Ravi Zacharias is Asked About Free Will -- Quick Response

Ravi Zacharias Answers a Question About Free Will from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

A Question Posed To Me About the Seemingly Contradictory Liberal and Conservative Aspects of the Emergent Movement

 

One should read this update/caveat to these posts for the whole story.

I was asked the following questions, and I tried to respond to them -- albeit probably unsuccessfully. Here are the questions followed by my answer:

1. I was reading the article and I noticed that it referred to the emergent church as being "conservative evangelical" This is the first time that I have read anywhere that the emergent church was considered conservative evangelical. Perhaps you can help me to understand this.
2. My question is, has Warren publicly promoted any of these or is he still just propping up these false teachers and speaking differently in the pulpit? There are many solid apologists who defend Warren like Richard Abanes and Hank Hannagraf, so I'm very confused about this man.

A couple things. I was asked to clarify the use of "conservative evangelical" in connection to the Emergent movement in the opening of my earlier post. Fair question, as is the other about Abanes and Hanegraaff. Most consider this type of movement identical to the liberal theology dealt with by J. Gresham Machen referenced in his book Christianity and Liberalism. Mark Driscoll considers this movement from which he "emerged" to be very liberal as well. In fact, I encapsulated the "conservative evangelical" for a couple of reasons. The first being that the pastor in which I built that list from the books he passed on to me defended Tony Jones as a conservative theologian. Remember that Tony has said the following (see picture, click to enlarge).

After mentioning that Tony had said these things, the personal relationship he had with him was discussed as proof for this. So this was mentioned in "quotes" to make sure that those who know the back story of me leaving this church that are still at the church can click that this theology is not conservative. That's number one. Secondly, many of the leaders considered to be intellectual thinkers in the conservative evangelical movement should truly not be considered such in their understanding of theology and the Bible. Here is a great example that hits close to home for this arm-chair apologist. I love J.P. Moreland! His book, Scaling the Secular City, is a must for any honest skeptic or true apologist. However, he advocates this meditation as we see here in this excerpt from David Cloud's book, Contemplative Mysticism: A Powerful Ecumenical Bond -- and please keep in mind that in the terminology of the emergents, solitude and silence have different meanings that when we think of Jesus going off to achieve solitude. You almost need that "cult" glossary that Walter Martin speaks of:

He has written on apologetics and social issues and is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, which defends intelligent design. In recent years he has been promoting contemplative spirituality.

The Lost Virtue of Happiness: Discovering the Disciplines of the Good Life (2008), co-authored by Moreland and Klaus Issler, promotes contemplative practices. It says that "solitude and silence" are "absolutely fundamental to the Christian life." (p. 51). Moreland and Issler recommend meditating at Catholic retreat centers, meditating on pictures and statues of Jesus, and repetitious prayers.

Following are some excerpts:

• "In our experience, Catholic retreat centers are usually ideal for solitude retreats. ... We also recommend that you bring photos of your loved ones and a picture of Jesus. ... Or gaze at a statue of Jesus. Or let some pleasant thought, feeling, or memory run through your mind over and over again" (pp. 54, 55).
• "[W]e recommend that you begin by saying the Jesus Prayer about three hundred times a day. ... When you first awaken, say the Jesus Prayer twenty to thirty times. As you do, something will begin to happen to you. God will begin to slowly begin to occupy the center of your attention. ... Repetitive use of the Jesus Prayer while doing more focused things allows God to be on the boundaries of your mind and forms the habit of being gently in contact with him all day long" (pp. 90, 92, 93).

Moreland is opposed to an "overemphasis" on the Bible:

"In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ. And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus. ... [The problem is] that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice" ("How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done about It," Evangelical Theological Society speech, quoted from "Contemplative Proponent J.P. Moreland," Lighthouse Trails, Nov. 21, 2007).

We don't know who Moreland is referring to when he talks about "a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed." That is a popular strawman. But we do know that the Bible itself claims to be the sole divine revelation to man and it is able to make the man of God "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is obvious that if the Bible can do this, nothing else is necessary. It appears that Moreland wants to loose himself from the Bible's restrictions and launch out into the wide world of mysticism.

In his book Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit's Power, Moreland again recommends contemplative meditation. He urges his readers to practice centering prayer by focusing "the center of your attention on your physical heart muscle" (p. 159). In this book Moreland recommends Richard Foster and the late Roman Catholic priest Henri Nouwen.

(pp. 316-317)

Dallas Willard and others whom we have viewed as conservative, should now be considered "conservative." Ray Yungen in his book, A Time of Departing: How Ancient Mystical Practices are Uniting Christians with the World's Religions, talks about David Jeremiah for instance:

.....While it is disconcerting to see David Jeremiah using Peter Senge and Calvin Miller as examples of those who have "secrets" for the rest of us, it is Jeremiah's favorable quoting of Sue Monk Kidd that I find most disturbing of all. As I have shown, Monk Kidd went from being a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher to a contemplative prayer practitioner. And yet Jeremiah quotes her from When the Heart Waits in a manner that would give her credibility with his readers.

In this particular book of Monk Kidd's, she describes her journey to find her true self through the writings of Thomas Merton and other mystics. This ultimately led her to embrace the following beliefs in her next book, The Dance of the Dissident Daughter, which incidentally was already in print when Jeremiah quoted her in his book. Monk Kidd states:

As I grounded myself in feminine spiritual experience, that fall I was initiated into my body in a deeper way. I came to know myself as an embodiment of Goddess.

[...]

Mystical awakening in all the great religious traditions, including Christianity, involves arriving at an experience of unity or nondualism. In Zen it's known as samadhi. . . . Transcendence and immanence are not separate. The Divine is one. The dancer and all the dances are one.

[...]

The day of my awakening was the day I saw and knew I saw all things in God, and God in all things.

(p. 187)

Yes, thee David Jeremiah that wrote Invasion of Other Gods, a great book on the early influence of New Age on the church, who is now himself quoting a wiccan/neo-pagan positively. A couple of years ago Francis Beckwith, while President of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), stepped down to reconvert to Roman Catholicism. While I wrote about this in a more positive light in 2007 (yes, Dr. Beckwith found the time to stop by and comment on my meager post)... I wouldn't have been so nice now. In fact, I am looking forward to reading his book (when I have the time) Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic for clues that I am only now coming to grips with. I bet he, the leader of conservatism in Evangelical theology then, left after some time practicing this "centering prayer"/"contemplative prayer."

Look, put another way, as Roger Oakland aptly points out in his book, Faith Undone: The Emerging Church... a New Reformation or an End-Time Deception, there is a unifying factor to the emerging church and this new mysticism. That is:

Contemplative spirituality is a vital element of the emerging church. In fact, wind is to a sail boat what contemplative prayer is to the emerging church. Without it, there is no momentum—it is woven into the very fabric of the emerging church's ambience.

(p. 81)

This movement has reached far and threatens to undermine a large portion of the "church universal" if not discussed at the donut and coffee bar at our churches. We need to be able to equip ourselves with what is coming on the horizon, before its too late. Also, conservative (truly conservative) churches must be ready for the influx of people like myself looking for a more solid foundation to transplant to.

I hope I asked the question asked of me in the PM and of SolaSaint... although I doubt it eased any troubled feelings about such great men compromising on the written word. I wish to quickly note here that this movement found its strength in the writings and movement of neo-orthodoxy/open-theology. It is the "parents," if you will, of this newer younger movement.

The Big Four

 

This post is dedicated to the following Scriptures about defending and fighting for the essentials:

• 2 Cor 10:4-5; Luke 12:49-54;
• Jude 3-4;
• Galatians 1:6-10;
• 2 Cor 11:2-4, 13-15;
• 2 Cor 13:5

If you do not know what the difference between Law and Gospel is, I encourage you to listen to a critique of a Dallas Willard Q and A with students:"Is Dallas Willard a Christian"

Will Resident Muslims "Rise Up"?

This was a question posed to me at this post, "Islamo-Fascism Festering in Ghettos," it is followed by my response:

when the time comes, do you think that resident muslims will have the courage to stand up to the islamic purists that have "infiltrated" both of our nations? or will they simply join them to save their own lives?

I think some Muslims have reformed with their new life here in the States. Others, will feel that any attack on their "faith" (verbal challenges, cartoons, etc) will consider it a time to "rise" up. Different times for different persons I am sure. I put "faith" in quotes because many Muslims -- while verbally rejecting extremist Islam -- seem to not have the cognitive skills to separate their "claimed" faith and that of the extremists. There are some sites that try to embed this reformational thinking, a few are linked below.

• Muslims Against Sharia
• Free Muslim Coalitions
• Daniel Pipes on Moderate Muslims

Much of this comes from, I believe, a refusal to even consider criticism of the Quran, their faith, and the like. Jehovah's Witnesses are almost the same. Any viewpoint that is counter to what they are taught is evil and needs to be rejected wholly. I think this is where Christianity is "head and shoulders" above the rest. Apologists take, investigate, apply logic-history-archaeology-philosophy, and the like, towards these arguments which are welcomed into the debate.

• Is God good if evil exists in real time;
• Evolutionary evidences disprove the God of the Bible;
• There are contradictions in the Biblical text;
• What about the crusades?

Etc., etc. I have amassed a library of 4,000 books in part to respond to such criticisms. You would not find such libraries in Muslim homes (or Jehovah's Witness homes for analogy). Even in debates with Islamic scholars and Christian philosophers, you see an almost blind faith when they are confronted with opposition, yet, they use "evidences" from critics against the Christian faith. Evidence they reject without even so much a response to when confronted with themselves. James White or William Craig actually responds to such criticisms in a cogent manner.

To finish my thought. I think there is a dangerous lack of reflection within Islam and thus an over-reactionary response to such conflicts with the modern world that I would point to as becoming more known in the U.S. (as just happened at Fort Hood). Any encounter with the modern world is almost considered persecution. Any death of someone who claims Mulim’hood, no matter the circumstances, is considered persecution.

I wish to add that within the black community what use to be the haven for radical thinking that allowed for violent tendancies, specifically Marxism, has been replaced by an odd mix of the Marxist ideal with the fervor of the Islamic faith. The 60's and 70's fruit is the black liberation theology found in church's like that of Obama's.

The U.K. unfortunately has dealt with this problem in a P.C. manner, and has allowed this "ethos" within the Islamic community to build and grow... I just hope we as a country deal with it a bit differently.

PapaG

What Happens When I Die? (3-Parts) (Just Came Across this Blog -- Good Stuff)

ThoughtLife

"Can God" Questions (Re-Post)

Can God Make a Rock So Big that He Cannot Lift It?

“The atheist can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.”

(from an old debate)

These kinds of arguments are clearly illogical and even silly, although they are commonly used by inexperienced atheists. Most intelligent atheists have dropped these kinds of arguments long ago.

From: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

The following will explain why many experienced atheists have given up this argument. Richard Swinburn in his book, The Coherence of Theism, explains why such thinking is illogical (pp. 153-154):

… A person is omnipotent if and only if he is able to do any logically possible action, any action, that is, of which the description is coherent. It may be objected that in order to be truly omnipotent, a person should be able to do not merely the logically possible, but the logically impossible as well. This objection is, however, misguided. It arises from regarding a logically impossible action as an action of one of one kind on a par with an action of another kind, the logically possible. But it is not. A logically impossible action is not an action. It is what is described by a form of words which purport to describe an action, but do not describe anything which is coherent to suppose could be done. It is no objection to A’s omnipotence that he cannot make a square circle. This is because “making a square circle” does not describe anything which it is coherent to suppose could be done.

A proper understanding of omnipotence has been known and defined for quite some time; the way it is used by the skeptics here in this thread is the misdefining of a well-defined concept. For instance, in the Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion, omnipotence is defined as: “The quality of being all-powerful, normally understood as the power to perform any action that is logically possible and consistent with God’s essential nature.”

Even Thomas Aquinas saw this o’ so long ago:

This point was recognized by Aquinas. He wrote that “it is incompatible with the meaning of the absolutely possible that anything involving the contradiction of simultaneous being and not being should fall under divine omnipotence. Such a contradiction is not subject to it, not from any impotence in God, but simply because it does not have the nature of being feasible or possible. Whatever does not involve a contradiction is in the realm of the possible with respect to which God is called omnipotent.”

Summa Theologiae, vol. v. (Thomas Gilby trans.), Ia.25.3

You (the person I was debating) are again making a category mistake, this is a real “logical fallacy,” or, mistake! When you ask who made God – or, does God need a beginning, it is akin to asking, “how does the color green taste.” Your other comments about change and the like is akin to the following mock conversation, don’t get me wrong… I enjoyed your last few queries… why? Because you are asking questions while assuming the thing said is true, e.g., God’s unlimited power (you are assuming what you are refuting – in other words). A true skeptic sheds even skepticism at times and puts on the alternative view and seeks answers and criticisms from within:

One day, while I (SeanG) am having lunch with some student friends, tom decides to sit at the table and say, “Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?”

You answer, “No prob.”

Tom then asks you, “Didn’t Jesus say in Matthew 19:26, ‘With God all things are possible?”

I answer, “Yes.”

Tom continues, “Do you believe that God is all-powerful and can do all things?”

Again I answer, “Yes.”

Now Tom thinks his moment is about to unfold, so with a sarcastic grin he asks, “Okay, can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?”

continued…

I ponder the question for a moment, thinking to myself, If I say yes, I’ll be admitting that God is powerful enough to create the rock but not powerful enough to move it! However, if I say no, I’ll be admitting that God is not all-powerful, because He cannot create a rock of that magnitude. It seems that either answer will force you to violate the law-of-noncontradiction and contradict your view of God, defined as an all-powerful Being. It also seems as if Tom is using first principles to discredit you and your view of God. It is true that Tom is speaking correctly about God’s power, but is he using first principles correctly?

Before we examine Tom’s questions, remember that now is not the time to appeal to ignorance and tell Tom that he is trying to use human reason and that there are some things we just cannot understand about God. Nor should you say that somehow God is exempt from such a question. Instead, I must focus in on this question and think of a principle question to ask him (Socratic method) that moves the conversation from unstable emotional ground to firm conceptual territory.

Let’s think about Tom’s question and apply the law-of-noncontradiction. Tom wants God to create a rock so big that He cannot lift it. What is Tom really asking God to do? In order to find out, we need to define and clarify the use of Tom’s words. The first question that comes to mind is, “How big of a rock does Tom want God to create?” Well, Tom wants God to create a rock so big that it would be impossible for Him to move it. Now, how big would a rock have to be in order for God not to be able to move it? What is the biggest physical entity that exists? Of the course, the biggest physical entity is the universe, and no matter how much the universe expands it will remain limited, finite physical reality – a reality that God can “lift.” even if God created a rock the size of an ever-expanding universe, God could still lift or control it. The only logical option is for God to create something that exceeds His power to lift or control. But since God’s power is infinite, He would have to create a rock of infinite proportions! This is the key: Tom wants God to create a rock, and a rock is a physical, finite thing. How can God create an object that is finite by nature – and give it an infinite size? There is something terribly wrong with Tom’s question. So let’s apply the correct use of the law-of-noncontradiction to analyze it.

It is logically and actually impossible to create a physically finite thing and have it be infinitely big! By definition, an infinite, uncreated thing has no limits, and a finite, created thing does. Consequently, Tom has just asked if God can create an infinitely finite rock, that is, a rock that has limits and, at the same time and in the same sense, does not have limits. This question, then, violates the law-of-contradiction and turns out to be utter nonsense. Tom thought he was asking an important question, one that would put the Christian on the horns of a dilemma. Instead, he only managed to show his own inability to think clearly.

Now that we have a clear understanding of Tom’s question, it’s simply a matter of formulating a principle question to ask him in order to reveal his error. How about this one: “Tom, how big do you want God to create that rock? If you tell me how big, I’ll tell you if He can do it.” I can keep asking Tom that question until it reaches the size of the universe and eventually introduce the idea of infinity. Once Tom reaches the point where he begins to see what he is really asking God to do, to create an infinite rock, he needs to be shown that he is asking God to do something that is logically irrelevant and impossible. God could no more create an infinitely finite rock than He could create a square circle: both are examples of intrinsic impossibilities. Commenting on intrinsic impossibility and an all-powerful God, C. S. Lewis said:

“It [the intrinsically impossible] is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents. ‘All agents’ here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense.” (The Problem of Pain, p. 28)

Not every question being asked is automatically meaningful just because it is a question. The question may sound meaningful, but we (anyone here, but especially the believer) must be sure to test it with first principles to see whether it is valid in the first place. The key is to not respond too quickly to questions; a person may wind up trying to find cogent answers to a question that has no logical relevance. Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College (my favorite Catholic philosopher) says on the matter, “There is nothing more pointless than an answer to a question that is not fully understood” (Making Sense Out of Suffering, p. 27)

(The above was taken somewhat from the book, Unshakeable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith, by Geisler & Bocchino.)

…. Could God think of a time when He was not omnipotent? If He can't think of it, He isn't omnipotent, but if He does think of it then there was a time when He wasn't omnipotent? This question is quite similar to the rock question above. The answer, of course, is that God can never think of a time when He wasn't omnipotent. God has always been omnipotent. His inability to contradict His divine character does not mean that He isn't omnipotent.

Conclusions
The atheist distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible. [This is a straw-man argument!] Neither does omnipotence include the ability to fail. By defining omnipotence as requiring one to have the ability to fail, atheists have defined omnipotence as being impossible. Of course, an omnipotent God would never fail.

These kinds of arguments are clearly illogical and even silly, although they are commonly used by inexperienced atheists. Most intelligent atheists have dropped these kinds of arguments long ago.

From: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

Here is another look at the same problem:

IF GOD HAS NO LIMITS, THEN HE MUST BE BOTH GOOD AND EVIL, EXISTENCE AND NONEXISTENCE, STRONG AND WEAK

When we say God is unlimited, we mean that He is unlimited in His perfections. Now evil is not a perfection; it is an imperfection. The same is true of nonexistence, weakness, ignorance, finitude, temporality, and any other characteristic that implies limitation or imperfection. We might say that God is “limited” in that He can’t enter into limitations, like time, space, weakness, evil – at least not as God. He is only “limited” by His unlimited perfection.

Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, p. 31.

And finally, I think Keith Ward in his recent book, God: A Guide for the Perplexed, adds the finishing understanding to this topic.

The real problem, however, comes from our thinking that God must be able to do anything we can think of or imagine. Because we, ignorant as we are, can imagine lots of things which are really quite impossible. For example, we can imagine going back in time to kill our grandparents before they had any children – you can even see films in which such things happen. Yet we can see that such a thing is obviously impossible, since without our grandparents we would not exist, so we could not kill them. We think we can imagine finding a square equal in area to a given circle – but mathematicians can prove that is logically impossible. We think we can imagine the force of gravity being just a little stronger than it actually is [throughout the universe, that is] – but physicists can tell us that, if it were, then electrons would collapse into the nuclei of atoms, there would be no atoms, and so there would be no organized universe at all…. Our imaginations are a poor guide to what is really possible, because we have absolutely no idea of what sorts of things can really exist, or of what might be necessary or optional for God. So I think we just have to say that God is powerful enough to create the universe…. and that is as much as we have a right to expect from omnipotence.

Remember, all my believing brother and sisters out there, saying that God created the universe is not an argument from ignorance or the “God-of-the-gaps” argument, it is inferred from the evidence. I suggest you read The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel’s newest book.

Cut N' Pasted

With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, you just might be a liberal if...

* You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.

* You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57 states.

* You'd be more upset about your favorite candidate being endorsed by the NRA than the Communist Party.

* You think the same criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime will just hand them over to comply with the law if guns are made illegal.

* You know that 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners and you still feel that the rich "aren't paying their fair share of the taxes."

* You put a higher priority on oil pipelines possibly inconveniencing a few caribou than you do on lowering the price of gas for everyone in the country by drilling ANWR.

* You're worried that Osama Bin Laden might not get a fair trial if we capture him, but want George Bush thrown in prison for being too zealous in protecting us from Al-Qaeda.

* You get infuriated when you hear about the CEO of a Fortune 500 company making tens of millions of dollars, but don't see a problem with an actor, basketball player, or trial lawyer making the same amount.

* You're constantly seeing subtle, coded racism in campaign ads, but see nothing racist about blacks being promoted over more qualified white applicants because of Affirmative Action.

* You think it's obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3 cents per gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but would never suggest cutting the 13 cents per gallon they pay on taxes to reduce the price of gas.

* You think George Bush is a chickenhawk because he wanted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the fact that he only served in the National Guard, but you don't think the same about Barack Obama, who has never served in the military and probably couldn't find either country on a map without help.

* You think protesting outside of abortion clinics is extremism and should be illegal, but carrying around giant puppet heads while wearing a t-shirt that compares Bush to Hitler is just exercising your First Amendment rights.

* You think the case for global warming is proven without a shadow of a doubt, but that we need another century or two worth of evidence to figure out if capitalism and free markets work better than socialism.

* You believe the best way to fix the government screwing something up in the market is with...drumroll, please...more government intervention.

* You think the first thing we should have done when Russia invaded Georgia was to take the matter to the United Nations, where Russia sits on the UN Security Council.

* You spend your days criticizing the use of private jets, SUVS, and luxurious houses that consume enormous amounts of resources and then ride in an SUV to the airport, get on your private plane, and fly home to your luxurious house.

* You have more nice things to say about countries like Cuba and France than you do about your own country.

* You think the war in Iraq is unwinnable, but victory in the war on poverty is going to happen any day now if we can just get the Democrats back in charge.

* You won't even support English as our national language, but can't seem to understand why people worry about tens of millions of illegal aliens changing our culture.

* You think censorship is absolutely wrong; except when it's applied to conservatives on college campuses or on talk radio via the fairness doctrine.

* You get more upset about an American soldier accidentally killing a civilian than you do about a terrorist deliberately blowing up a school bus full of kids.

* You think Fox News is hopelessly biased to the right, but MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS call it right down the middle.

* You think the real hero of the Cold War was Mikhail Gorbachev.

* You couldn't care less about what Americans in states like Kansas or Virginia think of you, but you would be greatly upset if a Frenchman gave you a dirty look because you're an American.

* You think kids in public schools should have to watch Earth in the Balance and read Heather Has Two Mommies, but no piece of literature with the word "Jesus" on it should be allowed within a hundred yards of a school.

Q & A Session - PapaG Style

I was asked a series of questions by one of my son’s friends… at the urging of another friend. So I will answer these questions when time permits, here I have answered three. Keep in mind that there will be little referencing going on as I would view this as a dialogue rather than an essay:

Question 1) What church is your church? Its protestant, but which? Baptist, Anabaptist, Methodist, etc.

First of all, we are all Christians (Catholics & Protestants), there are true believers in all denominations and people who go just because their parents did, or out of ritual. So salvation has nothing to do with which church you attend. Within the Protestant category I would be considered a “conservative Evangelical.” The “conservative” in that “tag” has nothing to do with politics. North Park is really considered the same but is a non-denominational affiliation.

Long ago, Graham stressed that this term most be understood in doctrinal terms, if it is to be understood at all. He finally defined an "evangelical" as someone who believes all the doctrines in the ancient Nicene Creed. Graham stressed the centrality of the resurrection and the belief that salvation is through Jesus, alone. "I think there are evangelicals in the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox churches," he said. The journalism Bible basically agrees. The Associated Press Stylebook notes that "evangelical" once served as an adjective. Today it is a noun, referring to a "category of doctrinally conservative Christians. They emphasize the need for a definite, adult commitment or conversion to faith in Christ. Evangelicals stress both doctrinal absolutes and vigorous efforts to win others to belief."

Question 2) Do you think evolution is true? Why or why not?

I think that microevolution is true, but I do not think that these small changes that occur in species (centimeter changes in bird beak sizes, or Great Danes to Chihuahua’s) mean that some day dogs will become cats. Evolution teaches that you came from a rock, Intelligent Design teaches that you came from a “hyper” intelligent Being, which would logically explain your ability to think and make choices. If you came from God you actually have the ability to have free-will, the evolutionist does not. Here I will quote a most interesting thought from Stephen Hawkings (who holds the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Isaac Newton’s chair, at Cambridge) at a lecture given to a university crowd in England entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate.” He discussed whether we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free. In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms dating all the way back to the Big-Bang?

C.S. Lewis puts this in an analogous form:

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts — [i.e. of atheistic evolution] — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

Take note as well that there are many evolutionary theories “out there,” for instance: Punctuationist; Macromutationist; Neutral Selectionist; Structuralist; Natural Order Systematics; Transformed Cladist; Panspermia; Discontinuitist; Theistic Evolutionism; Darwinism; Neo-Darwinism. A theory that seems to be picking up more steam as of late comes from scientists who deal with bone structure… especially spinal disorders. One such scientist/professor is Dr. Bourne is the Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, England (now dead). Dr. Bourne is Oxford educated, and is an American cell biologist /[slash]/ anatomist who is considered by most to be the worlds leading primatologist. He said that apes are descended from man. Why would he believe such a thing?? Because science has never seen any information being added to the evolutionary upward “slant” that is required by its theory (Darwinism). So since apes are less than us, Dr. Bourne says that science proves his theory.

A more modern view of this comes from Dr. Aaron G. Filler, who studied evolutionary theory under some of the leading biologists and anthropologists of our time: Ernst Mayer, Stephen J. Gould, David Pilbeam, and Irven DeVore, he wrote a book entitled The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species. In this book he argues like Dr. Bourne that apes have “devolved” from mankind… not mankind coming from apes. This is the “monkey wrench” in current evolutionary consensus. In other words, much of what evolution teaches about the primates may be very wrong!

Another reason I reject it is because the evidence leads to Intelligent Design, you can see from this list of 660 scientists and professors that many deep thinking people are skeptical of Darwinian evolution and have chosen to align themselves with the Discovery Institute. There is now a new list that will grow quarterly as well, that list is of Medical Doctors and professors.

Science should not be:

• “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

It should be:

• “Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

Question 3) What is your views on gays? Are they bad? Are they going to hell? Are you born this way?

I have written heavily on this subject, both papers are on my blog at:

http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/search/label/Homosexuality

The homosexual man or woman is just as much a sinner as you or me. We all need Christ. To touch on the hell issue first, I believe hell is a testament to free-will, and dignity as well. C.S. Lewis mentioned that hell is locked from the inside. The only thing separating mankind from God is a belief in the finished work on the Cross. By choice people reject their Creator, they choose their path, God never imposes it. Many who are saved are not immediately pure in action, nor will they ever be. Sometimes people take decades to work through their faults (counseling, prayer, reading God’s Word, etc), so just like the person who may cheat on his wife regularly, when he comes to a saving knowledge of God, he will be challenged to change his ways and seek counseling and prayer and reference from God’s Word. The same with a gay man or woman. If they truly have a saving knowledge of God, they will be challenged by the Holy Spirit to seek biblical guidance in their life, and like many others, they will turn away from their homosexual lifestyles.

However, there is a “created order,” or, even a natural order (if you do not believe in God). My argument for heterosexual (between a man and a woman) unions is usable both by the atheist (non believer in God) and the theist (a believer in God – in the Judeo-Christian sense). Here is the crux of the matter in regards to “nature’s order:”

“…take gold as an example, it has inherent in its nature intrinsic qualities that make it expensive: good conductor of electricity, rare, never tarnishes, and the like. The male and female have the potential to become a single biological organism, or single organic unit, or principle. Two essentially becoming one. The male and female, then, have inherent to their nature intrinsic qualities that two mated males or two mated females never actualize in their courtship… nor can they ever. The potential stays just that, potential, never being realized…..

“….Think of a being that reproduces, not by mating, but by some act performed by individuals. Imagine that for these same beings, movement and digestion is performed not by individuals, but only by the complementary pairs that unite for this purpose. Would anyone acquainted with such beings have difficulty understanding that in respect to movement and digestion, the organism is a united pair, or an organic unity?”

So you see, the two heterosexual organisms that join in a sexual union cease being two separate organisms for a short time and become one organism capable of reproduction. This is what the state and the church are sealing in a marriage, this intrinsic union. The homosexual couple can never achieve this union, so “natures order” has endowed the heterosexual union with an intrinsic quality that other relationships do not have or could never attain. Both the atheist and theist can argue from this point, because either we were created this way or we evolved this way. Either way, nature has imposed on the sexual union being discussed.

Also, I do not think it is wholly genetic. I believe choice is involved as well as violence. For instance, take this thought from a pro-choice, lesbian woman, Tammy Bruce:

“ . . . . and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left's moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today. . . . Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood -- molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the 'coming-of-age' experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS.”

What she is basically saying is that there are emotional reasons, usually trauma, or circumstances that push these young boys into the choices they make in regards to their sexuality. For instance, one of my co-workers is a homosexual man. He is a wonderful guy; I would invite him to my wedding if I could go back in time. He is very open about his past, he was “initiated” into the homosexual lifestyle by a grown black man when he was 14. In other words, he was raped. Whether he feels now that he consented, or the person was a family friend or complete stranger. This act of sex with a minor by a grown man is rape. And this rape, at an age where boys are having surges of hormones and confused about a lot of things is what Tammy Bruce was speaking to. It is a psychological trauma that if not dealt with has traumatic results in one’s life. This sometimes works its way into sexual matters. There are many homosexual people, Al Rantel (790am 6pm to 9pm), to name a more popular one, that believe marriage should be kept between a man and a woman. Tammy Bruce wants it, but she, like most Republicans, want the states to decide, and not the Supreme Court.

Also, in 1993, the biggest march by the “gay” community (Elite gay community) on Washington was held, and they had this as part of their platform:

• The implications of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
• The lowering of the age [12 years old to be exact] of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
• The legalization of homosexual marriages.
• Custody, adoption, and foster-care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
• the redefinition of the family to include the full diversity of all family structures.
• The access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America.
• Affirmative action for homosexuals.
• The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health-care plan.

Obviously the Elite gay community Tammy Bruce spoke of knows which age is best for “recruiting,” e.g., traumatizing.

More can be said on all the above issues, but my book is not yet written. I will post three wuotes from Tammy Bruce (a pro-choice lesbian):

Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic. (Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values [Roseville: Prima, 2003], 35.)

...these problems don’t remain personal and private. The drive, especially since this issue is associated with the word “gay rights,” is to make sure your worldview reflects theirs. To counter this effort, we must demand that the medical and psychiatric community take off their PC blinders and treat these people responsibly. If we don’t, the next thing you know, your child will be taking a “tolerance” class explaining how “transexuality” is just another “lifestyle choice”.... After all, it is the only way malignant narcissists will ever feel normal, healthy, and acceptable: by remaking society - children - in their image (Ibid., 92, 206)

... and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left's moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today.... Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood -- molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the 'coming-of-age' experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS. (Ibid., 90. 99)