http://frank-schaeffer.blogspot.com/2009/09/912-marchers-and-far-right-subversives.html

My commentary:

I certainly do agree that many “right wing” and “fundamentalist” groups and causes are misdirected at best and outright evil at worst. For instance, the “birthers,” the people advocating a physical revolution, or those who want the US to preemptively nuke Iran to “protect” Israel. However, there are a couple of issues I take with this post. The first is that Frank didn’t really address why these groups are bad. This is actually something most people do–not really laying down the basis for moral judgments but just throwing emotional criticisms and assuming the audience already agrees with their basic premises. It’s fine a lot of times, particularly with mundane topics discussed between members of the same culture, but I think when such heated topics as these are argued between people of significantly different outlooks, the premises should be stated right out.

Now, the reason why I disagree with the aforementioned “right wing fundamentalist” groups is because I accept the Bible as God’s inerrant Word. This may sound strange to many people, especially those who have been told over and over again that these groups are motivated by their belief in the Bible. Yet it is my contention that those groups actually have little trust in what God has said about Himself through direct communication and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Take for instance the “birthers” and the revolutionaries. They believe that for the country to follow God’s will we must take it upon ourselves to oust or overthrow our current leader(s). This is a direct contradiction of Proverbs 21:1, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases,” and Romans 13:1-2, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

We also have those who wish to change government policy in order to force God’s moral code. Yet Paul stated in I Corinthians 5:12, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” Then you have people, both today and in the vast period stretching back to Christ’s ascension, who want to force the people around them to become “Christian” or “Christianized.” This again is in contradiction to the words of Christ in John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” We Christians are messengers and ambassadors for Christ, but we are not here to force the world to do anything. Furthermore, the policy that “fundamentalists” are trying to get the country to adopt is derived from the Law of Moses. In Galatians 3:10 it is written, about the Law of Moses, “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’” We are not to be under the Law of Moses. For one, it was for the Jews. Second, it was fulfilled by Christ so that we may live by faith rather than the law (Gal. 3:11-14).

Regarding those who advocate American intervention in the Middle East in order to protect Israel, such as “Rapture Ready,” they have such little faith! Do they truly believe that God is incapable of protecting His own? The Lord intervened on Israel’s behalf repeatedly in the past. If He has a purpose for modern day Israel, He will protect it again. Then for those who believe Christians can somehow “trigger” the End Times by getting involved in war and politics–such an idea is ridiculous, and in fact evil when motivated by hate and malice. We are given signs that will appear before the end of the age, but the events themselves are based on God’s timetable, not ours. Any attempts to usurp His timetable are questioning His wisdom and even playing god themselves. Paul quotes for the Romans in 12:19: “‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.”

Rather than try to force the world under submission with an iron fist (that’s the Lord’s job alone), the New Testament tells us to do something very different. Christians are not told to create a new Israel. Instead, we have the Law of Christ. Christ told the Sadducees and Pharisees that the whole of the Old Testament Law and Prophets were about two things: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:26-40). Christ then gave His disciples a new commandment: “Love each other as I have loved you” (John 15:12). This principle is repeated in the letters of the Apostles, as for instance in Romans 12:10: “Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.” Incredibly, Christ even said the following: “But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). Paul quotes Proverbs in saying: “‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will head burning coals on his head,’” and then adds, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:20-21).

The second issue is how Frank indiscriminately lumps certain groups and issues in with the decidedly un-Christ like hawks and rebels. I am both a “young earth creationist” and a former private and home school student. It is primarily because his characterizations grossly misrepresent me that I am posting here, since I believe in the fundamental truths of the Bible, am a creationist, have been privately and home schooled, and yet am not demonstrating against the government, am an anti-racist, and endeavor to be a peaceable and productive member of society. While there are certainly some overlaps between members of the aforementioned groups and creationist groups, creationists, particularly ones such as those at Answers in Genesis (which he specifically referred to with the creation museum quip), are fundamentally different (no pun intended). Answers in Genesis does not advocate overthrowing the government or any of its leaders. It does not advocate violence of any kind. Contrary to common portrayal, they are even against forcing creationist teachings in public schools. They believe both the Bible and science support and are indeed founded upon the truth of God’s creative act several thousand years ago. They openly declare this, but they also recognize that while rejection of this truth is detrimental, belief in their message should not and cannot be forced. You will find this again and again on their website. Furthermore, they do not engage in petty ad hominem attacks (like calling their opponents “nuts”), but rather try to engage in reasoned and respectful debate (even if one doesn’t accept their reasoning). They are also not afraid to teach evolution. Thanks in part to them, I seem to know more about the nuances of evolution than the average evolutionist on the street, and it is because of that knowledge that I reject the molecules-to-man concept as infeasible. As far as I have seen so far, they have behaved in a very Christ like manner, and very unlike many other professors of Christianity already mentioned.

As for private and home schooling, his portrayal is a generalized oversimplification of the issue. For one thing, fear of indoctrination isn’t the only factor at play. Many parents, including non-Christians, decide to take alternative paths away from public schooling for the simple fact that public schools often fail to adequately educate, not to mention the widespread problems of violence and drug abuse! I do not say this to brag, but after entering public college I found I had a vast advantage over many of my conventionally educated peers. This was clearly evident even to my (secular) instructors. But in regards to the issue of shielding children from the teachings of those with whom the parents disagree, I fail to see how that is “un-American.” This is supposed to be an individualistic society. Besides, while we are to obey the authorities of this world, that does not mean we must conform to the ways or the beliefs of the world. If we did, we would have to reject Christ, since the world does not recognize Him. Since that is so, why then would we have any reason (other than free tuition) to use the public schools? As I have already stated, public schooling is generally of lesser educational effectiveness than the alternatives, especially in the inner city where I live (a democratic haven). What is left in the public schools is that they instill the values of the world, in this case humanism. Yet an understanding of humanism is easily obtained outside of the school system, especially today in the Internet age. Then there’s the argument, and this is most directly linked to his post, that public schooling allows children to socialize with others of different views and backgrounds. Unfortunately, public schools are no strangers to violence and bullying. I recall a while ago there was a major riot at a school in Los Angeles sparked by tensions between different ethnic groups (by the way, both I and Answers in Genesis are strongly anti-racist; we are all descended from Adam and Eve and of the same blood; Acts 17:26, Genesis 3:20, Romans 5:12, etc.).

In summary, then, due to my trust in the Lord I too disagree with the ways of many “right wing fundamentalists.” Frank’s post does not make clear why the groups he refers to are bad. His overgeneralizations could also easily serve to confuse readers about these important issues. I hope in the future he will show greater reasoning and discernment in his writing.

Respectfully,
Zephyr Axiom

The article is found at http://csicop.org/si/2007-02/prayer.html

The article has the following points:

“Silent prayer is silent thinking…. verbal thoughts addressed to a god.”

“…not all thoughts are verbal.  Some are visual or auditory.”
“The concept of mind encompasses our conscious mental life, including not only thoughts, but also perceptions, such as seeing and hearing; sensations, such as touch and cold; feelings, such as pain; and emotions”

Haas states, “How brain activity generates mental states is as much of an enigma today as it was more than a half-century ago…”  He then goes on to treat the mind as a product of the brain.

“…the mental states that are the epiphenomena of [the brain's] physiological processes are neither material substances nor forms of energy.”
“If thoughts–including silent prayers–are not a form of energy, then there is no known natural means by which they could be transmitted beyond ourselves or read within us.”

“…numerous experiments during some 150 years of research have not validated ESP and have left a wake of spurious statistical analyses”

Haas cites five studies that “found no beneficial effect of intercessory prayer.”

Due to the small scale of brain reactions, the electrical potentials “can be recorded only by special sensors on the scalp in shielded rooms”

Haas then goes on to list the other difficulties a god would have in picking up and understanding a silent prayer, including the multitude of languages different people think in, individual variations in brain patterns, and our own motion as the Earth hurtles through space.

The author’s conclusion, taking into account the “laws of nature” and the failure of “prayers’ solicitations as judged by proper scientific studies” to provide any significant results, is that the receiving and interpretation of a silent prayer “seems theoretically impossible for even a supernatural being.”

“A Neurological Inquiry” is so embarrassingly weak that it really is sad that it was ever published in a magazine and handed out to college students.  Granted, the task was for the class to critically analyze the articles, but it would have been nice had a college level class been required to engage their minds to a higher degree than this.

First off, Haas seems not to understand the nature of God as revealed through Scripture.  For one, He isn’t some superhuman extraterrestrial that the author seems to take Him for.  The Lord isn’t bound by the laws of His creation.  Therefore, the “laws of nature” that render it impossible to transmit thoughts between people do not apply to God.  God can and has circumvented the laws of nature He put into place to maintain His creation.  These events have been recorded by Christians, Jews, the forebears of the Jews, and many other humans.  Water has been turned to wine, the motion of the sun has been stopped, and the world has been completely submerged.  Humans can’t repeat these events.  They’re beyond our power.  The mechanisms involved are beyond our conventional reasoning.  That doesn’t mean God can’t do it.

Haas brought up a number of reasons why humans can’t read other people’s thoughts.  He fails to take into account that God created our minds, that God created our languages, that God created our thought patterns.  He fails to take into account that God is not bound by the physical dimension, that He is not limited in the size of His thoughts.  He takes an all powerful God and attempts to make Him into a mere superhuman straw man.

And on the test of intercessory prayer, I wonder as to just how reasonable the tests conducted were.  Who was praying?  Were they Christians?  What were their motives?  Were they trying to prove to godless fools that God exists (as if the study were needed to prove such a thing)?  Who were they praying for?  Did the studies take into account that God can say “no” to a person’s request?  Was the Lord being treated as just another phenomenon?

I recall a certain incident recorded in the Bible where Satan attempted to tempt Jesus in the desert.  He tried to have Christ show signs, to have Him flaunt His power.  Christ replied, “‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”  In another instance, it was the Pharisees and Sadducees:

The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.

He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ 3and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.

Again, at the crucifixion: “Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!’”

In this latter case, however, they did get a sign–the “sign of Jonah.”  “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”  He fulfilled the prophecy of the temple.  Doubters have signs a plenty.  They just refuse to look in the right places and acknowledge that the Lord is what He is.

And condemning themselves many people are.  The excuses are quite often pretty flimsy from a Christian standpoint.  In a speech class I took a while ago, I recall a lesbian saying that God only condemned homosexuality once in the New Testament.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  (I Corinthians 6:9,10)

Furthermore, it presumably referred to men, not necessarily women.  It’s easy to respond, of course.  First, how many times must God say something before it becomes true?  How many times did God have to command the earth and the heavens to be formed before they came to be?  It isn’t “God only said it once.”  It’s “God said it once.”  That’s assuming God did indeed say it only once.

…Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men…  (Romans 1:26b-27a)

That seems like a pretty negative description of such acts.  Notice also that women are included at the beginning of the quote.  It doesn’t seem like God is partial between men and women on this point.

Now, a lot of people would say that these verses were written by men, not God.  I assuming, as do my fellow Christians, that the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God, even if the physical pen was held by a man.  If you take issue with that, go talk to another apologist, because I’m not exploring that right now.

There are plenty of other arguments that gay supporters come up with to try to support their case.  One of these I read on a reviews page on StumbleUpon.  It was that anti-gays are practically the same as anti-“black” racists.  The fallacy here was in comparing a natural physical attribute (dark skin) gained through inheritance to an action.  North Korea does some pretty nasty things to its own people, but I sure hope no one calls me an anti-Asian racist for saying that.

This review was for an image of a billboard stating that God doesn’t hate people for being gay.  There were a number of reviewers who agreed, saying that God hates sin, not the sinner.  There was somebody else who said he or she didn’t buy that claim.  But really now, do parents hate their children if they do something wrong, or only the act their children have committed.  Well, I guess there are bad parents out there who do actually hate their children, but I’m talking about good parents, since I’m drawing an analogy to God.

There’s another argument that’s been quoted on the news.  This is that “straight” people are allowed to commit fornication and adultery without direct legal hindrance, so why should the government provide obstacles to gays?  It seems to be the next step of the feminist argument “if it’s acceptable for guys to have an affair, it should be acceptable for women as well.”  Let’s carry this further: Billy gets to play with matches, so why can’t I play with this knife?  The reasonable solution isn’t to take away all restriction, but rather to enforce the restrictions better in the first place.  Guys, don’t have affairs.

To finish things off, there’s another article StumbleUpon brought me to that showcases another lapse in reason (and morality).  Some gay person was hoping to “turn the tables” by refusing to acknowledge any marriages.  His idea would be to use terms such as “girlfriend” instead of “wife”.  See how those oppressive “straight” people feel being put in a gay person’s shoes!  The article was, of course, secular, and so treated marriage as a simple social contract that is recognized by society.  In reality, Christians know that marriage is a sacred contract made between a man and a women which is sealed in heaven by God.  Basically, the article is a call to all people who already trample on God’s commandments to add the insult of spitting in God’s face.

Lately, I’ve joined up with StumbleUpon, a web service that lets you “stumble” through the web at the click of a button.  You can set a few paramaters as to what sort of general content you’re interested in and then you’re on your way.  I’ve come across quite a few interesting sites.  One of them happened to have an explanation of the Big Bang that seemed good enough for the layperson.  Upon reading it, though, I couldn’t help but post the following review.

The universe created itself out of nothing. This new something expanded into nothing, and cooled (because when nothing becomes something and expands, it gets hot). Following this, the infinitesimally small gravitational energy of the new tiny somethings that came from nothing draws the new tiny somethings together, forming stars, rocks, and planets. Gravity does, of course, exist for these new somethings, because nothing likes to come up with natural laws when it becomes something. The page doesn’t continue with Earth history, but hey, I’m having fun. Here on Earth, the something that came from nothing eventually became muddy slime, or whatever the abiogenesis fad is these days. The natural laws that came from nowhere decided that plain stuff wasn’t fun enough, so it lumped together this stuff with some other stuff (we’re still not quite sure which natural laws were responsible for this bizarre act; they probably died from old age, since we haven’t seen them around lately). This new stuff wiggled around, ate stuff, and made more of its own stuff. This new stuff was bored, though, so whenever it made more of its own stuff it changed its routine a little. Eventually, the routine changed this stuff so much that its various incarnations had feet, paws, wings, eyes, tentacles, hands, and all manner of extremely complicated organs, including brains. These brains, because of these natural laws that came from nowhere, are able to finally piece it all together, because when nothing becomes something and then becomes us, it all makes sense.

The article’s address is here:

http://www.astronomybuff.com/the-big-bang-was-an-explosion-of-space-not-in-space/

Among the other articles I’ve come across, there have been a few neat Bible sites, as well as things pertaining to general science and archaeology.  I’ve also been brought to a few humanist and gay sites providing a glimpse into their realms of bad reasoning and straw man attacks.  Interesting how the reviews for such material tend to be rather positive, while Answers in Genesis really gets the short end of the stick.  Try looking at the reviews for the Creation Museum homepage and you’ll find a flood of thumbs down reviews.  It’s funny and yet sad that practically none of those said reviews offer any intellectual stimulation.  They can be lumped together into either the category a) vitriolic straw man arguments or b) vitriolic ad hominim attacks.  Thus are the ways of those who hate God.

Another piece of movie related news floating around out there was in regards to the crystal skulls that the upcoming Indiana Jones movie is based on. Some French scientists conducted research on the supposed South American skulls and concluded that every one of them is fake. I was, of course, interested in the headline and read through the article only to be amused by their “evidence”. It turns out they concluded they were fake because 1) the crystal apparently originated in Germany and 2) it would have been impossible for the skulls to be carved by the tools available to the South Americans prior to the colonial era. Can those reading see the problems with this evidence? Right: it’s assuming exactly the opposite of what certain people are trying to prove by using the crystal skulls as evidence. The scientists first assumed that the Mayans or whoever would not have access to either German crystal or technologies such as the wheel (if their hypothesis of how the skulls were made is correct). Others who think that the skulls might in fact be genuine see them as evidence that those who were in South America prior to Columbus were more technologically advanced than we give them credit for. As for the crystal being of German origin, I think that could point to the existence of trade between Europe and the Americas in pre-colonial times.  It’s fully possible that the skulls are fake, but it’ll take more than this recent research to bring the issue to a conclusion.
Skipping to another topic, there’s an article in the National Geographic about some lizards that were introduced in 1971 to Pod Mrcaru, a little island off the coast of Croatia. These ten reptiles were watched by researches these past decades, with one extended interruption during the war in those parts. In 2004, they were able to resume their research, and now they’re publishing their findings that the descendants of the original ten lizards in addition to somehow wiping out the indigenous lizard population have rapidly evolved to better digest the local vegetation. No, you ecstatic Darwinists, I’m not going to deny that the change in their digestive tracks happened. Instead, I’m going to point out that this is an incredible validation of the model of rapid speciation after the Flood.

Last is the issue of whether or not to capitalize the word Flood when referring to the global flood of Genesis. I’ve had two college instructors tell me that it shouldn’t be capitalized because you wouldn’t capitalize the term industrial revolution. It’s one of those little things that tend to catch me off guard when interacting with humanists. One of them told me right afterwards that she understood why I capitalized the term, but the other was more adamant (she happens to be the faith and reason lady). It’s not that big a deal, but I am the type who likes to philosophize about grammar. I am standing fast for the capitalization of the Flood, because I think it is not like the term industrial revolution. It refers to a singular, physical event that covered the whole world with water, wiped out all land and air life on earth, split up the continents, etc. It was a worldwide incident brought about directly by God as a judgment against humanity. The Resurrection and Judgment Day are both capitalized. I don’t see why Flood shouldn’t be, unless one so despises the Bible that even the slightest hint of the events recorded in it being significant and proper is appalling. Then again, there are many Christians who do not capitalize the term, but the English language is a flexible thing with many exceptions to rules and an ever changing personality. Spelling and capitalization are two aspects that have changed dramatically over time, and I’m pretty sure that it is only recently that Noah’s Flood has become flood.

Expelled in top ten:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152

Crystal skulls fake?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-and-tv/features/indiana-jones-and-the-heap-of-old-junk-811846.html

Evolving lizards:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html

Day 1: God begins His creative act with water, and on the first day He adds light.

Evolution starts with the big bang, and it takes a very long time for the Earth to form. Earth certainly did not start out as water.

Day 2: God separates the waters into that below and that above, creating the sky.

Sure, evolution has the Earth going on to create its own atmosphere, but this is still after the formation of stars. At this point, Genesis does not have the stars formed yet.

Day 3: God creates land and plants.

Evolution has water arising from land, I think. Land plants are supposed to have come after aquatic life.

Day 4: God creates the extraterrestrial universe, including the sun, moon, and stars.

Evolution has the sun and stars forming before the Earth. I’ve heard the argument that God actually created the sun and stars first, and on day four He just withdrew a heavy layer of clouds and allowed these things to be seen. I’ll let the matter rest on your own reason.

Day 5: God creates aquatic life and birds.

Okay, evolution has aquatic animals coming first, I think (but also before plants). Birds, on the other hand, are out of order. They’re supposed to come after land animals.

Day 6: And here God creates land animals and finally humans.

Evolution has humans “coming on the scene” rather late as well, but what took the land animals so long?

When conversing with one theistic evolutionist, I was presented with the argument that the days of creation were not necessarily in the order in which they are written. We should then be scratching our heads as to why the days would be numbered in the Genesis record. But even if the days were in a different order, there were days on which two categories of the creation were created. Genesis has aquatic animals and birds being created together. Evolution requires that aquatic animals came first, then land animals, then birds. Day 6 would have to be squeezed into the middle of day 5 for this, but then another problem arises: man coming before birds. Well, let’s just merge days 5 and 6 and cut everything up to make it fit. That’ll work, right? We can also place day 4 before day 1. The order of water and land is still out of wack a little, but it works well enough. Oh, wait, I forgot that day 3 has plants before aquatic life. Have to cut out the plants part and stick it in our day 5/6. While were at it, we can stick the first part of day 3 before day 2. Never mind that it makes no sense for land to come out of water before there’s any water.

Boy, it’s hard to get all of this right. It’s almost as if God wrote Genesis 1 specifically to confound our attempts to reconcile it with evolution….

References and further reading:

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Arguments_against_theistic_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/biology/variationandinheritance/3evolutionrev8.shtml

religion 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural 2) devotion to a religious faith 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes, and practices 4) a cause, principle, or belief held to with faith and ardor

Since the entry includes the word religious in two of the definitions, religious shall follow next.

religious 1) relating or devoted to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity 2) of or relating to religious beliefs or observances 3) scrupulously and conscientiously faithful 4) FERVENT, ZEALOUS

Does anyone else find it a bit irritating when the dictionary uses the word it’s defining within the definition? Oh well. I’ll just assume definition 2 is referring to definitions 1, 3, and/or 4.

As a little exercise, let’s take our modern understanding of science and see if any of the above definitions apply. I’m doing this because of the big stink regarding science and religion these days.

science 1) an area of knowledge that is an object of study; esp :NATURAL SCIENCE 2) knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method

That’s the dictionary definition. Does it have anything in common with religion? Well, I already mentioned in an earlier post that science can encompass the supernatural. Of course, the word religion itself does not have as a definition “belief in God or the supernatural,” but the first definition of religious does indeed encompass such meaning. Yet the first definition of science is quite interesting. Science especially relates to natural science, but it is not necessarily exclusive to natural science.

Now on to the second definition of science. It gets really interesting here, because now we have the term scientific method, which is a specific institutionalized system of practices. This is a partial fulfillment of the third definition of religion. Nonetheless, a partial fulfillment of a definition means little or nothing, since a concept has to fulfill every single requirement of at least one definition to be categorized under that word.

And here we come to a certain group of people who, in trying to exclude the supernatural from science, actually undermine their own cause. I am speaking of the secular humanists, who staunchly denounce God and the supernatural. This is important, because it is an acknowledgment of an ultimate “reality”. This fulfills definition 1 of religious! Furthermore, because it fulfills the requirements for the word religious, and because the secular humanists apply their “reality” to science and the scientific method, they have fulfilled all of the requirements of definition 3 of religion! This also applies to proponents of the less extreme view that science cannot observe the supernatural.

1″Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3″Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Matthew 7:1-5

I’ve been going on all this time about the definition of religion in today’s culture. Here comes the real issue for the Christian–the definition of religion according to God.

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

James 1:27

And I’ll leave it here with no further commentary, except to say that it is a science, in one sense of the word, to know how to avoid “being polluted by the world.”

So, let’s get down to an analysis. The following two definitions are from The Merriam Webster Dictionary. First, I’ll define reason.

reason: 1) a statement offered in explanation or justification 2) GROUND, CAUSE 3) the power to think : INTELLECT 4) a sane or sound mind 5) due exercise of the faculty of logical thought

Now faith.

faith: 1) allegiance to a duty or a person: LOYALTY 2) belief and trust in God 3) complete trust 4) a system of religious beliefs

The meaning of faith in the original New Testament Greek (presumably the type that the instructor thinks she’s talking about) is up next. These are all from Strong’s Concordance.

pistis, from [peitho]; persuasion, i.e. credence; mor. conviction (of relig. truth, or the truthfulness of God or a relig. teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstr. constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself–assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

peitho; a primary verb; to convince (by argument; true or false); by anal. to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); refl. or pass. to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):–agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) confident, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.

Used five times in the New Testament is the word oligopistos, which is found only when Jesus is rebuking someone for having little faith.

oligopistos; from [oligos] and [pistis]; incredulous, i.e. lacking confidence (in Christ):–of little faith.

Used once in the New Testament is elpis.

elpis; from a primary elpo (to anticipate, usually with pleasure); expectation (abstr. or concr.) or confidence:–faith, hope.

So far, I think it’s rather self evident that faith and reason are being misused by a number of people today. Yes, it is because of faith that I disagree with this professor’s [read: Sadducee’s] claims. It is not, however, “blind faith.” It is faith grounded upon evidence and reason. Evidences internal and external to the Bible indicate that the accounts in it are true history and not fabrications taken from pagan Mesopotamian myths and laws. My faith is supported by reason. On the other hand, the instructor’s “reason” is actually based upon faith. She has faith in the claims of secular humanists. She has faith in human reasoning and its ability to accurately describe the world. She has faith that the God is not a real and ever present entity in this universe, and by extension, she has faith that the world can be accurately described without mention of a true God.

Some readers may ask what my “reason” is based upon, and this is actually a very good question. It is based upon the axiom (assumption) that humans are capable of thinking logically in order to describe the world. The reason for this is that God created humans with this ability. Does this sound like circular reasoning? It probably would be, but let me phrase it this way: I have faith (trust) that the Bible is true. This is a starting point; it is assumed. However, this faith is validated through reason. This reason includes such evidences as apparent design in nature and the accuracy of the Bible’s description of human nature and of historical events. In biblical times, faith in God was validated by the miracles carried out by God in full view of the people. The core faith of Christianity is grounded upon an incredible evidence: the resurrection of Christ.

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. I Corinthians 15:12-20

If this does not seem like reason, you’re being unreasonable. Paul wasn’t basing his affirmation of Christ’s resurrection on “well, that’s what my heart says.” He had actually met the Lord Christ, as had the disciples! Now, if you believe they were lying, then that’s a matter of the validity of the evidence, but it is not an argument against their reason.
I don’t think I’ve done an analysis of the word religion here yet. Perhaps some time I’ll get around to that (how many times have I been saying that sort of thing?). In any case, for further reading on the issue of faith, take a look at the following link:

http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

1) It assumes that there is no God. Many people claim that this is in no way the case, but when you get right down to it, in light of all of the evidence, if God exists then there is no reason whatsoever to accept the Darwinian picture of origins. It’s simply a matter of the statistical impossibility of one kind, such as a fish, turning into another, such as a horse. The funniest thing about this item, however, is that atheists regularly use Darwinism to “prove” the nonexistence of God.

2) Abiogenesis has never been observed. Many evolutionists will complain that abiogenesis really isn’t part of Darwinian evolution, since biological evolution is “only concerned with what happens after there is life already present.” Despite their irritation with this item being brought up, it’s still a fact that they want us to believe that a rock can–eventually–come to life on its own.

3) I don’t recall anyone ever reporting something on the magnitude of a reptile having an avian offspring, have you? Well, they have those nice illustrations in all their magazines and textbooks, yet all the ink in the world doesn’t make up for it just not happening.

4) Why do all of the supposed transitional fossils consist of either very small variations within an animal type or extremely fragmentary remains. It doesn’t help in convincing me when they show various types of horse (often an artist’s rendering no less) and then tell me it’s evidence that amebas can turn into something like me. What does a population shift from peppered moths to peppered moths matter anyway? It doesn’t help their case when they show a picture of a fragment of a kneecap either. A tooth is even worse….

5) The genetic code of a single celled organism is large, but relatively small and simple compared to other organisms. There is no observed process that would create all new features making these buggers four legged. Not to mention we’ve never seen such a thing.

6) Time isn’t enough for bridging the information gap between dirt and DNA and then between single celled organisms and fish. Even if it were, no one’s ever proven that there is much time in earth’s past (beyond a few thousand years). What ever made the Darwinists believe that radioisotopes are an accurate clock? Oh, that’s right–they “calibrate” them to the “index” fossils. Even so, it’s been shown that Carbon 14 parent products can be found in every once living fossil, meaning that all fossils can only be thousands of years old at most.

7) It doesn’t incite confidence when the Darwinists start throwing out historical records because they don’t agree with what they want to see. What’s so ridiculous about Genesis? What, that there are miracles described in it? Guess what, Darwinism calls for miracles too. The difference is that God is far more likely to give us those miracles than is random chance. Another difference is that the miracles in Genesis are the ones that God told us He performed, while the miracles of Darwinism even the Darwinists claim no one has ever observed.

So, there’s a few reasons why I find Darwinian evolution hard to swallow. The evolutionists can rationalize all they want, but hey, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

It was straight from the mouth of Christ that we get the commandment to pay taxes to our government. Just as Caesar’s image was molded into the face of the Roman coin Jesus inspected, we today have the faces of former president’s on the modern US currency, as well as the name of the Federal Reserve and the seal of the United States of America (or something that looks very much like it could be).

There is currently the case of a Finnish pastor who is being brought to court for refusing to conduct a service alongside a female pastor. As it is reported by World Net Daily, when Pastor Ari Norro announced he would have to walk out of the church because a female pastor was going to be a part of the service. The church council then demanded an investigation into the matter, and Norro is now being tried for gender discrimination in a government court.

It is certainly alarming that a group of professing Christians would bring a fellow Christian (and two other Christians associated with the incident) before a secular courtroom, which is directly against Paul’s commandment to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 6:1-7). If there is a dispute within the Church, it is to be dealt with within the Church.

But what has this to do with paying taxes to Caesar? A lot in this context. You see, Paul stated that those Christians who bring their cases before the secular courts are already defeated, for they are showing to the world that the Church is too weak to deal with these things. Here, however, the defeat goes even a little deeper. It has to do with political correctness. In the modern western world, it seems unacceptable to bar women from pretty much any social position. As Mr. Norro pointed out, though, the Bible clearly forbids women from speaking in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:33b-35). Overseers and deacons also require specific qualifications that are exclusive to men (1 Timothy 3:1-12). The word pastor is actually used interchangeably in the New Testament with the terms overseer, elder, bishop, and steward (http://bible.ca/ntx-elders-pastors-bishops.htm). Political correctness in this case goes right against the our biblical instructions.

It is the political correctness which ties this in to paying taxes to Caesar. In a number of places around the world, churches are granted tax exemption from the government on condition that it fulfill certain requirements. Numerous churches have attempted to capitalize upon this little freebie, but they fail to adequately consider that it isn’t quite so free. Or perhaps in some cases they simply don’t care. Whatever the case, the church will still have to pay taxes of compromise. If and when the government requires nondiscrimination with women elders, the church will have to comply or face being shut down by federal taxes.

What then should be done? Are all churches to be under the burden of taxation when many are already tight in trying to maintain church expenses? As it turns out, there is an oft ignored aspect to this all. Yes, we are to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we do not need to use a bunch of Caesar’s property in order to give to God what is God’s. The very reason why many churches require money and tax exemption is that they are running it more like a business than a church. The early churches didn’t gather in specially built structures, but in homes. They didn’t have salaries for a specialized orator, but discussed amongst each other. They didn’t have to pay any taxes just to gather as a family in their home. Why have we forgotten this? Why, instead, have we come to the point where we defeat ourselves?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58484

http://www.ntrf.org/