Just Wars, Good & Evil, Worldviews and Paradigms, Secular vs. Religious Societies and Standing Armies -- Ravi Combines Many Ideas to Answer This Question

Many topics intersect here into one. First, Ravi Zacharias puts all questions into a paradigm. Then he makes the point that depending on which paradigm one comes from gives any weight to the moral aspect of the question. "Good" and "evil" are examined as well as Adam and Eve's original redefining of what is the meaning behind those concepts. Ravi then explains a bit about justice, just wars, and man's aversion to actual evil. He comments a bit on Jesus' examples of military analogies, and ends with a wrap up of the Ten Commandments. A longer response than usual.

 

Ravi is Asked About Standing Armies and Religious Societies from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Ravi Zacharias is Asked About Free Will -- Quick Response

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

The Power of Life and Death in the Tongue -- Mark Driscoll

The Word on the Word of Faith Movement h/t

Proverbs 17:22

A joyful heart is good medicine,
but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. (ESV)

A cheerful disposition is good for your health;
gloom and doom leave you bone-tired. (Message)

Some Good Commentary:

22 One's psychological condition affects one's physical condition: a healthy attitude fosters good health but a depressed spirit ruins health. The antithetical idea, describing the two effects, stresses the importance of a cheerful heart. The first line presents the ideal: a "cheerful heart" (leh game-h) causes "good healing" (yetih gehah; NIV, "is good medicine"). The heart, as with the spirit in v.22b, refers to the mind, the psyche. The positive and healthy outlook on life brings healing. On the other hand, a "crushed spirit" (rush neke'ah), i.e., one that is depressed or dejected, has an adverse effect on the health of the body. "Bones" figuratively represents the body (encased in the bony frame): fat bones means a healthy body (3:8; 15:30; 16:24), but dry bones signify unhealthiness and lifelessness (cf. Ezek 37:1-14).

Proverbs 18:21

Death and life are in the power of the tongue,
and those who love it will eat its fruits. (ESV)

Words kill, words give life;
they’re either poison or fruit—you choose. (Message)

Some Good Commentary:

21 Many a one has been his own death by a foul tongue, or the death of others by a false tongue. and, on the contrary, many a one has saved his life' by a prudent gentle tongue, and saved the lives of others by intercession (an interposing or pleading on behalf of another person; a prayer to God on behalf of another) for them.

According to Your Standard, Are You Good?

Moving Mountains: Faith in Faith (My First "Sermon" - Given 4-15-10, Tax Day)

Keep in mind that I envision this presentation being in the middle of a series. While this is not a traditional sermon, this would be fitting for a Saturday night series or adult class sermon. There would also be copious amounts of overhead use for the congregation.

This sermon is one I am ambivalent to preach, there are not any funny stories or happy endings, merely a call to preserve “the faith once and for all given to the saints.” Before we dive in however, since it is the day we give to Caesar what is Caesars, I figured a thought experiment would be fitting:

1. On a dark street, a man draws a knife and demands my money for drugs.
2. Instead of demanding my money for drugs, he demands it for the Church.
3. Instead of being alone, he is with a bishop of the Church who acts as the bagman.
4. Instead of drawing a knife, he produces a policeman who says I must do as he says.
5. Instead of meeting me on the street, he mails me his demand as an official agent of the government.

If the first is theft, it is difficult to see why the other four are not also theft.

Contending for the faith can be a grueling job, considering all the variations offered to us.

1. What is a proper definition of faith? 
2. How can it be applied to our lives? 

A sound understanding of faith may take some patience and thoughtful understanding today as we tackle just a few of the many differences between a healthy faith and the kind that leads to a very troubled praxology. We will take the time here to look at some of the key concepts of a healthy faith through a verse many times misapplied. How one interprets Mark 11:20-25 will tell you a lot about a person’s understanding of faith. Again, the verse we will be reading from is Mark 11:20-25, so if you are ready we will jump in.

Now in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter, remembering, said to Him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree which You cursed has withered away.” So Jesus answered and said to them, “Have faith in God. For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says. Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them. And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”

This verse is often used to make the point that our faith is big enough to remove any aliment that besets us. It is often combined with another verse from Isaiah 53 that reads in-part, “by Your stripes we are healed.” As you will find, however, context and historical setting are key to a proper understanding of working out these types of verses into our everyday lives and the impact they have on our personal faith. We will cover just a few topics in this presentation, they are:

1. How these verses are misused by some, and subsequently faith; 
2. we will discuss some of the Jewish cultural context and history involved; 
3. and finally, we will look at an oft overlooked interpretation of these verses.

Starting with how faith is often misused by many of the faithful, we will consider what Pastor Bob DeWaay calls anthropogenic fundamentalism. The term anthropogenic fundamentalism can simply be defined for our purposes as a “man-centered faith,” rather than “God-centered faith.” Or, man trying to capture what God only provides.

E.W. Kenyon, sometimes called the grandfather of the Word-Faith movement, wrote a book entitled, Two Kinds of Faith, in which we find Kenyon saying that “a spiritual law few of us have recognized is that our confessions rule us.” Kenneth Hagin, who is known as the father of the Word-Faith movement, has taken bits-and-pieces from Kenyon and well-known faith healer William Branham and ordered them into a systematic word-faith doctrine, culminating in the opening of Rhema Bible Institute in 1974. Mark 11:23 was one of Hagin’s favorite verses he used to justify his creating verbalized capsules of thinking by “laws of faith” that control one’s circumstances with “formulas.” This was a big-deal to him, even coining the term “have faith in your faith.” In contradistinction Calvin says that…

True faith “unites us to Christ and inserts us into His body creating the bond that enables us to receive, posses, and enjoy Christ Himself.” This is Calvin’s “union with Christ by Spirit worked faith.”

True faith is God centered, and aligns us — or tries to — with God’s will. Not the other way around. There are many examples of what faith should not be, but one James Montgomery Boice mentions that can replace true faith is optimism. Which he simply defines as a “mental attitude which is to cause the thing believed in to happen.” In this “faith in your faith” aspect, you will never hear a person graduating from Rhema pray like Christ did in Matt 26:39:

“My Father! If it is possible, let this cup of suffering be taken away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”

A.H. Strong points out that God does “not change his mind when men pray, or when they believe… as [God] fulfills his purpose by inspiring true prayer, so he fulfills his purpose by giving faith.” Finishing his thought Strong quotes Augustine, “He chooses us, not because we believe, but that we may believe….”

You see, we want a faith that unites us to Christ and His work, nothing of ourselves. In Reformational thinking, we are not even capable of generating this kind of faith. Take note that Ephesians 2:8 ends with “it is a gift of God.” Dr. John McArthur points out that faith is included as preceding this statement. By contrast, Kenneth Hagin makes his concept of faith clear when he enumerates his understanding of Mark 11:23:

1. He believes in his heart,
2. He believes in his words. Another way to say this is: He has faith in his own faith . . . Having faith in your words is having faith in your faith.”

This “optimism” in one’s faith rather than a God Centered faith is really an old heresy that started with the early influence of Gnosticism on the Desert Fathers. If you do not know about these mysterious persons that are so influential on the emergent version of this Gnostic heresy, here is a quick introduction. These early Desert Fathers were small isolated communities that separated themselves in order to follow God in solitude. They were the early monks, so-to-speak, and were based primarily in the area stretching along the Nile river in Egypt. Originally refugees during the persecution of Christian’s at the hands of the Roman’s, later, they became outposts that attracted many Christian ascetics and hermits. About this same time and place Gnostics were busy writing their texts, the biggest find of which was at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, also along the Nile. Something I argue influenced some of these desert hermits greatly. Gnosticism that is, not the Nile. For example, paleo-theologian Thomas Oden, in his Systematic Theology mentions the following:

Amma Theodora, one of the fourth-century ascetic Desert Mothers, recognized the principle that when “one believes one is ill” the soul tends toward illness. She tells a story of a monk who was seized by cold and fever and horrible headaches every time he began to pray. … one day he said to himself, ‘I am ill, and near to death; so now I will get up before I die and pray,” yet simply by getting up, his fever abated. Merely by doing something positive – just getting up – he was taking a step of faith that tended toward his health. (adapted)

Apologist Robert Bowman documents in his book The Word Faith-Controversy Hagin’s view of “stepping out in faith”

Hagin claims that since 1933 he has never had a headache. This claim should probably be taken with a grain of salt (or perhaps an aspirin!) — since, Hagin has admitted that if he did have a headache he would never tell anyone he did. … he did admit once that his “head started hurting” but claims that by telling the devil, “In the name of Jesus I do not have a headache,” the pain went away. So when Hagin says he has not had a headache or been sick since 1933, he means he has never admitted to such ailments. (adapted)

So this Mind/body dichotomy found in Eastern thinking which infected the early church in some form via Gnosticism was seemingly addressed in-part early in Paul’s ministry as documented in Corinthians 15.

Now, As some may know, others here may not, my father was deeply involved in this understanding of faith. He would routinely claim financial success and good health as a matter of habit… neither of which he ever truly possessed. A few years back he was very-very sick. He looked and felt awful. However, he refused to go to the hospital, instead, he spoke health and healing to his body. When he finally acquiesced to the pain that C.S. Lewis says is our body verbalizing that something is wrong, he was diagnosed with advanced colon cancer. In case you do not know, colon cancer is one of the most survivable cancers one could contract today. Rejecting his doctors advice of immediate surgery, my father found renewed vigor that he wasn’t truly sick — even yelling at me in the doctor’s office: 

“GET BEHIND ME SATAN!!” (pointing an accusing finger at me)

In surreal fashion and doggedly claiming that this sickness was curable via faith in his faith, his body no longer allowed him the option of denial and he gave way to his doctor’s advice. Even with surgery, he had waited too long.

On October 25th, 2008, I was reading Scripture to my dad who was recently sent home with me diagnosed with two-months to live when his breathing started getting worse than it already was. I stopped reading from the Word and started to fluff the pillows and blankets surrounding my father. He managed to gasp “help” and shortly thereafter was strong enough to cry a bit… as… did I… all the while telling him that I loved him while wiping the drool from his mouth and the sweat from his brow. I could not dial 911 or call for help because my father was sent home with us for this reason… to pass as comfortable as possible. All I could do is watch my father suffocate to death. He looked scared. I suspect for a few reasons, one is man’s tendency to not want to die. Another reason is that if your faith is connected to your health and your health fails… failing faith in God’s finished work on the cross is not far behind. He was coming to the stark reality that his theology was flawed and death is a one-for-one statistic.

While I know the work wrought on Calvary’s Cross was bigger than my dad’s praxology, his view of faith led to a troubled walk that stifled his connecting with God and God’s people in a healthy well balanced manner. Even shortening his own life considerably.

Another example of faith gone awry is told by a fellow contributor to a group blog dealing with the Word-Faith heresy. After John graduated from Rhema Bible Institute — having his degree conferred to him by Kenneth Hagin — he founded and pastored over a church for some years all the while living and teaching this formulaic view of faith. His children were steeped in this belief system. One day his daughter fell very ill, so John and his wife brought her to the emergency room. They were told that their daughter had inoperable brain cancer. The doctors were at a loss. Usually this illness showed some signs that would possibly have allowed them to save her life. John and his wife, after talking to their daughter, were horrified to learn that she had in fact been getting horrible headaches for quite some time. Staying true to her accepted theology she would dutifully rebuke these headaches and go on with her ignoring of them in light of her optimism. 

Needless to say John is no longer affiliated with the Word Faith movement. Thankfully, he is still a Christian, and a strong one at that. John touches many lives for the better after he disbanded his church and wrote on his experiences. Many, however, walk away from the faith after their disillusionment is excised through the circumstances of life.

These two stark examples are the consequences of anthropomorphic fundamentalism, making oneself god in some sense of the word by guiding your own faith rather than allowing Godly faith in.

Another important aspect that seems to be missed by these Word Faith types is that the Bible incorporates parables, poetry, wisdom, prophecy, and history. Within these categories you will find metaphors, symbols, and elevated language. For instance, in Psalm 91:4 we read, “He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge.” Obviously God the Father being Spirit, known only by God the Son, does not have literal feathers. Reading on in the verse we find it is a metaphor for God protecting us like armor — just more comfortably… metaphorically speaking.

Likewise, we find commonly used in the Jewish texts of the day speech about “removing mountains” as metaphorical for an “infinitely long or virtually impossible task accomplished only by the most pious of rabbi’s.” James Brooks in his commentary on Mark mentions that Mark 11:23 may be an “allusion… to the temple mount, in which case faith in God makes the temple system obsolete.” You see, since we are considered “priests” or “rabbi’s” in God’s new and better covenant, we do not rely on our own piousness, but Christ’s alone.

So the question, I think, becomes this: “as priests, what types of unmovable mountains would be in the context of our offering of prayer to the object of our faith?” In Matthew 5:23-24 we find this:

Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

Let’s compare this to the passage we are reading in Mark, starting a bit into verse 24:

…whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.

(Brothers?) True faith causes good works, so in this salvonic understanding: forgiveness of our brother or our enemies is often times an insurmountable task and one that shows true regeneration. Therefore, with faith based in what God has already done for us while we were yet sinners, forgiveness of others is what we are called to.

With that PapaG’ism in mind, do not forget that this verse is connected to Christ overturning tables for a second time on the Temple Mount and cursing the fig-tree as representative of Israel’s faithlessness, another seemingly insurmountable task. As applicable and connective as I think these comments are, there is yet another often overlooked understanding which keeps Christ firmly in context, and not us.

Again, James Brooks mentions that Jesus may have been referencing “the Mount of Olives and the Dead Sea,” the “latter being seen from the summit of the former.” William Lane expands on this in his commentary on Mark, mentioning likewise that the…

…Dead Sea is visible from the Mount of Olives and it is appropriate to take the reference to “this mountain” quite literally. An allusion may be intended to Zech. 14:4. In the eschatological day described there the Mount of Olives is to be split in two, and when the Lord assumes his kingship “the whole land shall be turned into a plain” (Zech. 14:10). The prayer in question is then specifically a Passover prayer for God to establish his reign.

Evangelical scholar Walter Elwell likewise hits on this idea:

Jesus has acted out two parables of terrible impending judgment of unbelief—the withering of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple; now, in response to Peter’s remark, he turns to the vital component in the eschatological drama that is inexorably coming to pass, namely, faith in God. This Israel does not have, but the disciples can and must have faith if they are to participate as victors in the coming destruction of the enemy-occupied land which will split at the Mount of Olives when the terrible day comes that precedes the kingly reign of the Lord over the whole earth (so Zech. 14:1–11). Jesus urges his disciples to pray with the faith expressed in Isaiah 65:24 and participate with him in the new exodus, and so avoid the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the faithless land. But they must humbly seek forgiveness and harbor no resentment (v. 25), as Israel has not done in the presence of Jesus the Son, if they are to stand in the Father’s righteousness through this cataclysmic time.

So like the parable of the faithful and wise servant (Luke 12:35-48), we must watch over this great gift of faith and its awesome responsibility by prayer to the object of our faith… asking for these mountains of faithlessness, self-centeredness, and our unforgiving hearts to be cleared daily by God’s word and our union with Him… always saying like John did, “come Lord Jesus, come!"

Bibliography

• Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith. Downers Grove, Illinoise: Inter Varsity Press, 1986.
• Bowman, Robert M. The Word-Faith Controversy: Understanding the Health and Wealth Gospel. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001.
• Budziszewski, J. The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man. Dallas, Texas: Spence Publishing, 2004.
• Dewaay,Bob. The Emerging Church: Undefining Christianity. Saint Louise Park, Minnesota: Bob Dewaay, 2009.
• Geisler, Norman, Thomas Howe. When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, Illinoise: Victor Books, 1992.
• Hall, David W., Peter A. Lillback, ed. A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2008.
• Hanegraaff, Hank. Christianity In Crisis: 21st Century. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2009.
• Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, Illinoise: Inter Varsity Press, 1993.
• Kelly, Douglas F. Systematic Theology: The God Who Is: The Holy Trinity. Vol. 1. Ross-Shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2008.
• Kenyon, E.W. The Two Kinds of Faith: Faith’s Secret Revealed. Lynnwood, Washington: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Society, 1969.
• Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. Edited by F.F. Bruce. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing, 1974.
• Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain. New York, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
• Lewis, Gordon R., Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996.
• MacArthur, John. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007.
• McConnell, D.R. A Different Gospel: Biblical and Historical Insights Into the Word of Faith Movement. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.
• Oden, Thomas C. Systematic Theology: The Living God. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Peabody, Massachusettes: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006.
• Strong, A.H. Systematic Theology. New York, New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1896.
• Yungen, Ray. A Time of Departing. 2nd. Silverton, Oregon: Lighthouse Trails Publishing, 2006.

Post Script: I wanted to point out just a couple of after thoughts. The first part of the verse we read from (v. 20), there is an interesting event that is mentioned. Something I know the Jewish mind would have surely known considering how well the pharisees knew (at least memorized) Scripture. in verse 20 we read this: "Now in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots." Now let's read from Hosea 9:16, and then from Job 18:16, respectively.

Ephraim is stricken;
their root is dried up;
they shall bear no fruit.
Even though they give birth,
I will put their beloved children to death.

His roots dry up beneath,
and his branches wither above.

This miracle of Jesus cursing the fig-tree then, can be seen as one of the many instances Jesus showed Israel He was their Messiah through fulfilling of Old Testament prophecy. Another quick thing I wish to point out is that many Bibles seperate verse 25 from verses 20-24. This shouldn't be. I think you can completely drop verse 26 and not include that at all, however, verses 20-25 should be looked at as a cohesive pericope.

Good Enough?

Rick Warren & John Piper... Piper Gives Theological "Thumbs Up" -- Can We Trust Rick However To Tell Him the Truth?

UPDATE: Please, I ask that you include the comment section in your reading and understanding of this post. It is essential that you understand the back-story to this post and not simply dismiss it due to not knowing the full story of Rick Warren and why many out there (me included) are holding his feet to the fire.

As you meander through this post and its links, keep in mind that the whole premise of the emergent church is to be agreeable, at all costs. Keep in mind as well that it was Rick Warren and Bill Hybels who allowed Brian McLaren onto the main stage of American Churches... someone who denies the following:

...McLaren has finally admitted that those of us who’ve been saying that he denies the fall of man, hell, Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement, the inerrancy and authority of scripture and Christ’s return in glory to judge both the living and the dead were right all along...

So there seems to be some backpeddling here. How much of it is noteworthy, I cannot really say. I can say that double-talk in the emerging movement is major, and not minor. I will give two examples from the post "John Piper Promotes Rick Warren..." You be the judge. These two posts I wish to highlight here are:

• John Piper Promotes Rick Warren at Desiring God 2010;
• Is John Piper Aware Of Rick Warren’s Political Connections With A Suspected Terrorist?

A great post on Rick Warren popped up on my radar screen. First, it is heartening to hear John Piper go through some of the issues that have been bugging me ("us" -- people who are challenging the emerging movement in their churches and the magnetosphere). I may enlighten you that this is a Messianic Jewish site... a group of people that I love very much. You must keep in mind however, as you read, that there is a cultural rift (not a Doctrinal rift) between our two believing camps. I wish to thank the Rosh Pina Project for the following. It will add to my "Rick Warren" tab.

Here, Rosh Pina points out that there seems to be some disconnect with what Rick Warren tells people, and what he has said in the past:

Piper claims Warren believes in salvation only in Jesus Christ – how does he explain Warren’s comment that it takes “more than faith” to be saved? And Warren’s comments about the “test” God sets every believer?

The question becomes, then: "has Rick Warren lied openly, and publicly... causing one to question Rick's sincerity when talking to one person as compared to another?" Again, Pina:

Have a look at this video on how Warren has angered both sides of the homosexuality debate. Warren’s utter hypocrisy is enough to make any man marvel – surely Piper is aware of this?

Great Example in Evangelism (Witnessing to Mormons Means Knowing Your Bible) -- Josh Williamson

Dr. Mike Miller Discusses the Book "The Shack" and Explains Why Sound Theology Is Important in the Christian's Life

 (JunkerJorge h/t)

Dr. Miller Deconstructs "The Shack," Explaining Its Heretical Side from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Pastor Mark Driscoll Tackles "The Shack," and Its Heretical View of the Trinity

Beth Moore's Bible Twisting Exposed

From Extreme Theology:

I recently reviewed two segments of Beth Moore's "Bible teaching" on  my radio program and I must admit I was bowled over by just how bad and  dangerous her teaching really is.  I know she's popular but this woman  is NOT rightly handling God's word.  Instead, she is twisting the  scriptures to her own destruction and the destruction of her hearers.Take a listen for yourself. Not only is this bad, its downright  dangerous false teaching!

Albert Mohler Sermonizes a Major Emergent Error - "Why Do They Hate It So? The Doctrine of Penal Substitution" (77-minutes)

This sermon is with thanks to Fighting for the Faith. I highly suggest you go to the link in the "widget"  below and if possible support this ministry. If you are unfamiliar with Pirate Christian Radio... this would be a good starting point.

Figure-Skater Church Members

Pulpit Highlights - Phil Johnson from Grace Community Church on Vimeo.

Higher Thinking, Debate & Some "Second-Tier" Thinking

Take note that in the response to the theist you see straw-man after straw man raised towards the theist: young earth creationism, what "evidence" do you have (e.g., only evidence accepted is dialectical materialism, or, philosophical naturalist types of evidence -- talked about a bit below), theological statements while admitting not knowing theology, etc.

From a debate I had years ago (portion of larger post linked): "'Evidence' 'Science' 'Proof'"

The question then is: What evidence do you need? Or better yet: What kind of evidence? Can Science help? Lets see… the scientific method merely shows that if miracles did occur in the past, that science (as currently defined) could not prove, or disprove, their occurrence. You cannot find out what Napoleon did at the battle of Austerlitz by asking him to come and fight it again in a laboratory with the same combatants, the same terrain, the same weather, and in the same age. You have to go to the records. We have not, in fact, proved that science excludes miracles: we have only proved that the question of miracles, like the innumerable other questions [of history], excludes laboratory treatment. And Christianity claims to be a historical belief. The resurrection of Jesus was an historical event, one that cannot be repeated in the laboratory. So how, then, do we deal with the historic claims of Christianity? Like any other historical event, we go to the records.

"What are the distinctive sources for our beliefs about the past? Most of the beliefs we have about the past come to us by the testimony of other people. I wasn’t present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I didn’t see my father fight in the [S]econd [W]orld [W]ar. I have been told about these events by sources that I take to be reliable. The testimony of others is generally the main source of our beliefs about the past…. So all our beliefs about the past depend on testimony, or memory, or both.” (Philosophy for Dummies, by Tom Morris, pp. 57-58)

“In advanced societies specialization in the gathering and production of knowledge and its wider dissemination through spoken and written testimony is a fundamental socio-epistemic fact, and a very large part of each persons body of knowledge and belief stems from testimony.” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, edited by Robert Audi[2nd ed.], p. 909)

“But it is clear that most of what any given individual knows comes from others; palpably with knowledge of history, geography, or science, more subtly with knowledge about every day facts such as when we were born..” (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, edited by Ted Honderich, p. 869)

So when someone asks, “I haven't seen a single shred of evidence for the existence of God,” is he defining what evidence is and how we get knowledge about past events, and then going to the sources to see if they are credible or not?

From my review of a 2-hour radio interview with William Lobdell and his book Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America-and Found Unexpected Peace (portion of larger post linked): "Hugh Hewitt Interviews Evangelical Turned Atheist, William Lobdell, for 2-Hours"

Robots and Cosmic Puppetry: The Scientific Challenge to Freedom

Since at least the time of Sir Isaac Newton, scientists and philosophers impressed by the march of science have offered a picture of human behavior that is not promising for a belief in freedom. All nature is viewed by them as one huge mechanism, with human beings serving as just parts of that giant machine. On this view, we live and think in accordance with the same laws and causes that move all other physical components of the universal mechanism.

According to these thinkers, everything that happens in nature has a cause. Suppose then that an event occurs, which, in context, is clearly a human action of the sort that we would normally call free. As an occurrence in this universe, it has a cause. But then that cause, in turn, has a cause. And that cause in turn has a cause, and so on, and so on [remember, reductionism].

 

“Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player” ~ Albert Einstein.

As a result of this scientific world view, we get the following picture:

 

Natural conditions outside our control…

cause…

Inner bodily and brain states,

which cause…

mental and physical actions

But if this is true, then you are, ultimately, just a conduit or pipeline for chains of natural causation that reach far back into the past before your birth and continue far forward into the future after your death. You are not an originating cause of anything [this includes brain activity of all degrees, that is, love, pain, etc.). Nothing you ever do is due to your choices or thoughts alone. You are a puppet of nature. You are no more than a robot programmed by an unfeeling cosmos.

Psychologists talk about heredity and environment as responsible for everything you do. But then if they are, you aren’t. Does it follow that you can then do as you please, irresponsibly? Not at all. It only follows that you will do as nature and nurture please. But then, nature on this picture turns out to be just an illusory veil over a heartless, uncaring nature. You have what nature gives you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Where is human freedom in this picture? It doesn’t exist. It is one of our chief illusions. The natural belief in free will is just a monstrous falsehood. But we should not feel bad about holding on to this illusion until science corrects us. We can’t have helped it.

This reasoning is called The Challenge of Scientific Determinism. According to determinists, we are determined in every respect to do everything that we ever do.

This again is a serious challenge to human freedom. It is the reason that the early scientist Pierre Laplace (1749-1827) once said that if you could give a super-genius a total description of the universe at any given point in time, that being would be able to predict with certainty everything that would ever happen in the future relative to that moment, and retrodict with certainty anything that had ever happened in any moment before that described state. Nature, he believed, was that perfect machine. And we human beings were just cogs in the machine, deluded in our beliefs that we are free.

(Philosophy for Dummies, 133-134)

J.P Moreland agrees with this summation that there would be no standard to judge whether a particular position about reality were true if we are the products of a completely naturalistic, chance, chain of atoms bouncing off one another happened. To be clear, if atheistic origins of the universe were true, then one liking chocolate ice cream over vanilla would be just as true as someone choosing atheism over theism:

Mind/Body Physicalism Refuted

A number of philosophers have argued that physicalism must be false because it implies determinism and determinism is self-refuting. Speaking of the determinist, J. R. Lucas says:

If what he says is true, he says it merely as the result of his heredity and environment, and nothing else. He does not hold his determinist views because they are true, but because he has such-and-such stimuli; that is, not because the structure of the structure of the universe is such-and-such but only because the configuration of only part of the universe, together with the structure of the determinist’s brain, is such as to produce that result…. Determinism, therefore, cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the determinists’ arguments as being really arguments [say, whether or not homosexuality is a right or not] as being really arguments, but as being only conditioned reflexes. Their statements should not be regarded as really claiming to be true, but only as seeking to cause us to respond in some way desired by them. (Freedom of the Will, by John Lucas)

H. P. Owen states that:

Determinism is self-stultifying. If my mental processes are totally determined, I am totally determined either to accept or to reject determinism. But if the sole reason for my believing or not believing X is that I am causally determined to believe it I have no ground for holding that my judgment is true or false. (Christian Theism, p. 118)

… if one claims to know that physicalism is true, or to embrace it for good reasons, if one claims that it is a rational position which should be chosen on the basis of evidence [as one does when they reject theism], then this claim is self-refuting. This is so because physicallism seems to deny the possibility of rationality. To see this, let us examine the necessary preconditions which must hold if there is to be such a thing as rationality and show how physicalism denies these preconditions.

At least five factors must obtain if there are to be genuine rational agents who can accurately reflect on the world. First, minds must have internationality; they must be capable of having thoughts about or of the world. Acts of inference are “insights into” or “knowings of” something other than themselves.

Second, reasons, propositions, thoughts, laws of logic and evidence, and truth must exist and be capable of being instanced in people’s minds and influencing their thought processes. This fact is hard to reconcile with physicallism. To see this, consider the field of ethics. Morality prescribes what we ought to do (prescriptive); it does not merely describe what is in fact done (descriptive). Objective morality makes sense if real moral laws or oughts exist and if normative, moral properties like rightness, goodness, worth, and dignity exist in acts (the act of honoring one’s parents) and things (persons and animals have worth) [this all applies to the debate over homosexuality]. If physicalism is true as a worldview, there are no moral properties or full-blooded oughts. Physical states just are, and one physical state causes or fails to cause another physical state. A physical state does not morally prescribe that another physical ought to be. If physicalism is true, oughts are not real moral obligations telling us what one should do to be in conformity with the moral universe. Rather, “ought” serves as a mere guide for reaching a socially acceptable or psychologically desired goal (e.g., “if one wants to have pleasure and avoid pain, then one ‘ought’ to tell the truth”). Moral imperatives become grounded in subjective preferences on the same level as a preference for Burger King over McDonald’s….

(Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity, by J. P. Moreland, 90-92)

The atheist has no way ultimately to point out that an act that society currently considers taboo, such as rape, is morally wrong. The atheist, unlike the theist, would not be able to say that rape is morally wrong at all times and places in the entire history of the known universe. Again, all that can be said is that at this point in our evolutionary history and culture it is currently outlawed in most societies by the majority of peoples. This majority can change thus making an act morally acceptable that is currently outlawed, or immoral. Back to the chemical, or biological basis for rape though, a couple of books that deal with this specifically have addressed this issue by philosophical naturalists. For example, in this exerpt from a larger paper I did for a class on Natural Law and homosexuality, I point out that without creation ex nihilo, rape is not morally wrong in the ultimate sense:

Idolatrous Tools

Idolatry is referenced in connection with human sexuality by Anthony Hoekema who points out that while “primitive man use to make idols out of wood and stone, modern man, seeking something to worship, makes idols of a more subtle type: himself, human society, the state, money, fame.”[1] Thusly, an idol can be fallen man using the gift of relationships as a tool to manipulate others for his or her selfish ends,[2] idolizing pleasure by making it an end-to-a-means, so to speak. In doing so, the person seeking gratification (whether emotional or physical) utilizes or instumentalizes another in order to worship self-gratification. This concept is seen in the slang term “tool”[3] used by today’s generation either to reference a man’s genitalia or to reference another person.[4]

The reader by now should have clearly established in his mind that homosexuality rejects the created order and designs its own contrary vision.[5] Moreover, part of this vision is an atheistic, naturalistic (almost Epicurean[6]) rejection of Creation ex-nihilo.[7] How does the “carnal” person deal with the unnatural order of the homosexual lifestyle? Since it is a reality it is incorporated into their epistemological system of thought or worldview.[8] Henry Morris points out that the materialist worldview looks at homosexuality as nature’s way of controlling population numbers as well as a tension lowering device.[9] Lest one think this line of thinking is insane, that is: sexual acts are something from our evolutionary past and advantageous;[10] rape is said to not be a pathology but an evolutionary adaptation – a strategy for maximizing reproductive success.[11] How do the naturalist, those who have rejected the created order and the moral laws of nature, view such an instrumentalizing of the human body for the end-result of idolatrous worshiping of pleasure?

Liberal sexual morality, based in an ancient epicurean view of the nature of man that “denies that marriage is inherently heterosexual necessarily supposes that the value of sex must be instrumental” in order to pleasure oneself, which makes such an act a tool in the hand of a person’s desires, or, an “end-in-itself.” In other words, the traditional understanding of marriage rejects the view that sees the ultimate point or value of sex in marriage as an instrument to attain either affection or sexual pleasure, which is what the epicurean is left with. Sex, in the homosexual context, then, is the instrumentalization of the body.[12]

Ethical Evil?

The first concept that one must understand is that these authors do not view nature alone as imposing a moral “oughtness” into the situation of survival of the fittest. They view rape, for instance, in its historical evolutionary context as neither right nor wrong ethically.[13] Rape, is neither moral nor immoral vis-à-vis evolutionary lines of thought, even if ingrained in us from our evolutionary paths of survival.[14] Did you catch that? Even if a rape occurs today, it is neither moral nor immoral, it is merely currently taboo.[15] The biological, amoral, justification of rape is made often times as a survival mechanism bringing up the net “survival status” of a species, usually fraught with examples of homosexual worms, lesbian seagulls, and the like.[16]

This materialistic view of nature will give way to there being no difference in the emerging ethic between married couples, homosexual couples, or couples in a temporary sexual relationship. Some go as far to say - rightly so - that with the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle follows shortly thereafter the legalization of polyamorous relationships,[17] which is already considered as a viable option by many in Sweden for instance.[18] After polyamory is legal – about the only thing left is for the Peter Singer’s (professor at Princeton’s Center for Human Values) of the world to argue for “cross species” sex acts.[19] Columnist George Will aptly calls this type of legislation “the moral equality of appetites.”[20]

According to atheistic evolution, these appetites are driven by some chain of events that go back through history to the big bang. Everything is the way it is because of this chain of chance events that resulted in our environments and firing of neurons and their chemical reactions in our brain... making us believe and do what we believe and do. It is really fascism, or so called:

 

“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”

(Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist [Ignatius Press; 1999], by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.)

So since all acts are of equal value in the struggle for survival, the acts that only temporarily determine the highest possible survival of the species at that moment in evolutionary progress/history is the most beneficial... which could be interpreted as being the most “moral” in evolutionary vernacular. Therefore, atheists (which include Lobdell) have no metaphysical basis to say that rape, or the killing of innocent people by religious persons, and similar actions like unjust wars by Marxist revolutionaries, are morally wrong in a meaningful way. They are merely pointing out that they personally disagree with the action they are describing. Arguing, then about the immorality of acts committed by the religious (and I would contend, non-religious peoples) would be just as powerful morally if the same person argued with a friend about the superiority of chocolate ice-cream over that of vanilla ice-cream.

John Piper on False Teachers and Their Attributes

Two Important Interviews (Chris Rosebrough & Doug Pagitt), and one Sermon by Phil Johnson on Postmodern Errors -- Lots Of Meat Here

This first audio selection comes from and interview of Doug Pagitt by Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio on his radio show, Fighting for the Faith. lots of Emergent history here for the researcher. (65-Minutes)

This second audio selection is almost a reversal of roles. Chris Rosebrough appears on Doug Pagitt's radio show. There is some commentary added by Chris throughout... very enlightening. (93-Minutes)

 

Chris Rosebrogh on Doug Pagitt's Radio Show from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

This third audio selection changes gears a bit. It is a sermon by Phil Johnson of the PyroManiacs about the errors found in the "postmodern" church and how there are false dichotomies between "pre-modern," "modern," and "postmodern." A must listen to sermon by those interested in the Emergent church and how to respond. (67-Minutes)

 

Phil Johnson of PyroManiacs Preaches about the Churches Postmodern Errors from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Critique of Joyce Meyer's Teachings

... stream. download. podcast. all free. all the time ... Play Audio! (Streaming) 16kbps | 25 min. [2] Download MP3 (3.0MB) Batch downloads • How?

Joyce Meyer Lives As a "Little god"

The Meyer Family Compound.

(The below is imported from: HugPages)

Joyce Meyer Ministries bought these 5 homes for Meyer and her family. The Ministry pays all expenses, including landscaping and lawn care, property taxes and rehab work. Meyer, her husband and each of their four married children live in the homes, free of charge.

1) Residence of: Joyce and Dave Meyer
Bought: April 27th, 1999
Purchase Price: About $795,000
Square Footage: 10,000
Cost of Improvements: $1.1 Million
Features: 6 Bedrooms, 5 Bathrooms, Gold Putting Green, Swimming pool, 8 Car Heated and Cooled Garage, Guest House with 2 more bedrooms, Gazebo.

2) Residence of: Daughter, Sandra McCollom and her husband Steve
Bought: February 12, 2002
Purchase Price: $400,000
Square Footage: About 5,000
Cost of Improvements: About $250,000
Features: 4 Bedrooms, 3 full and 2 half Bathrooms, All-Seasons room, Prayer Room, Media Center and a Home Office.

3) Residence of: Son, David Meyer and his wife Joy Meyer.
Bought: June 18, 2001
Purchase Price: $725,000
Square Footage: 4,000
Cost of Improvements: Unknown
Features: 2 Story Colonial, 4 Bedrooms, 2 1/2 Bathrooms, 2 Garages and a Utility Shed

4) Residence of: Daughter, Laura Holtzmann and her husband Doug
Bought: March 7, 2001
Purchase Price: $350,000
Square Footage: 2,358
Cost of Improvements: $3,000
Features: 3 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms with a Fireplace.

5) Residence of: Son, Dan Meyer and his wife Charity
Bought: Mar 13, 2000
Purchase Price: About 200,000
Square Footage: About 2,000
Cost of Improvements: $33,000
Features: Brick Ranch With Full Finished Basement

The Meyer Ministry Headquarters

It's only fitting that we see the hub of the Meyer Ministry. I'll let you form you own opinion about what is excessive and what's not. Here's a few highlights from the Jefferson County assessor's office.

The building is decorated with religious paintings and sculptures, and quality furniture. Much of it, Meyer says, she selected herself.

A Jefferson County assessor's list offers a glimpse into the value of many of the items: a $19,000 pair of Dresden vases, six French crystal vases bought for $18,500, an $8,000 Dresden porcelain depicting the Nativity, two $5,800 curio cabinets, a $5,700 porcelain of the Crucifixion, a pair of German porcelain vases bought for $5,200.

The decor includes a $30,000 malachite round table, a $23,000 marble-topped antique commode, a $14,000 custom office bookcase, a $7,000 Stations of the Cross in Dresden porcelain, a $6,300 eagle sculpture on a pedestal, another eagle made of silver bought for $5,000, and numerous paintings purchased for $1,000 to $4,000 each.

Inside Meyer's private office suite sit a conference table and 18 chairs bought for $49,000. The woodwork in the offices of Meyer and her husband cost the ministry $44,000.

In all, assessor's records of the ministry's personal property show that nearly $5.7 million worth of furniture, artwork, glassware, and the latest equipment and machinery fill the 158,000-square-foot building.

As of this summer, the ministry also owned a fleet of vehicles with an estimated value of $440,000. The Jefferson County assessor has been trying to get the complex and its contents added to the tax rolls but has failed.

All expenses including property taxes, renovations, utilities are paid by the ministry.
What do you think?

Now you see where some of your money goes. It's not wrong to make lots of money and enjoy it, this just doesn't feel right for that venue.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Consider Making "Pirate Christian Radio" Part of Your Giving/Tithe

Consider having a small amount ($6.95) pulled monthly from your account automatically, or make a once a year donation (just click the graphic below). This radio show that has archives online, or is entitled "Fighting for the Faith" on iTunes is an indispensable resource for those that need to learn about Law and Grace as well as counter the ever pervasive "Emerging" movement/church. Again, this is my number one recommended ministry to support.

J Vernon McGee on Tithing -- Good Stuff ~ "I believe when you do that, you will give more than a tenth"

(The Word on the Word Faith Movement h/t)