or Jewish authorities had his body, they would have produced it, and it would have been "game over". If the Christians had it, you have to ask how they could have gotten it, given the Roman guard, and why they would bother suffering the social ostracization, the imprisonment, and even death, for a message that they themselves knew to be false.
8. The uniform and unchanging witness of the apostles to the resurrection of Christ, to the point of death. Being willing to die for a belief does not make it true. And people may be willing to die for a belief that the believe to be true but is not, but how many people are willing to die for a belief that they know to be untrue? Even secular historians today admit that the evidence supports the idea that the apostles themselves believed Jesus to have risen from the dead.
9. The apostles were not fanatical or even prone to being particularly religious (with the exception of the apostle Paul). They came from a variety of backgrounds, from semi-literate fishermen to members of higher social standing.
10. The apostle Paul's message and ministry was accepted and validated by the apostles who were direct eye-witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
11. The early Church fathers quote almost every verse of NT Scripture in their writings, which precede the formal canonization of Scripture. This shows that the Roman Catholic Church did not "decide" which books would be authoritative, as some like to suggest to today. Rather, the Church met and ratified the books that were already in widespread circulation and which already enjoyed, unlike the spurious gnostic texts, widespread acceptance within the Church universal.
12. There is about 1,000 times more manuscript evidence for the text of the New Testament than any other ancient writing.
13. Jesus said that in the last days the nations of the world would surround Israel. For 1,900 years this could have not been fulfilled, since Israel ceased to exist. This prophecy of Jesus is now fulfillable, in our generation. The book of Revelation speaks of believers from every tribe and nation being gathered. If Christianity had fizzled, this Scripture would have gone unfullfilled. In fact, the gospel has prospered, and now has adherents in most if not all countries of the world.
14. The New Testament speaks of sin, and not just sin in an outward kind of way, but sin going down to the deepest motives and misdirected desires of the human heart. Its authentic and accurate diagnosis of the condition of the human heart lends credibility to its prescribed remedies.
15. Unlike other religions which allow for human merit and effort, Christianity is humbling to man's pride. It says that there is nothing we can do to be worthy of a holy God, or to merit his acceptance. The good news is that there is a way to God. But it is His way, not ours. It is His provision, and not our efforts. So it is very humbling -- exactly what we need.
16. Unlike Islam, which demands submission to Allah, the NT record makes it clear that God honours the free-will that he gave mankind in the beginning. A message is presented. This message can be believed, and acted upon, or rejected. The NT record says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance. But He is not going to force anybody to love Him or submit to His gentle yoke.
17. Moderns tend to think that they have a love for truth that the ancients did not possess. So we tend to think that we have a love for objective truth while the ancients were happy just to make stuff up. Reading the early Church historian Eusebius will correct this false idea. It is clear from his writings that Christians from the get-go were very concerned with the factual and truthful nature of their beliefs. Christianity is a faith that is rooted in historical events. The historical events are not just important to the Christian faith, they are indispensible.
18. For various philosophical and mathematical reasons, humans are stuck with the logical necessity for a Creator. The fact that we live in a space-time universe means that the universe had a definite beginning, a start-point, prior to which it did not exist. How do we know this? One "proof" is based on the logical finiteness of time. If time were eternal, that would mean that there were an infinite number of past points in time, meaning we could never arrive at the "present" -- there would be an infinite number of past prior moments which would preclude arriving at the present one. Anyone who believes that the present exists, logically must believe in a finite universe.
19. Another evidence is based on an argument first raised by Christian monks, but refined by Islamic thinkers. It goes like this. A) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. B) The universe began to exist. C) Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause we understand to be God.
20. Whoever or whatever created the universe must logically possess certain attributes. These include eternality, existence outside of time-space; great power; personality (since it is illogical for a greater Creator to create a lesser creation that has attributes that the Creator Himself/Itself does not possess); creativity; and we could even infer such things as goodness, love, etc. as we see these to a lesser degree in the created creatures.
21. While this kind of Creator can be logically deduced, we see in the world around us evidence of discreation, of chaos, of blight, decay, cruelty -- evil. The Old Testament witness to the entrance of evil into the world, and the despoiling of it is accepted as an integral part of the Christian worldview.
22. The NT testifies of a divine corrective to the disorder that is presently seen in the world. Sin will be destroyed. Death will be destroyed. The rebellion will be quashed. And God's order and kingdom will be established. It even gives the name of the Person who is going to pull this off. Without this, sin wins, rebellion wins, evil wins.
23. The words of Christ. Even is completely false, they are fantastic. "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me". "I am the Bread of Life". "I am the Resurrection and the Life". "Before Abraham was, I am". "I am the Door, by me if any many enter in...". Where did these thoughts, these words come from? Collusion on the part of the apostles? Or did Jesus really say them? And, if he really said them, then who is he? Delusional lunatic? Demented liar? Or,... "Who do men say that I am"? "Who do you say that I am". And Peter's confession, "You are the Christ the Son of the Living God".
Please note that I am not trying to meet your demand to "prove" anything. I am simply trying to show that Christianity is a faith that, while remaining faith, is based on reason and evidences, and that, given all the facts of observable human existence, including consciousness (difficult to describe in purely materialistic terms), conscience, ingrained sense-of-justice, the reality of immaterial things such as mathematics and logic, the longings of the human heart for immortality, the existence of love, the logical necessity of a Creator, etc. etc., Christianity provides the best explanation of reality as it exists, of the human condition as it exists, and, if we accept that there is a God, the best revelation of His character, and HIs program with regards to humankind.
The fact that He would sacrifice His Son to win us makes Him just about irresistible in my mind. The fact that He would not only forgive the repentant rebels, but elevate us to the status of adopted sons and daughters for eternity, makes Him a God worthy of worship. And this message -- adoption through propitiation -- is so mind-blowing, it provides the final evidence that the gospel is something other than of merely human origins.
The gospel -- too good not to be true.
The five Israeli soldiers
The three Israeli soldiers who were killed by the initial incursion by Hezbollah remain firmly dead. And the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers remain in the hands of a vicious, murderous terrorist organization. It is incredibly generous and accommodating of Israel to agree to stop fighting on the mere promise of the return of these soldiers and the forced disbanding of Hezbollah. The eyes of the world are now on Lebanon, Hezbollah, and the UN, to see if they will fulfill their promises to Israel.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Canadians shouldn't feel so smug
An article came out today saying that a sizeable minority of Americans reject Darwinian evolution (which Canadians accept as established fact. So Canadians are feeling quite smug today. But should we be?
Evolution and Darwinism are not the same thing. Scientists believed in evolution within species prior to Darwin -- and this is what people cite when they say that evolution has been observed and has been "proven".
Darwin lost his faith in God and sought to discover a natural, materialistic explanation for the teeming complexity of life on this planet. His theory arose from this viewpoint. So Darwinian evolution is not really objective science; it is driven by the philosophy of materialism and a desire to disprove the necessity of a Creator. So, when someone says they are a darwinist, they are really making a philosophical statement about themself more than a scientific one.
Even if the evolution of species could be proven, Darwin's central tenet, that random selection (rather than directed design) is the mechanism, would be completely unproveable. So, Darwinism is no more "scientific" than intelligent design, in the sense that neither can be "proven".
To settle the argument, you need to step back and consider the origin of the universe.
For various reasons, we are stuck with the conclusion that the universe -- time and space -- had a definite begininng. And that has us staring face to face with the likelihood, the probability that the world is in fact the product of an eternal Creator who exists outside of it. The design that we see in the present world confirms this. So, intelligent design becomes in fact more likely than random chance as an explanation for how we got to where we are today.
As it turns out, Americans are quite sensible to say that they reject darwinian evolution. Canadians shouldn't be so smug.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Evolution and Darwinism are not the same thing. Scientists believed in evolution within species prior to Darwin -- and this is what people cite when they say that evolution has been observed and has been "proven".
Darwin lost his faith in God and sought to discover a natural, materialistic explanation for the teeming complexity of life on this planet. His theory arose from this viewpoint. So Darwinian evolution is not really objective science; it is driven by the philosophy of materialism and a desire to disprove the necessity of a Creator. So, when someone says they are a darwinist, they are really making a philosophical statement about themself more than a scientific one.
Even if the evolution of species could be proven, Darwin's central tenet, that random selection (rather than directed design) is the mechanism, would be completely unproveable. So, Darwinism is no more "scientific" than intelligent design, in the sense that neither can be "proven".
To settle the argument, you need to step back and consider the origin of the universe.
For various reasons, we are stuck with the conclusion that the universe -- time and space -- had a definite begininng. And that has us staring face to face with the likelihood, the probability that the world is in fact the product of an eternal Creator who exists outside of it. The design that we see in the present world confirms this. So, intelligent design becomes in fact more likely than random chance as an explanation for how we got to where we are today.
As it turns out, Americans are quite sensible to say that they reject darwinian evolution. Canadians shouldn't be so smug.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Live and Let Live?
The list is in. And, once again, we find the would-be perpetrators of the British bombing plot are Muslims.
Someone suggested yesterday on a G&M List that "if we got out of their countries, they wouldn't be doing this". Since these were all mostly British-born Brits, shall all non-Muslim Brits leave Britain?
The fact is, Islam has spread a poisonous ideology of hate and conquest world-wide. And let's be clear: their goal is not to avenge grievances; it is world domination.
This is not about live-and-let-live; this is about live-and-let-die.
Someone suggested yesterday on a G&M List that "if we got out of their countries, they wouldn't be doing this". Since these were all mostly British-born Brits, shall all non-Muslim Brits leave Britain?
The fact is, Islam has spread a poisonous ideology of hate and conquest world-wide. And let's be clear: their goal is not to avenge grievances; it is world domination.
This is not about live-and-let-live; this is about live-and-let-die.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Which Side to Cheer For?
Hezbollah vs. Israel. Still undecided? Here are ten guidelines to aid in your decision.
1. If you have to choose between one side that distributes candy to children when human lives are lost and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
2. If you have to choose between one side that puts up billboards facing the other country showing the decapitated head of one of the other side's soldiers (along with provocative commentary), and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
3. If you have to choose between one side that uses suicide bombers and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
4. If you have to choose between one side which seeks the annihilation of its neighbor, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
5. If you have to choose between one side controlled by Muslim terrorists and the other that isn't, choose the side that isn't.
6. If you have to choose between one side that warns citizens in advance that bombs are on their way, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that does.
7. If you have to choose between one side which locates offensive military weapons in residential areas and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
8. If you have to choose between one side whose combatants dress in civilian clothing and the other side which doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
9. If you have to choose between one side which teaches its children to hate their neighbour and instills in them the desire to be suicide bombers and the other side that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
10. Finally, if you have to choose between one side which treats dead children as photo ops and the other side that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
1. If you have to choose between one side that distributes candy to children when human lives are lost and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
2. If you have to choose between one side that puts up billboards facing the other country showing the decapitated head of one of the other side's soldiers (along with provocative commentary), and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
3. If you have to choose between one side that uses suicide bombers and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
4. If you have to choose between one side which seeks the annihilation of its neighbor, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
5. If you have to choose between one side controlled by Muslim terrorists and the other that isn't, choose the side that isn't.
6. If you have to choose between one side that warns citizens in advance that bombs are on their way, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that does.
7. If you have to choose between one side which locates offensive military weapons in residential areas and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
8. If you have to choose between one side whose combatants dress in civilian clothing and the other side which doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
9. If you have to choose between one side which teaches its children to hate their neighbour and instills in them the desire to be suicide bombers and the other side that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
10. Finally, if you have to choose between one side which treats dead children as photo ops and the other side that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
British Terror Plot to Blow up American Planes
The BBC is reporting today that a massive plot to blow up American planes leaving Britain has been thwarted. Arrests have been made. The good new is this: not one word in either the announcement by law enforcement officials or the press has even suggested that this plot might involve Muslim extremists.
Which would be great for the multicultural belief that all cultures, belief systems and religions are equal.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Which would be great for the multicultural belief that all cultures, belief systems and religions are equal.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Monday, August 07, 2006
The Ten Commendments -- How to choose which side to support
Still wondering which side to root for in the middle east dispute between Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas? Here are ten tips to aid in decision-making for the undecided. I commend them to you:
1. If you have to choose between one side that distributes candy to children when human lives are lost and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
2. If you have to choose between one side that puts up billboards facing the other country showing the decapitated head of one of the other side's soldiers (along with provocative commentary), and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
3. If you have to choose between one side that uses suicide bombers and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
4. If you have to choose between one side which seeks the annihilation of its neighbor, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
5. If you have to choose between one side controlled by Muslim terrorists and the other that isn't, choose the side that isn't.
6. If you have to choose between one side that warns citizens in advance that bombs are on their way, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that does.
7. If you have to choose between one side which locates offensive military weapons in residential areas and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
8. If you have to choose between one side whose combatants dress in civilian clothing and the other side which doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
9. If you have to choose between one side which teaches its children to hate their neighbour and instills in them the desire to be suicide bombers and the other side that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
10. Finally, if you still can't decide: if you have to decide between one side which is God's ancient chosen people restored to the land of their forefathers, and the other side that isn't, choose the side that is.
1. If you have to choose between one side that distributes candy to children when human lives are lost and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
2. If you have to choose between one side that puts up billboards facing the other country showing the decapitated head of one of the other side's soldiers (along with provocative commentary), and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
3. If you have to choose between one side that uses suicide bombers and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
4. If you have to choose between one side which seeks the annihilation of its neighbor, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
5. If you have to choose between one side controlled by Muslim terrorists and the other that isn't, choose the side that isn't.
6. If you have to choose between one side that warns citizens in advance that bombs are on their way, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that does.
7. If you have to choose between one side which locates offensive military weapons in residential areas and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
8. If you have to choose between one side whose combatants dress in civilian clothing and the other side which doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
9. If you have to choose between one side which teaches its children to hate their neighbour and instills in them the desire to be suicide bombers and the other side that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.
10. Finally, if you still can't decide: if you have to decide between one side which is God's ancient chosen people restored to the land of their forefathers, and the other side that isn't, choose the side that is.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
The United Church weighs in...
The United Church is one of those Christian organizations that disconnected itself from its Christian roots in the 1960s. Since then it has embraced homosexuality and a very inclusive view of who gets to go to heaven, and busied itself with do-gooding. In other words, it has become profoundly irrelevant.
The UC General Secretary has written a rather long and self-important letter to the National Post, responding to some intemperate remarks concerning Israel, made by a UC minion.
A letter-writer lamented that these remarks could harm Judeo-Christian relations.
Here's my take on that:
Citizens need not be overly concerned that pronouncements by the United Church may hurt Judeo-Christian relations. The United Church, in abandoning hard biblical revelation for feel-good doism, ceased being a Christian voice some time ago. As for the self-important response from the General Secretary, someone should let him in on a little secret: what the United Church thinks is profoundly irrelevant to all but itself.
The UC General Secretary has written a rather long and self-important letter to the National Post, responding to some intemperate remarks concerning Israel, made by a UC minion.
A letter-writer lamented that these remarks could harm Judeo-Christian relations.
Here's my take on that:
Citizens need not be overly concerned that pronouncements by the United Church may hurt Judeo-Christian relations. The United Church, in abandoning hard biblical revelation for feel-good doism, ceased being a Christian voice some time ago. As for the self-important response from the General Secretary, someone should let him in on a little secret: what the United Church thinks is profoundly irrelevant to all but itself.
Friday, August 04, 2006
"Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?"
Time Magazine asked Episcopal Bishop-Elect Katherine Jefferts Schori the following question:
"Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?"
This is her response:
"We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box."
In fact the "box" that God placed Himself in order to secure our eternal salvation was even more narrow than she may have had in mind. It was hammered in place with cruel nails. And it was agonizing.
For her to suggest that this box -- the Cross -- was just "a way" of getting to heaven not only represents a complete heart-betrayal of the Lord she claims to represent, it makes God look like an idiot for asking His Son to submit to the degradation and suffering of the Cross, and then to say, "oops", not "the way", just "a way".
The other point I want to make is this: I've noticed that liberal Christians are self-centred in their statements, not God-centred. Notice the self-orientation of her statement.
"WE who practice the Christian tradition understand him as OUR vehicle to the divine. But for US to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, [FOR US] to put God in an awfully small box."
It's all about "us"; they don't worship God; they worship themselves.
I will do what they will not. I will publicly praise our God and Saviour for His redemptive work on the Cross. And belittle myself by saying that I have done, am doing, and can do absolutely nothing to either merit His redeeming love or to add to or improve upon what He did for me on the cross. And I will declare that it's all about HIM, and not about me, or "us", or what we think.
And I will state what they dare not because they would rather make themselves look good at the expense of truth than offend anyone: Jesus is not just some way, or a way, or "our" way, He is THE way. And He is not just our truth, or a truth, or a witness to the truth, or even just someone who spoke the truth: He IS THE TRUTH. And He's not just an example, or one among many witnesses to God, or a good teacher, or someone who points the way to eternal life; He is the life. If you have Him, you have life; if you don't have him, you don't.
And just so there is no mistake, I'll make it even clearer:
No one, and by that I mean no one, comes to the Father, except by Him -- the One whom the Father Himself sent, spoke about from Heaven at His baptism, and Whom the Father raised from the dead to gloriously validate His message and claim to be the Son of God.
Until this woman is willing to submit to this gospel truth she should get out of the business. She is not a Christian leader. She is a fake, as phony as a three-dollar bill, and, worse, a false prophet whose damnable opinions will lead to many going to hell instead of heaven.
I hope that was clear enough.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
"Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?"
This is her response:
"We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box."
In fact the "box" that God placed Himself in order to secure our eternal salvation was even more narrow than she may have had in mind. It was hammered in place with cruel nails. And it was agonizing.
For her to suggest that this box -- the Cross -- was just "a way" of getting to heaven not only represents a complete heart-betrayal of the Lord she claims to represent, it makes God look like an idiot for asking His Son to submit to the degradation and suffering of the Cross, and then to say, "oops", not "the way", just "a way".
The other point I want to make is this: I've noticed that liberal Christians are self-centred in their statements, not God-centred. Notice the self-orientation of her statement.
"WE who practice the Christian tradition understand him as OUR vehicle to the divine. But for US to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, [FOR US] to put God in an awfully small box."
It's all about "us"; they don't worship God; they worship themselves.
I will do what they will not. I will publicly praise our God and Saviour for His redemptive work on the Cross. And belittle myself by saying that I have done, am doing, and can do absolutely nothing to either merit His redeeming love or to add to or improve upon what He did for me on the cross. And I will declare that it's all about HIM, and not about me, or "us", or what we think.
And I will state what they dare not because they would rather make themselves look good at the expense of truth than offend anyone: Jesus is not just some way, or a way, or "our" way, He is THE way. And He is not just our truth, or a truth, or a witness to the truth, or even just someone who spoke the truth: He IS THE TRUTH. And He's not just an example, or one among many witnesses to God, or a good teacher, or someone who points the way to eternal life; He is the life. If you have Him, you have life; if you don't have him, you don't.
And just so there is no mistake, I'll make it even clearer:
No one, and by that I mean no one, comes to the Father, except by Him -- the One whom the Father Himself sent, spoke about from Heaven at His baptism, and Whom the Father raised from the dead to gloriously validate His message and claim to be the Son of God.
Until this woman is willing to submit to this gospel truth she should get out of the business. She is not a Christian leader. She is a fake, as phony as a three-dollar bill, and, worse, a false prophet whose damnable opinions will lead to many going to hell instead of heaven.
I hope that was clear enough.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
1,000,000 Displaced in Lebanon and Israel
The big headline in the Huffington Post today is "1,000,000 displaced in Lebanon. Other liberal media outlets were harping on the same point yesterday.
There are also 1,000,000 Israelis displaced or living in bomb shelters.
Don't they count?
Apparently not.
I guess, despite the fact that Hezbollah started this conflict, in an unprovoked premeditated attack on Israel's security and integrity, that the world has decided that Israel is the aggressor.
Or maybe the lives of terrorists and those who harbour them count, but innocent Israeli lives don't.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
There are also 1,000,000 Israelis displaced or living in bomb shelters.
Don't they count?
Apparently not.
I guess, despite the fact that Hezbollah started this conflict, in an unprovoked premeditated attack on Israel's security and integrity, that the world has decided that Israel is the aggressor.
Or maybe the lives of terrorists and those who harbour them count, but innocent Israeli lives don't.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Islam is on the move
Canada lost another four soldiers today in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the killing in Iraq continues, as does the suffering in Israel and Lebanon precipitated by Islamic madness.
It seems that the devils of hell have invaded Islam and are unleashing their fury on the world.
Perhaps Armageddon and the Day of the Lord is not as far off as we might think. It certainly seems that things are being maneuvered into position for some kind of major conflagration. Islam is on the move, and the West is weakening by the day; having abandoned the brightness of Christian revelation, it has fallen into a death-wish spiral.
Such sadness Islamic militants and terrorists have brought into our lives and the lives of so many -- including the Americans, Brits, Australians, Israelis, Kuwaitis, Lebanese, Afghanistans, Iraqis, and others.
The theology and visions of world domination nurtured in the bosoms of Islamists are false, delusionary, and deadly; they must be opposed with resolute steadfastness.
And Christians should pray. It a duty and primary occupation of believers in the God who is Light, and not darkness, Truth, and not falsehood, Love, and not hate, Holy, and not profane.
In other words, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ -- the one and only true God, for whom Islam has substituted a pale, false inferior -- "Allah".
Just in case there's any doubt, let me make it explicitly clear: Allah is not the same person as the God of the Old and New Testaments. Muhammed, unlike the Jesus Christ and the prophets of the Old Testament, was a false prophet. And Islam, while it may include some truth, is a false revelation, one which denies Christianity at every critical point.
And because it is false, those who follow it ardently cannot help but be filled with delusionary ideas.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
It seems that the devils of hell have invaded Islam and are unleashing their fury on the world.
Perhaps Armageddon and the Day of the Lord is not as far off as we might think. It certainly seems that things are being maneuvered into position for some kind of major conflagration. Islam is on the move, and the West is weakening by the day; having abandoned the brightness of Christian revelation, it has fallen into a death-wish spiral.
Such sadness Islamic militants and terrorists have brought into our lives and the lives of so many -- including the Americans, Brits, Australians, Israelis, Kuwaitis, Lebanese, Afghanistans, Iraqis, and others.
The theology and visions of world domination nurtured in the bosoms of Islamists are false, delusionary, and deadly; they must be opposed with resolute steadfastness.
And Christians should pray. It a duty and primary occupation of believers in the God who is Light, and not darkness, Truth, and not falsehood, Love, and not hate, Holy, and not profane.
In other words, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ -- the one and only true God, for whom Islam has substituted a pale, false inferior -- "Allah".
Just in case there's any doubt, let me make it explicitly clear: Allah is not the same person as the God of the Old and New Testaments. Muhammed, unlike the Jesus Christ and the prophets of the Old Testament, was a false prophet. And Islam, while it may include some truth, is a false revelation, one which denies Christianity at every critical point.
And because it is false, those who follow it ardently cannot help but be filled with delusionary ideas.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)