Ever stand in line at a carnival or theme park and there is the measuring stick to see if you are tall enough to enter the ride? Now imagine that when you are outside Heaven's doors and there is one of these sticks; as you step up to it and start looking up to see the top of it, and the stick is so tall that it goes on for infinity into the clouds and you can not even concieve that there is an end to this stick. You feel simply belittled and hopeless when you try to measure up against this stick. You look around quickly and see a sign that simply says "you must be this Holy to enter."

So I was sitting and listening to talk radio and the DJ asked his audience "What happens when you die?" Now this is an atheist and he basically asked it hoping to get religionists to call so he can belittle and laugh at them. It was kinda rude... but I digress.

When I first clicked it on it was a Christian who was answering his question. It was fascinating to listen to. The DJ actually attempted to critique the Christian by raising an objection, which happens to be raised in the Gospels (Matt 22:23-33). I do not know if it is more sad that the DJ sets himself up as an authority of scholarship against the Bible and doesn't know what the Bible actually says, or that the Christian couldn't give a biblical response. Again, I digress...

Anyways, what I actually wanted to talk about was that after the Christian caller hung up he started explaining his position. He is an atheist and doesn't think anything happens when we die (what a meaningful life!), but then critiqued any exclusive religion with the basic idea that humans are generally good enough to get into heaven. He said something along the lines of "Religions that think that good people are going to Hell are just wrong. How can a good dad, or daughter, or aunt, or mother, if they try thier best, go to Hell?"

The simple and quick response off my lips was "Simply to speak, nobody is good enough." But then as I sat and pondered it more something else came to mind:

It is really the height of arrogance to think that even our best is good enough to please an infintely holy God. How prideful must we be to think that we are ever going to be good enough for God's best rewards?

As I repeated this to my friend, his response was actually better than mine. He said "actually the Mormons are the height of arrogance, they think they become gods!". I conceded the point with a chuckle but continued to ponder the radio show. And another thing struck me:

It is easier to believe that everyone is going to Hell than it is for everyone to be going to Heaven.

It is easier for me to look at the world, and any individual in it, and see their sins and tell them they are on the Highway to Hell than to look at them and try to tickle thier ears with a "just be yourself, you are good enough" message.

Now if God is perfectly Holy, and we are to please Him then it makes sense that we would have to match that holiness. Besides any doctrine of original sin, can anyone actually say that they are perfectly Holy? Any honest person simply can't. And as such is fully deserving of NOT recieving God's best. It is simple, we are imperfect and the standard for Heaven is perfection.

This DJ was simply thinking that he not only outwitted the Christian, but also outwitted the God of the Bible, that is arrogance! He has perched himself firmly on his pedastal, not willing to be knocked off. But as he sits up on that "high-chair" he still will not even be able see the top of the pole outside the doors of Heaven.

I was kindly asked to answer (sub-weekly) questions for Kettering University's Campus Crusade for Christ group (http://www.ketteringcru.com/). A friend of mine attends there and I decided to help him out. I decided to also post my replies here on my blogs.

Here is my next question:

Given the mutual exclusivity of most faiths, how can strong, devoted adherents of different faiths coexist peacefully at all?  Is it right for adherents of one faith to attempt to "convert" those of another?

--------------------------------------------
“Can’t we all just get along?”

This is a good question, actually. And seemingly more relevant today than in times past, especially with the clash of cultures that we are experiencing with the new communication and transportation technologies, not to mention the war on terror which can be confused as a religious war. Can’t we all just get along? And the answer to this is… this is a tough question.

To give a quip answer, “yes, we can all just get along, it is logically possible”. If certain people and thinkers had their way then we would all be sitting around a large campfire, holding hands, and singing inoffensive songs likened to Kumbaya (of course without the “my Lord” references since that would offend someone). But since I do not see too many people doing that (not even myself), then the answer is no, we can’t just get along.

But then again, it depends on what we mean by “just getting along”. Like I just said, if getting along means holding hands and swaying back and forth while doing inaudible chants, then no. But if getting along means living peacefully then I think it is possible, yes we can just get along. Unless a person or group of people that we need to play nice with refuses to do so. We can all just get along if people lay aside the part of their beliefs that tell them not to get along.

So there are two things going on here. One is that religion is… now get this, this is key… that religion is important. These are matters of Heaven and Hell, where are you going to spend eternity? if anywhere? If there is an all knowing, all powerful, omnipresent, creator that puts demands on our lives and will judge us, and this judgment effects eternity, then this is no small matter. So asking if we can all just get along means that we have to lay down the most important thing in our lives, clearly we can not. Secondly is what each person’s religion demands of us. If a religion demands for us to not get along, then we won’t.

In fact, in order for us to all just get along around that campfire, we need to lay aside religion. If the biggest point of controversy that divides us is religion, then in order to just get along means we have to belittle religion. I think it is funny that those who hate religion, those are directly opposed to God, those who think that religion poisons everything, usually use an argument about religion causing strife. And their only solution that they offer is to destroy or belittle all religion.

To some sense I think that the post-modern shift, the denial of truth, is to destroy the sting of religion. If you can deny ultimate truth, or at least deny that there is one true religion, then there is a sense in where we no longer have to meet those demands. If people no longer worked to meet the demands of their god then we could all just get along. I have heard time and again that it seems arrogant to think that religion is nothing more than mere opinion, I have heard that if anyone makes a claim to truth then it is just pride (the funny thing about that is that when that accusation arises they are making truth claims concerning religion as well). So if we make religion nothing more than opinion then we can put it down and regard it as such. It is usually ignored that if all God gets relegated is mere opinion, then there is no religious truth. To these people picking a faith is like picking your favorite ice cream flavor. To be post-modernist is to be agnostic at best because nothing is more than opinion. But because religionists are making what they consider truth claims, then the severity is different. There are truths to these questions that are asked by religions. God either does or does not exist, Jesus either is or is not the messiah, and to relegate these life-changing questions to mere opinion is to a horrible disservice, mainly to the post-modernist.

So since these are truth claims, and since these are important truth claims that have an eternal impact, it is foolish to think as post-modernists do. I have heard it quipped that we shouldn’t be so open minded that our brains fall out… I agree. So can’t we all just get along?

We could get along, if our convictions allow us to get along. Since there is no putting the convictions away, we need to look at the specific claims that each faith makes. I feel that this is where many go wrong. Modern atheist thinkers like to group peaceful Christians, like myself, along with fundamentalist Muslims. And, unfortunately, Christians lump peaceful Muslims with the kind that like to play with bombs. That is an unfair generalization since the worldview for each person is totally different. I am not a fundamentalist Muslim. I have no desire to do violence for my religion, I do not feel that Christianity teaches that we should do violence for our faith. So instead of lumping all religions together as one evil thing, we need to separate it out and look at each group. In order for us to get along, our convictions must allow us to just get along.

What does “just getting along” mean? If you want it to mean a hippy type of universal and free love then I think it is absurd to think it can happen. If getting along means we must agree, then it is also ill placed since it is clear that people disagree… even on the smallest details (Reformed theologians actually argue about the order of God’s thoughts in creation… yes, we argue over the God’s thought process… maybe we have nothing better to do?...I dunno… but the point is, we all disagree). So we can never get along if it means we all must agree. Does “just getting along” mean we simply co-exist without hurting each other? Again, this boils down to what people’s convictions are.

And I think it is important that we reclaim the definition of tolerance. People who believe that there is a thing as truth get called intolerant. Even if the person never does anything hateful, just the fact they have an exclusive belief they are considered intolerant. This is not the historical definition of the term. Tolerant used to mean to “live with the other person respectfully, even with disagreement”. It has been redefined as “holding hands and singing a secular version of Kumbaya”. Then this redefined term has been used as a whipping stick against those who do not conform to this new image. I consider myself tolerant, not because I have a camping trip planned this weekend, but because I listen and respect other points of views, even if I speak out against them. As long as I can disagree respectively, present my disagreement in a respectful manner, and not attempt to physically hurt the person or their family, then I think I am being tolerant. I am tolerating that someone is not… well, me. So I think we are getting closer to what we need to do to “just get along”.

We can’t all be forced to agree, nor can we be forced to ignore the most important things in life, nor can we deny their importance. So we must respectfully disagree, and not forfeit our convictions and truth claims. (Now I am not saying that we shouldn’t ever change our mind based on better evidence, I am not suggesting a hard headedness).

If a religion teaches tolerance (not the “ooey-gooey warm and fuzzy” kind, but the respectfully disagree kind), the those people can be tolerant. If a religion teaches violence, then tolerance is not accepted.

I feel that true Christian conviction teaches love, even those you disagree with. Yes, there are so-called Christians who perform stupid or violent acts, but they are not following what Christianity really teaches. So another distinction that needs to be made is what the religion actually teaches and what people actually do, these are two different things. If a person is not acting out of love, then they are not acting according to Christ. Christians should defend the Christian faith, and attempt to spread it, but do so peacefully. Not once is the faith of God actually spread by the sword in the Bible (now all of you who are going to cry wolf need to be reminded that the Jews entering Canaan was not an evangelistic attempt, it was punishment and promise), Christ teaches us to evangelize with proclamation of forgiveness of sins.

Now some Christian groups do not do that right, I would be hard pressed to say that they are following Christ. But even worse is that there are religions that teach violence. I feel that true Islam is one of them (I am not saying that all Muslims are violent, there are those that are peace-loving.). A systematic look at the Koran will show that the teachings of Mohammed were contradictory unless you place them in historical context. One place in the Koran it states that Muslims should get along with “people of the book” and that there is “no compulsion in religion”. But other times it teaches that believing that Christ is Lord is “shirk” and they should “behead the infidels”. These seemingly contradictory statements are explained by realizing the time period that Mohammed was writing them. The peaceful statements occurred early on in his ministry before there was any political or religious disagreement. But as he felt more pressure and felt threatened the violent passages were revealed. The Koran also teaches that latter revelation triumphs older revelation. So you put it together.

Since there are people who feel that violence and true intolerance are ordained by God we will never all “just get along.” Nor am I saying Christians have a perfect track record, but I feel that those times are not in obedience to Christ. So I feel that Christians should act in accordance with Christianity and be peaceful. But we can not control, and should not be lumped with, other violent people who feel that hatred is ordained by God.

So the answer to the open ended “can’t we all just get along?” is “no, we can’t”. But the better question is “can we tolerate each other?” I think this is best answered by asking who we are talking to. A Christian should answer “yes, I can tolerate others”. I will let the people of other convictions speak, and act, for themselves.

(And no, my allowing them to speak for themselves is not contradicted by my short exposition above on the Koran. Mainly because I was interpreting the Koran, not speaking on anyone’s behalf. We must separate the faith from the people. I can criticize a belief and still be respectful to the person. Also, this is not a contradiction because I said there are peace-loving Muslims.)

So the second part of this question was if people have the right to evangelize. I would obviously say yes. In fact I would argue we have the responsibility to. First and foremost every religion teaches evangelization to some degree, so it is ordained by every god to evangelize. To deny a person from the right to spread their faith is to deny a central tenant of that faith. Therefore any loyal Christian should be looking for opportunities to share. And like the whole discussion above states, we should do so in a peaceful way.

Also, if these are topics of Heaven and Hell, eternity and ultimate truth, then we have a responsibility to other to proclaim the Gospel. In fact the least loving thing we can do is not proclaim because the lack of proclamation means that people are for sure not saved. So it is out of the deepest respect for others that we feel we should evangelize. Our motives should be out of love and wanting to share the message of truth. Too many times Christians (myself included) get wrapped up in “being right” that you win the argument but lose the person. If we are acting out of love, then our actions should reflect that. Which means that we do evangelize openly, but lovingly. And this does NOT exclude defending the faith with apologetics or philosophy, just we need to do it out of love. And this also doesn’t exclude showing that other faiths are wrong with polemics, just must do so with the right intention and respect.

If I am right that Christianity is a peaceful religion, then the spreading of it should bring about more peace. So there should be a social responsibility to so do as well.

And finally, although not least, if Christianity is true, as in the facts that compose the Christian faith reflect reality, then we have the responsibility to teach it. Like a teacher has the responsibility to mark a student’s paper wrong if they say 2+2=5. Christians, know the “right answer” should want to correct people just for truth’s sake. Why should we allow people to be ignorant of truth? And like I mentioned above, believing a lie about God can result in more than a small red “x” on a piece of paper. This truth is one that needs to be shared, and any wrong answer should be corrected. There is no value in believing in falsehoods, and Christians should help educate people.

Basically, as Christians we should desire to spread our faith. And out of obedience we should do so. But in relationship to the first question, we should do so peacefully and out of love.

I was kindly asked to answer (sub-weekly) questions for Kettering University’s Campus Crusade for Christ group (http://www.ketteringcru.com/). A friend of mine attends there and I decided to help him out. I decided to also post my replies here on my blogs.

Here is my next question:

Is the Bible inerrant?

--------------------------------------------

I was kindly asked to answer (sub-weekly) questions for Kettering University’s Campus Crusade for Christ group (http://www.ketteringcru.com/). A friend of mine attends there and I decided to help him out. I decided to also post my replies here on my blogs.

Here is my next question:

What is the history of the modern Biblical canon? Since books were selected or ignored by men, how can we be sure of its authority (by extension, why do Paul’s letters hold authority while the Book of Mormon or the Koran do not, since they also were revelations to man)?

--------------------------------------------

I was kindly asked to answer (sub-weekly) questions for Kettering University’s Campus Crusade for Christ group (http://www.ketteringcru.com/). A friend of mine attends there and I decided to help him out. I decided to also post my replies here on my blogs.

Here is my next question:

Did stories like the six-day creation and the world-wide flood take place as depicted in the bible, despite secular claims of their impossibility? With the miraculous coming under increasing fire from multiple directions, how does modern scientific theory relate to biblical inerrancy?

--------------------------------------------

I was kindly asked to answer (sub-weekly) questions for Kettering University’s Campus Crusade for Christ group (http://www.ketteringcru.com/). A friend of mine attends there and I decided to help him out. I decided to also post my replies here on my blogs.

Here is my second question:

The God Yahweh in the OT and God the Father of the NT seem to have radically different ways of dealing with people. Can the ethnic cleansing conducted by the Israelites be justified? Is this the same God? Why the dramatic change?

--------------------------------------------

Here is my first question:

Is it theoretically possible for a human being ( you or I) to live a heretofore totally sinless life?
--------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

I was given an immediate follow-up on this question:

How do you respond to Christ’s command, then, in Mat 5:48? Does Christ give us commands he knows are impossible for us to fulfill? Or is he pointing the disciples and others towards an apparently irresolvable paradox?

--------------------------------------------

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5815261674022802597&hl=en
You may know a person or two in this video.

Chances are many people who read this are in one of two camps. One camp are the Christians who would generally agree with my worldview (although not the exact details such as tongues, etc.) and non-Christians who most likely think my conversion to the faith was either a brain washing or something of the like. To both groups I want to send a Christmas gift.

As many of you (especially the Church goers) we need to reflect on Christmas day. At church we hear about the wiseman, the shepards, and the little drummer boy. These stories are all well and good, and have thier place. They are also accurate in the areas they follow Scripture. But lets reflect on what really happened over 2000 years around the time of Christmas. We can discuss the veracity of the December date, or the number of kings some other time.

I want to remind folks that Christmas is about miracles. That this is a miraculous time of year and we should not get swept up in the commercialism. But lets go even beyond all of that. This is also not a blog against the "Santa" part of Christmas.

God (the creator and architect of all things, the ulitmate power, our source for life, morality, knowledge, and salvation, the king of kings and the Lord of Lords, the timeless, eternal, all powerful, all knowing being) made His way INTO the world He created. The Creator entered into the creation. The Eternal Word took on Flesh. The second person of the Trinity lived among us.

This should give us pause. When we think about Christmas we think about (as Talladega Nights puts it) "lil baby Jesus". The innocent baby sleeping harmlessly in a manger. We do not recall that this little human is also the Prince of Peace. It seems that we forget about why Christmas was celebrated because of this unique occurance:

The Incarnation.

Also, this the perfectly good and HOLY God. He entered into.. rather BROKE INTO... a dirty and sinful world. He HUMBLED Himself to enter into this fallen world, living among the sons of Adam for over thirty years. He was a lowly carpenter, born into a dirty manger, to be beaten and crucified. He became man, with all the temptations and pain that the rest of us feel.

Christians seem to get a stigma of being lazy, or blind faith, or unintellectual. In fact if you ask the average Christian how Jesus was both man and God, they would not even know where to begin. Let us be above such shallow thinking, let us go beyond the childhood story of the star and the angels, and remember the unique and powerful event. Us Christians should show the world we are not brain washed. Let us Christians show the non-believers the importance of God's highest revelation, Jesus Christ.

So instead of reading the Gospel of Luke this Holiday season, lets instead read the first chapter of John and Phillipeans chapter two and remember the gracious Lord who made Himself a lowly servant in the world He is the King of.

[	Tags	|	angels, cessationism, christianity, continuationism, language, philosophy, religion, spirituality, tongues	]
[	mood	|	ecstatic	]

1. Inspired by demonic/Satanic power. (Matt 24:24)
2. A trance type state in the brain that seems like a religious experience, even though it is natural (mindless, 1 Cor 14:14).
3. A self-induced blabbering that is knowingly not from God and done for many reasons.

[	mood	|	crazy	]
[	music	|	Mix	]

A long time ago in a galaxy far,

far away…

(about 75 million years ago)

War! The galaxy is split between the evil forces of Xenu and the Royal Officers, there are heroes on both sides. Xenu tries to take over the Galaxy, killing many and pulling even more to be his minions. Xenu eventually wins the war.

As time goes on the population in the new Galactic government grows out of control, one-hundred-and-seventy-eight billion of aliens on seventy-six planets, Xenu has to do something. He and his rulers come up with a plan, to ship the people to a far away planet and “dispose” of them.

He lures billions of the aliens into a tax audit session, and puts them in a coma, ships to planet Earth (then known as Tegiac) on a ship that looks like a DC-8 airplane, lays them all out at the foot of a volcano and sends hydrogen bomb into each volcano setting each volcano off killing the billions of aliens.

Xenu overlooked one problem, all these alien’s souls now exist and are running rampant among Earth’s solar system and trying to return to their home plants. So Xenu invents a large ray gun like fly-tape that zaps and captures the spirits (a lot like the Ghostbusters proton pack, only much larger). He then puts the spirits into a 3D movie theatre located in Heaven, which looks like the Busch Gardens in Pasadena. There they are taught about many things, all of them lies (or engrams).

A rebellion rises up and stops Xenu’s horrible reign, but instead of killing him they take him and trap him inside a mountain that has a force-field around it which will run forever since it is powered by an eternal battery.

After millions of years of begin taught these lies the spirits are let go, where they are now free to take over the bodies of human beings.

Now, as a human, it is our job to rid ourselves of these thousands of deceived souls that hold onto the lies taught to them and have a pure soul without these deceptions. After the souls leave your body they return to the planet Mars where they wait in line to be given another body to take over (which could take up to 22 million years). If you are successful at ridding yourself of all of these evil souls you are then free to live happily with no lies, seeing the world with perfect vision. The only way to clear these evil spirits is to use the E-Meters (two tin cans tied to an electric box) through special auditing sessions, which cost around $400 an hour.

The reason why we believe in the lies of the world, including all the religions like Christianity is because of these souls (or thatens) were taught it at the 3D movie theatre. Heaven has long since been abandoned and is now run down, it is a place full of deception, the last place we want to go.

These are the secrets of the universe.

OK, for those of you who think I have officially lost it, you are right, but not because of this.

This is actually what Scientology teaches! The story above is what many people believe to be truthful history of our lives. These are the Secrets of the Universe. Taught by L Ron Hubbard to the followers of his religion. Of course you will not hear this from a Scientologist because they either have not paid enough to learn it or do not want to look bad. And we should all be dead now since we have learned it without cleansing out own bodies enough to hear this.

“You can not get rich of writing a penny a word, if you really want to make a million dollars you should start a religion.” ~ L Ron Hubbard.

To learn this you have to reach the third level (OT3) of Scientology which will cost you thousands of dollars and years of your life. By the time you learn this, you are indoctrinated and do not want to leave the religion because of all the time and money you have put into it.

The thing is that the Secrets of the Universe prove one thing that Christianity affirms, and that is that all other religions are a lie… OK that and something else.

That is that human beings will believe in anything. In fact, many believe that L Ron Hubbard (who was a science fiction author before starting Scientology) invented Scientology to prove just that, humans are gullible and would believe in anything.

“We are selling people a piece of blue sky” ~ L Ron Hubbard

If this is true about Hubbard, then would say that Hubbard is right, people will believe in just about anything, us humans are depraved and are unable to recognize the truth. We are foolish, blind, and not willing to look into the claims or truths of our religion. instead we look as to what “feels good”.

“Scientology hold that man is basically good and that his spiritual salvation depends on himself."~ L Ron Hubbard

The fact that people believe in Scientology and follow the religion invented by a science fiction writer shows us how sinful and depraved we actually are. At least to me knowing that people spend time, money, and resources to have the same faith as Hollywood stars just show us how much more we are in need of being saved. Also it just shows that we are unable to save ourselves. How can humanity save ourselves if we are also part of the problem?

Honestly, when left to our own devices look at what some people turn to for comfort and salvation.

And the true God loves us and wants us to be saved, not with E-Meters or big bucks, but with true repentance and faith.

How is Christianity any different than Scientology in its absurdity level? First of all there are no logical problems with Christianity, it makes logical sense and is internally consistent. Scientology is not. Christianity is based off of history and eye-witness testimonies. Scientology is based off the writings of a science fiction writer. Christianity is based of off love. Scientology, money.

Besides being rooted in truth I would say that Christianity is not nearly as absurd as Scientology, re-read the story above and see if it sounds at all true, where the most “absurd” thing in Christianity is the dead being raised.

Now I know that I this is the first time I have attacked a religion specifically. But the goal was not to speak bad of Scientology (although it was fun to) and just use it as an example to show human depravity. And even Scientology gives me the right to speak poorly of them.

“All men have the inalienable right to think freely, talk freely, to write freely on their own opinions, and to counter or utter to write upon the opinions of others.” ~ L Ron Hubbard, Scientology Creed article 7

God Bless!

[	mood	|	tired	]
[	music	|	none	]

I have a confession to make…

OK, besides I am lazy and never actually post to this journal..

I confess that I have lied in the past. I called myself a “fundamentalist”. Now in context I would not say it any different, but there is a common misconception that exists out there the gives us Christians a bad name. Primarily… the confusion of the Evangelical community’s root and its relationship to Christian Fundamentalism.

This is probably the hardest thing for non-Christians to understand, but not all of us are Bible pounding, alter hitting, foot stamping, young earth, southern, back-woods, closed-minded “fundies”. Even Christians who, like myself, who believe in the Bible as God’s inspired word and is absolutely true does not have to be categorized as a “Fundamentalist” or as a bigoted Christian. Instead, we are Bible believing, contemporary, un-apologetic, apologetic, intelligent, and socially active Evangelicals.

Now, interestingly enough, most contemporary conservative Christians would define themselves as Evangelical. Some are more Fundamentalist (usually the Southern Baptists). But there is an important separation I wish to make known to the world. And that is not all Christians are anti-science, anti-modern, anti-society Christians. The largest problem Evangelicals have today are that they have to shake the mold that we are caste into based on the Fundamentalist movement that took place over a hundred years ago.

What essentially happened was that the Christians of the time (18-19^th cent.) rallied against contemporary sciences and modern philosophies because it made them uncomfortable. Darwinian evolution, naturalism, modernism/post-modernism, existentialism, Marxism, fill-in-the-blank-ism all scared unprepared Christians away. And slowly Christians lost ground in society’s public eye, they chose to hide and stick to themselves passing on the Christian tradition to their children in spite of the world around them. This took Christianity out of the main stream, and labeled all conservative Christians as overly zealous and closed minded. And society might not have been wrong for labeling them that either, that is how they acted.

So today we still have a remnant of the Fundamentalists that give the rest of the community a bad name, however undeserving. And this is the stripe that even the most intelligent or socially aware Christian are given to wear today. This I want to clear up. Now this posting is not meant to be a poke at Fundies (although it can be fun), it is meant to open the eyes of the (zero) readers to what is happening.

Now the difference between the Evangelical and the Fundamentalist come from several areas. Interestingly enough it is not really doctrine that separates them. There is no real difference between the Fundy and the Evangelical in most beliefs. But rather there are social, cultural, and interpretive differences. There are fundamentals of the Christian faith (where the term fundy comes from, in essence everyone is a fundy for their own worldview), and both groups hold to these same beliefs.

The difference is rather why and how they hold on to the beliefs. There is a growing population of critical scholars that are becoming religious for various reasons. Some of them is not because of social forces, but rather because of the best available evidence. These people usually become evangelical, not fundamentalist. The fundamentalist is bound to say that it is true because the Bible says so, rather the Evangelical is going to say that the Bible is true because the evidence says so. This illusion that there is no evidence for the Bible came from the fundy scholars hiding their head in the sand and the social world looking for any reason to dispel that “Christian myth”.

The second thing that separates the Evangelical community from the Fundy community is how we read the Bible. Do not get me wrong, both groups believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible, and hold steadfastly that the Bible is God’s true word. And every word is truth spoken through the writers. The difference is that the Fundy holds that the words make the proposition, where the Evangelical holds that that words have a range of meanings within the proposition. Where the Fundy holds that each word is true, the Evangelical holds that the ideas that the words make are true. This type of interpretation is usually more helpful in determining the actual meaning of the text, and learning from it. Also, a lot of the Biblical criticism and “contradictions” fall away when you put the words into context.

Another thing that separates the normal Fundy from the rest of us is the relationship between the Bible and the rest of the world. The Fundy is usually more closed minded to things such as scientific discovery, growth, changes in society, and new ideas. The Evangelical usually looks at new ideas and scientific findings in light of the Bible, instead of in contrast to it. Now there are some things that Christians should deny, like relativism. But other things, like the age of the earth, are willing to be discussed more fully. The Fundy is more dogmatic, where the Evangelical is more willing to listen, learn, and argue.

Most Fundies are proponents of the strict literal interpretation of the Bible as every word needs to be doctrine. The Evangelical is willing to say that some of the Bible is history, some is poetry, some of sarcasm, some is parable, etc. The Evangelical attempts to look a the authors meaning for the text and use the ideas and propositions of the text to formulate theology, where the Fundy will take a single passage and run with it yanking it out of context. The fundy usually places too much emphasis on the God inspiration of the Bible, where the evangelical will look at it with a more natural eye. The Bible was written by God through humans for humans. Instead the Fundy will try to defend that pi is exactly 3 (I Kings 3:23), where the Evangelical would accept that pi is not exactly 3, but the passage is not a formulation for pi or maybe a round number. The Bible was tring to get the idea across for the approximate size of the body of water, not the exact dimension. The exact dimensions have no bearing on what the passage is trying to say, or the context given. Afterall, if they were to give the exact formulation for pi, the Bible would never end!

And finally, the last part is how this effects how they interact with the world. Most Fundamentalists would be less likely to discuss their faith in a critical way, be able to answer objections to the Bible, and less likely to listen to new ideas. The Bible is the sole authority and that is all that is needed. The Evangelical is more open to criticism, not because they like it, but rather they understand that there are answers to the problems. Evangelicals do not hide their head in the sand and turn away from society, rather they embrace it, challenge it, and live in it.

This is also why it is an unfair comparison to not only say that all Christians are bound to a fundamentalist view of scripture, but it is also unfair to compare the Evangelical with the “Fundamentalist” Muslims. Because belief in religious dogma is not bad in and of itself. Fundamentalism is only bad as what you are fundamentalist about. The Quran clearly has violent passages directing others to kill and commits acts of terror. The Bible is clear that nobody is perfect and should all be humble and loving to each other. So comparing all forms of fundamentalism is… well… fundamentally flawed.

The Evangelical movement growing and being able to defend their beliefs, not cower away from criticism, and think outside the box in order to be socially acceptable. This is having polarizing effects on religion and how it plays a part in society. The Intellectual Design movement, the response to 18^th century Biblical criticism, New-Age philosophies, and the Christian response to religious pluralism, actually are doing the opposite of what the Fundamentalists did. Now Christians are back on the map.

Non-believers are primarily still stuck in the age where they were arguing against outdated arguments form the Fundamentalist movement. Now there is a whole host of research and academics out there that is primarily being ignored, not because it is bad work but rather because they can not answer it. The accusation that Christians are closed-minded is outdated, and is being forwarded by closed-minded-Fundy-non-believers!

The thinking of rational evangelicals can no longer be ignored or tucked away as merely “fundamentalist” or closed minded or out-dated. Evangelical scholars are in the world, arguing an open mind and an open heart, willing to discuss and take on the issues, and do fair and unbiased work, willing to listen to the latest ideas and not be prejudice because of past mistakes.

 Now if non-believers can return the favor!

God Bless!

[

mood

|

tired

]

Hear! Oh Israel, the Lord your God is one. Love the Lord God with all your heart soul mind and strength.

This is a great commandment, it is given in the Old Testament and reiterated in New. But I feel that it is a little more than a command, it is a starting point for people to come to God and understand Him. Take a look at this, it is great:

“Hear!” - One has to listen, and be open to God and His revelation. We know that it is God that saves, and only the Holy Spirit can say Christ is Lord. We must be open to God and His presence. If we shut God out or harden our hearts then there is no way to hear God and His revelation.

“the Lord your God is one.” – This is actually theology. This is probably the most important part in the passage presented. We learn about God and His oneness. We have to understand that God is one, we have to know God and the properties so we can have an appropriate relationship with Him. If we do not understand God, and we do not know what to expect, then we can not have an appropriate relationship with Him. Theology comes before the relationship. This is also important because many people can have a spiritual experience, but without a proper frame of reference, the meaning or understanding of it is lost. This is also why the Bible is important, we see what God has done, and how God has acted historically. Theology is important!

“Love the Lord God…” – the relationship. This is the first step after recognizing who God is, and that is to love God (again, it has to be the right God, theology is important). A relationship with God is the core of the Christian message. To love God is the greatest commandment, and everything else will follow.

But we see that Theology is important, the properties of God, and how He has worked in human history, His characteristics give us a frame of reference to understanding God. But Theology is also great because we can look at the Christian God in comparison to other gods and see great differences. Major difference, some of these differences are great because the properties of God actually lend themselves to show the truth about God. So this article is going to discuss how God is different than the other gods.

One of the first and most important aspects of the Christian God is that He is universal. Only in Judaism and Christianity we see that God is a universal God and He is the God of everyone and everything. Not once in the Bible has God ever claimed to be the Lord only a select group or peoples (except when speaking to Israel about the special covenant He made with them). Other Gods were usually the gods of a certain people group. In fact, in ancient war, whenever two nations fought it was not only a war between peoples, but also of the gods of that nation; even if the war had nothing to do with religion. Yahweh has fought for Israel specifically throughout history, but it was for preservation of the people to keep His promise of the Abrahamic covenant (to bless the whole world Gen 12:3, which was fulfilled in Christ). Even at the peak of Israel’s history, the entrance to Canaan, God is universal and unbiased. As Joshua is entering the promised land, God is still universal and not only the Jewish God. When Joshua asked the angel what side he was on, the angel simply replies “Neither!” (Joshua 5:14). The Christian God is the only historical God who is universal.

And to follow this universality of God, we see that he is the only God. Every other ancient religion has had a pantheistic or polytheistic worldview. And it has always been that way. Many skeptics have set out to show that ancient Israelites worshipped many different gods and it “evolved” into a monotheistic religion; and every skeptic has fallen flat. Only the God of the Jews and Christians believes in a monotheistic God. This is interesting because even modern science separates different theories into schools. We have zoology, psychology, sociology, etc. And it makes sense that ancient humans would create gods to cover each one of these fields. But the ancient Jewish religion is the only ancient religion with monotheism. In fact, compared to all other ancient texts, the covenant between God and the Jews, is the only place where God is the only one. Which is the first commandment (Ex 20:3). Even Islam has come from a polytheistic theology (look up the “satanic versus” and the history Allah (Allah is actually the ancient moon god that was worshipped by Mohammad before creating Islam, thus explaining the use of the crescent moon)). Only the historic Jewish God and the Christian God are truly monotheistic, and expects us to react to Him as a monotheistic God.

And this makes sense. After all, if God created everything then He would be the only thing who created. And this is the next difference between all the “so called” (1 Cor. 8:5) gods and the God. Only the Christian God is the sole creator. In every other ancient creation story the world or humanity is only a byproduct of something that two or more other powers were doing. Sometimes the world is created when the source of good and the source of evil fight, and entangle their powers in the universe.  Or that the universe is just spit up or bled out after one of the gods are in battle. Only the ancient Hebrew God was able to create the universe by command alone and by his own powers. God created the universe and the scientific systems, not the He is solely a God for weather or love, like other beliefs. A truly creative God!

Also (I feel that this is the true reason why many people don’t believe), the law code and moral code of the Jewish/Christian God is the strictest in history. When you compare the moral codes of all other religions and other ancient law codes we see a distinct difference. It is the strictest code. God demands perfection from humanity. But most importantly God calls us to a lifestyle of holiness and understanding. To forfeit a life of happiness for a life of joy. We are called to love everyone else, even our enemies.  We are called to have a completely devoted relationship with God, only the Christian God calls us to have a proper and loving relationship with Him. In other religions if a god loved you would should hide because it means that you were about to be sexually molested. Or in Eastern religions we are told that god doesn’t matter at all. The holiness and relationship with the Christian God is so far removed from other religions. Compared to all other religions the Bible calls us to a completely different lifestyle.

Also, Christianity is the only ancient religion with grace. Salvation is given to mankind through Jesus Christ for free. Understanding that mankind can not meet the requirements of the lifestyle called, He must sacrifice something to have a relationship with us. In all other religions we are called to do specific works or traditions. Learning something special, doing good acts, or following rituals are what the center of all other beliefs are. With Christ we can be saved without these rituals or specific acts. Salvation is free to humanity through Christ, and it can not be earned by any level of good works. This love and this level of grace is missing from any other religion. Only the Christian God gives us salvation by faith alone. In fact, many other religions do not even offer salvation, not to mention that they may provide a path. And this only makes sense, since God is perfect then Heaven is perfect, and since men are sinners then salvation can’t be earned (that is another difference, human depravity is only true in Judaism and Christianity). And that for men to receive the gift of Heaven, there has to be a sacrifice, and it has to be a gift, not earned. The grace of God is only found in the God of Christianity.

Finally, only in Christianity is God all benevolent. In all other religions the gods are either over-emotional and get angry for unjust reasons, does horrible acts, or acts in unrighteous ways. Even the god of Islam is not described as good, Allah is a harsh god who is described as being both good and bad. Only in Christianity we see that God is a good and holy being.

All of these differences between the Christian God and other gods raise the question of why these differences exist. How do the Jews and early Christians have such a different theology than the rest of the world? Why, when religions are being formed, is Christianity so different than everything else? What is defining the god or gods in religions?

We see that the gods in other religions fit the standards of humanity. Having loose laws on earthly pleasures such as sex and luxury. In fact many pagan religions have gods of sex and money, as well as other “scientific gods” to describe the natural world. Gods that are evil or do not try to help people (this is probably because people like to complain), or gods that force humans to do things against their wills or do harm. And other gods have competition or have not created the world with purpose or reason. All of these gods, when combined, actually create a world that is very similar to human emotions and thought.

But the Christian God is different than all of these human based thoughts. The best reason why the Christian God is different is because it is from a different source, it is from the true God who matches these theological qualities. Wouldn’t it makes sense that if man created gods they would have the properties of man. But since God created man, we are in His image. If the ancient Jews and Christians were creating a religion, wouldn’t it, by nature, be more similar to the pagan gods that were all created by man? (especially since the Jews turn away from God time and again.) These differences just go to show that the Biblical God is true and has revealed Himself in the world.
In fact, now since I look at this it becomes apparent that the values in all other religions are actually shared with the values of materialism and naturalism. This could mean that atheism a religion created by man with man’s purposes, desires, and, thought processes? After all, modern atheism really took hold during the modern period. Which centers men as the ultimate good and purpose of the world (see previous article on modernism/post-modernism).

I take joy in the fact that I am created in God’s image, and not that I try to forge an idol in my image to meet my needs!

God Bless!