Facing the Giants of Criticism

It doesn't take much more than seeing the commercial to know that the makers of Facing the Giants (made by Sherwood Pictures) faced just as large (or larger) specimens as the characters in the movie. Seemingly set-up for failure from the beginning, the production made by a Baptist church in Georgia utilized everything from volunteers to skateboard wheels to complete the movie for an "economical" sum of $100,000. Shaky acting, limited special effects, and a relatively un-original storyline all effect this movie, but Facing the Giants' very existence--and ensuing success--in and of themselves fell "giants"--the giant odds and the harsh critics.


The ironic thing is this: one of the major and more prominent criticisms of Facing the Giants is that it is too "preachy"--specifically, it "preaches to the choir." While I would agree that the movie could've had a greater influence and reach for God's Kingdom if it would have been less blatant and more convincing in its approach, I can't let the critics get away with this allegation.
The fact is, mainstream Hollywood is almost always "preaching to the choir." Hollywood preaches to the choir of those who are "lovers of pleasure rather than of God." (2 Timothy 3:4) It preaches to the choir of those who "love darkness rather than the Light." (John 3:19) It preaches to the choir of moral relativists. (John 14:6) It preaches to the choir of those who "do what is right in their own eyes." (Deuteronomy 12:8 ; Judges 17:6 ; Judges 21:25) It preaches to the choir of atheists, agnostics, and all others who lack a proper respect and fear of God. (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 ; Matthew 10:28) It preaches in favor of desires for LACK of sexual, linguistic, and many other types of moral restraints. (See Sodom & Gomorrah--for example--and Ephesians 4:29) It preaches positively towards believers in the autonomy--and perhaps even the omnipotence--of man. (There's too many Scripture verses to even mention one here.) It preaches to the "survivors of the fittest," and the fittest. And sometimes--often in documentary form as in those done by Michael Moore--it even preaches specifically to extremist liberals, socialists, and conspiracy theorists. If I had to sum it up in one line, Hollywood often tickles the eyes and ears of Secular Humanists, or "secular progressives," as Bill O'Reilly (The O'Reilly Factor) calls them.
Many times these "sermons" are preached in deeds, not words. But if a picture says a thousand words, then how many words does a motion picture say?

I want to focus on one of these "preaching points" in particular: the autonomy of man, and the prevailing will or power of man. This is most relevant when discussing Facing the Giants. There are at least six sub-plots in Facing the Giants to go with the main, Cinderella football storyline. In a summary of brevity, these plots include: the coach and his wife trying to have a baby; a player on the team dealing with the responsibility of natural leadership; a player on the team with a bad relationship with his father; a player on the team who has a fear of failure and a crippled father; an older man who prays for all the students in the school every week; and the coach and his wife dealing with financial troubles.
In this movie, God is heavily intertwined in ALL plots. In the vast majority of other Hollywood productions, God is heavily intertwined in NONE of the plots. Sure, "miraculous" things happen, that "defy science," or go "against the odds," or "can't be explained," but they generally are contingent on a few things: the charity of another human; luck; the determined will and power of mankind; etc. The doctor can say, "You're pregnant; I don't know how that's possible, but you are." But if the miraculous occurrence is explained with the answer of God, it's "preachy." A high-schooler can say, "Dad, I'm sorry I disrespected you. I want to have a better relationship with you." But if he says, "Dad, I got right with God, and I've read in the Bible that I should respect you no matter what," that's "preachy." A crippled father can stand up to show his son strength and bravery, and tell his son, "Your best is all you can do, and if you fail, it's not the end of the world." But if he says, "I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me"; or, "With God, all things are possible"; or, "God has not given you a spirit of fear"; or, "Do your best and leave the rest up to God"; or something along those lines, that's "preachy" or religiously loaded. A dad can give the head coach a new truck for being a good influence on his son, his son's teammates, and the rest of the school. But if he gives him the truck because of his godly influence, that's too Christian. And lastly, a team can play together with all their hearts, and the breaks can go their way, and they can beat the Giants. But, if the team plays together with all their hearts to the glory of God and it pleases God to grant them victory, that's wrong for entertainment--deserving of a bad rating.
The conclusion is this: what the critics mean when they say that a film such as Facing the Giants is overly religious or the product of fantasizing Christians is that the only acceptable set of beliefs in entertainment is that of atheism/secular humanism/liberalism/relativism/etc. They'd try to make you believe that such beliefs are "neutral," but that's just not true.
I'll admit, the monopoly on the entertainment industry has gotten even to me. Now, this may be due to poor execution (acting or scripting) by the makers of Facing the Giants, but it even felt weird to me to hear God mentioned so unflinchingly. However, just cause it feels different--unusual is the right word--doesn't mean it's wrong or bad.

And that's where the critics contradict themselves. They say that the storyline is too cliche. But despite the tendency to think that Facing the Giants is run-of-the-mill, the overbearing presence of God in and of itself makes this picture out of the mainstream, and it deserves credit for that. Maybe the critics could call it "edgy" or "fresh." (See last post)
Besides, even if Facing the Giants is cliche and predictable, and even if cliche, predictable football films are a dime-a-dozen, Facing the Giants deserves its share of the ten cents. It is a good movie in its own right. Remember the Titans is one of my favorite movies, and I know it's based off a true story, but I would've been perfectly okay if the producers had decided to be "cliche" rather than having a melancholy ending.



So, the critics say they don't like it because it's "too preachy," too predictable, and too cheap. But, as I said in my post Worthy of Our Hearts, Minds, and Money, I believe something much deeper than dislike is going on here in the entertainment industry, whether the critics (and others) involved know it or not. Of course, even if there is some type of malicious intent, it would never be admitted to. But, preconceived skepticism is surely held towards this movie because it was by a church. However, when you consider the strong and sometimes radical beliefs held by others behind common entertainment fare, the "man behind the curtain" excuse is another impertinent, unfounded argument.

Within and in spite of all this criticism, the making of the movie, followed by its monetary success, could possibly be considered a better story than the movie itself. According to Rotten Tomatoes , $5 million plus change (big-bills change) has been accumulated in ticket sales. That's gotta come as a shocker, especially to the critics whose reviews Rotten Tomatoes posts, who have collaborated to give it only 7 percent "fresh" (positive) reviews. Of course, when you compare that to the 90 percent positive Rotten Tomatoes' Users' rating, it seems rather conspicuous. The bottom line here, is this: critics, consider yourselves ineffectual. You are effective only in as much as what you consider effectiveness. You couldn't stop The Passion of the Christ despite--on Rotten Tomatoes--giving it only 51 percent fresh. You couldn't stop The Chronicles of Narnia (although this widely got rave reviews, several critics for prominent outlets trashed it--some on the basis of it being too Christian, or that's at least implied). And you don't seem to be stopping One Night with the King or Facing the Giants. Perhaps you should get started on your strategy for The Nativity Story and Prince Caspian right now. (By the way, I boast not in myself or in other Christians, but in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. [Galatians 6:14] Also, I realize that Jesus Christ does not have to show Himself through Christian movies' large dividends, but if He chooses to, I'll be glad to celebrate and give Him the glory.)
If you don't want to take time to do some math, I'll do it for you: Facing the Giants has received income--SO FAR--that exceeds its outgo by 50-fold!!! In other words, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, would've had to have made somewhere around $20 billion--IN THEATERS--to match!!!

Regardless of your critique of the execution--which I think is pretty good but can be fairly and vaguely summed up as "could've been better, could've been worse," this movie has such profoundly positive and Christian messages to portray that by themselves make this work worth seeing. Here's my list, in random order, of the messages this movie transmits [all these are biblical, but for the sake of publishing, I've decided not to have Scripture references here]:
1."If we win, we praise Him. If we lose, we praise Him."
2. Do everything for God and His glory.
3. Do your best, and leave the rest up to God.
4. God blesses the righteous and those who are in His will.
5. "Never give up. Never back down. Never lose faith."
6. Prayer changes things.
7. God supplies for our needs.
8. With God, all things are possible.
9. "Winning football games is too small a thing to live for."
10."We can't win football games if we don't play as a team."
11. The Bible can be applied to all aspects of life.

To read a fuller summary of the story of the movie and see other features, click here.

~ Kingdom Advancer

Post-Note: Favorite Element: Soundtrack: the Christian artists, like Casting Crowns, Bebo Norman, and Third Day, combined with an astoundingly impressive score, make this perhaps the highest production-value element of the movie.

*** If anyone has any other movies to add to my short "recent Christian success" list, feel free to do so.
****If anyone has any other messages they think Facing the Giants told that I don't have listed, feel free to comment with them, as well.

Worthy of Our Hearts, Minds, and Money

King Xerxes (Luke Goss) crowning his beloved Esther (Tiffany Dupont) as queen.


If you’ve seen one poor-quality Christian movie, then you’ve seen a couple dozen. And if you’ve seen one immoral Hollywood production, then you’ve seen a couple hundred.

It places the Christian in a predicament. Secular Hollywood has violated—in a bold manner—every reasonable and decent barrier that Christians, conservatives, moralists, and traditionalists alike have put up. Sexual promiscuity has become commonplace—and graphic, too—inside the theater. When Christian constituents finally conceded that—to get some “quality” entertainment—premarital sex and unmarried cohabitants had to be overlooked, Hollywood decided to enter the formerly off-limits realm of homosexuality. Actors and producers have taken to the Big Screen to promote everything from socialism to treason. Mindless violence ensues quite incessantly, and there are enough “gray areas” in many plots and storylines—about drugs, crime, sex, relationships, respect, honor, and all other things of right and wrong—to make a self-conscious middle-aged person with graying hair have a nervous breakdown. Foul language has contaminated PG-13 and even PG movies. If you didn’t know, PG-13 movies are “permitted” one F-word. Now, I never like to hear the F-word, but I certainly didn’t need or want to hear it as a 13-year-old, and I don’t want any 13-year-olds to hear it now. And don’t even think about going to a Rated R or NC-17 movie, unless you’re planning on washing your ears out with soap immediately afterwards.
The vast contingent of the Hollywood community is adamantly anti-Christian--in word and/or deed--and most Hollywood-ians think--for some strange reason--that the world cares what they think on issues of politics and religion. Rosie O’Donnell, I haven’t cared what you think since--well, come to think of it, I’ve never cared.
But, actually, Christians should care. When some actor, director, or producer is vehemently and openly anti-Christ; or when someone—like scientologist Tom Cruise—is dedicated to the retreat of God’s Kingdom through the means of direct attack or supporting some other belief system, should Christians support them with massive amounts of money? It seems like building up the enemy’s arsenal, supplying their M.R.E.’s, and shooting ourselves in the feet all at the same time.

On the other hand, Christian entertainment has become the punch-line to many a joke. Whether bad acting, bad casting, bad or overtly cliché and predictable plot, bad dialogue, bad filming, bad special effects, or blasé music, something seems to demolish almost every attempt at some truly Christian, truly wholesome entertainment. The culprits usually, at the base, are miniscule budgets and amateurs at the helms. Then, of course, there are the other issues: doctrinal disasters and filming faux-paus, as I call them. These especially show themselves in biblical productions by not-so-biblical people, if you will, but they can reveal themselves almost anywhere.. A few examples of the former case that I can think of are the network works of Noah’s Ark and The Ten Commandments. The latter: the recent End of the Spear, which lacks a strong Gospel message and presence and cast a homosexual activist as the lead role.
Then, of course, there are those that just seem kind of dull.

So what are Christians supposed to do? Should we curse the entire entertainment industry? Well, if I’m not mistaken, that’s been tried before, and the cursers generally become the cursed, missing out on the blessings of entertainment and giving Satan free reign to party in an entire industry. But, on one hand, a Christian does not/should not want to compromise his/her faith and risk giving Satan a “foothold/stronghold/opportunity” (Ephesians 4:27); but, on the other hand, even Christians—like me—will admit that watching some Christian films can be downright torturous and even embarrassing. So, again, what to do?

Well, fortunately, (praise be to God!) the oft accurate stereotype of evangelical pictures is beginning to be shattered. A good example of this is the (NOW IN THEATERS!!!) epic One Night with the King, the story of Esther, based on the novel Hadasseh by Tommy Tenney, which is based off the original book—Esther—from the Bible.
The biggest thing this movie has going against it is lack of publicity. If this film benefited from as much advertising as competing works like The Departed and Marie Antoinette, it would've entered the box-office charts a lot higher than ninth (It has sinced dropped to fourteenth, pulling only $2+ million dollars this past weekend compared to $4+ million when it opened). Plus the fact that it has gotten a pretty majoritatively negative response from critics. But what I say is this: at what point, exactly, do I give credibility to reporters for secular papers from places like Las Vegas and Los Angeles to comment on a moral, conservative, Christian film which possesses a sense of decency? For the Bible tells us that unbelievers love the darkness and hate the light(John 3:19)[note: critics seem to love movies that are "edgy," a.k.a. "grotesque and weird on a new level," even if the movies don't have the greatest of plots, acting, or production values], and that we will be "maligned" for our beliefs (Matthew 10:25). Now, of course, these critics and reporters probably would never admit to you that they actually despise God, Christians, and “the light,” but that’s also expected by the reader of the Bible: Satan himself--and by the way, I'm not calling these people Satan-- who is the “father of lies,” (John 8:44) “prowls” (1 Peter 5:8) around sneakily and poses as an “angel of light.” (2 Corninthians 11:14)
However, I can't be too hard on these guys, because One Night with the King has suffered criticism even from some Christian outlets, such as World Magazine and Christianity Today. And, besides, appraisals of movies are generally opinion based anyway, whether one is a professional critic or layman.
But, still, I know that this battle going on is much bigger than “us against Ted Turner” or something similar, but rather “against the principalities, the powers of the air, etc…” (Ephesians 6:12) However, since there have been many a poor-quality Christian production, that couldn’t be my sole reason. The main reason I’m so hard on these guys is because there is NO REASON THIS MOVIE SHOULD GET A BAD REVIEW. Sure, there may be a line here or there that smells of cheesiness, and a film trick once or twice that might be over the top or appear more fun to create than to watch, but there is nothing in this film that should get it as trashed as it has been. Call me biased, and I am and am glad to be so, but that’s not clouding my judgment. This is a quality movie of epic proportions. And the fact is, this is a battle going on: for the entertainment industry--which is another witnessing outlet.

Despite little publicity and bad publicity, One Night with the King raked in a surprising $4 million over its first weekend. Good news. Is there any bad news? Well, yes: the movie’s reported cost was $20 million!!! What does that mean? It means that it is time for word-of-mouth to take over. That’s what I’m doing here. I've seen the movie twice already, and it probably won't be in theaters much longer, so I strongly encourage you to see it within the next week or week and a half.
You see, the bottom line is this: to make money you have to spend money. Gener8xion Entertainment, Inc., has done that to the tune of $20 mil. But to spend money you have to have money. And for Christian efforts to have money, they usually have to be given money. Well, bless the souls of those who straight-out donated money to the cause or volunteered and physically helped, but the vast percentage of us can support it simply by seeing it and then talking to others about it.

Here is a brief review of the movie's various elements:

Biblical Accuracy:

I have been telling people One Night with the King takes artistic and interpretive liberties. In other words, for the sake of making a movie, they had to "stretch"--so to speak--some passages in the Bible. And for the sake of making everything make sense, they had to take some interpretive liberties. For instance, why did the head eunuch like Esther more than the others? Why did the king like Esther above all? Why were there those who were conspiring to kill the king (Was there someone--like a prince--behind it all?)? How did Mordecai find out about the plot? Why did Esther temporarily lose favor with the king? Why was Esther an orphan? Why did Haman hate the Jews? Why would the king be enticed into Haman's idea because of the Jews' money? Etc. What would make it easy to see Esther’s ethnicity—a necklace that reflects the Star of David. What would make it easy to note Haman’s beef with the Jews—a swastika-like medallion. The Bible concerns itself more with stating facts than telling a flowery story. I think this is probably for the best. If Noah’s Ark or the parting of the Red Sea sounded more like a story and less like historical record than it does, God’s Word would come under even more critical attack. And after all, the Bible is much more concerned with salvation than in telling good stories--especially since these "stories" are actual history. But, to make a movie interesting, enjoyable, and understandable, it is sometimes needed to expound upon the Bible. I mean, consider the amount of dialogue in any movie in comparison to the amount of dialogue in the book of Esther.
There are a few more serious transgressions of the movie: Esther only invites the king and Haman to one banquet in the movie, rather than two, like in the Bible; Esther has an interesting and improbable—to say the least—relationship with a Jewish boy who eventually is forced into being a eunuch (I say this, considering the time period and the Jewish people and traditions); and Haman doesn’t genuinely beg Esther for mercy in the movie, as the Bible gives the impression. There are also some other minor discrepancies I might’ve been able to mention, including the facts that Mordecai and Esther mention God in the movie, whereas the Bible does not--explicitly anyway; but the movie does not lose any core value and does not distract from the enjoyment of the film with any aforementioned “doctrinal disasters.”

Music:

So it’s not Lord of the Rings or Chronicles of Narnia when it comes to the score, but what’s the point of mentioning that? I say that no matter what movie I review the music of!!! The fact is, the score is epic and intense, and it serves its purpose well. I especially noted the love song that is in a different language.

Acting/Casting:

This is where One Night with the King shines in some areas and falls under attack in others, but, in my opinion, this is where it really separates itself from most other evangelical fare—both in name and in performance. Peter O’Toole plays a short-but-sweet role as the prophet Samuel. John Rhys-Davies couldn’t have played a better part than he did as the lovable, teddy-bearish Mordecai. Omar Sharif belts out at least a couple powerful and persuasive lines as a general. John Noble plays an eerie (and downright slimy) prince just as well as he played Denithor, Steward of Gondor, in the Lord of the Rings movies. Tommy Lister, like Rhys-Davies, comes across as very likeable in a great performance as the head eunuch. And Luke Goss, though certainly one of the worst of the cast, plays his part respectably and well-enough as the oft vexed and temperamental King of Persia.
Did I leave anyone out? ;) Oh, yes, of course, Tiffany Dupont. Beautiful and elegant, wistful and willful: Tiffany embodies everything about Esther that is traditionally imagined. A few too many giggles and childish lines might be considered to have pervaded and contaminated the performance, but I don't think so. Not to mention that her appearance’s “style” is at least believable as perhaps Jewish, unlike the last Esther movie, where Esther was played by an English woman with a strong British accent.


Special Effects/Sets/Wardrobe/Etc.:

Taking a page from Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ, the Crouch's weren’t afraid to make a quality movie. Although to the discerning eye—the kind that’s seen all the special features for Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings—some flyover footage might appear too computer-generated, it really is on par or above much Hollywood fare. Everything about the beautiful wardrobes and sets takes you back to Persia and to the truly epical nature of the situation.

Filming:

I guess you could say that there’s not too much new here, but Christians know that “there is nothing new under the sun,” or as I paraphrase: there’s nothing truly new under the sun. The filming is by no means dull, though, so why does it have to be new? A couple cheap artistic tricks find their way into the shooting, but whether this is detrimental or not really is a matter of taste and/or sensitivity.

Plot:

Does it get any better? The story of Esther is as inspiring and bravery-inducing as any story out there. It particularly makes you want to live for God and bring about His will.

As far as specific dialogue goes, some say that it's "pompous," "corny," "cheesy," etc., but that really has to be defined as specific lines--one here and maybe one there--NOT as a persistent parasite of the whole picture.

Summary:

There are some whose philosophies of movie-going are this: "If the critics don't like it, it's gotta be good." And vice-versa. My advice on this movie would be to see it--hands down. The good most definitely out-weighs the bad.


Favorite Parts:
1.) What Mordecai says when Haman asks why he refuses to bow.
2.) When Esther runs through the rain and bursts through the doors into the king’s court.
3.) When Esther is relayed the message of Mordecai, and replies, “If I perish, I perish.”

~Kingdom Advancer

What does it say about Christians if we are willing to pay for, watch, and enjoy works that have parts which compromise, violate, and war against our faith, but we can't support films putting forth efforts to advance God's Kingdom because certain parts go against our taste or aren't quite up to our highest of standards of quality?

Fighting Back

In case you haven't noticed, the moral framework upon which the great country of America was built, and of which much of the world has known in the past, is degrading, diminishing, and disappearing seemingly more and more each day. In nearly every aspect of life, the dissolving of any sense of decency or morality is evident. However, also in nearly every aspect of life, battles are being fought by Christians and/or moral traditionalists to turn--or at least stem--the destructive tide of which I speak.
Think of the following: Evolution as the preferred "intellectual" and "scientific" explanation of our origins; the Ten Commandments removed from the public eye; chaplains having their religious freedom and honesty deprived of them; "In God we trust," "Under God," and other phrases attempting to be removed from landmarks and traditions; the homosexual and polygamist movements attempting to redefine marriage; anything vaguely Christian trying to be taken out of schools and off public property; the continuing epidemic of abortion; and, of course, the un-yielding progressing (actually digressing) moral degradation of TV and all other sorts of entertainment.
But, in almost all these areas, Christians and others who hold both common sense and a sense of decency are finally beginning to fight back--enthusiastically and often effectively. Here are some examples:

Origins:

Answers in Genesis is set to open their massive, professional, and expensive Creation Museum in 2007 in Northern Kentucky, within relatively convenient reach of Nashville, Tennessee; Cincinnatti, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Louisville, Kentucky; and even St. Louis, Missouri. I recommend you check out the links, but here's what you'll find on the front page of the museum's web page:
The 50,000 sq. ft. Creation Museum will proclaim the Bible as supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice in every area it touches on. Set to open in 2007, this “walk through history” museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture.

The Intelligent Design Movement, (click here for I.D. Net, here for Origins.org, and here for the Access Research Network) continues to make progress in getting a logical, intelligent, and scientific alternate to the Theory of Evolution into the school systems.

Countless other projects also are advocating in powerful ways the fact of Creation and the Creator, including one of the original efforts: the Institute for Creation Research. Other links can be found on my blog as well.

Ten Commandments:

Depending on where you live, you've probably seen little picket signs in front yards all over the place that have the Ten Commandments printed on them. Now, I live in a relatively conservative area, but it seems like I see one in every other yard. This is the result of efforts by Christians who want to restore and preserve America's moral and Christian heritage. One effort I suggest you check out is Written in Stone, although I'm sure there are other efforts. On this particular one's front page, it states an apparent battlecry: Every School, Every Courthouse. Then it states:
With over 75% of the country supporting the public display of the Ten Commandments, Written In Stone is empowering individuals, groups, businesses and even governments to take a stand to restore the heritage of this great nation. While many great organizations and ministries are taking a stand in many different areas, we are committed to be the lead voice in America on the Ten Commandments.

Use my link to find out more.
This is something encouraging I think about the Ten Commandments: The Ten Commandments have gotten more media and secular coverage since it has been attacked then ever before. Not to mention how it's one more thing that is getting Christians pro-active. You know what they say: don't wake a sleeping beast.

Issues of Politics and Religious Freedom:

Activists like Michael Newdow and organizations like the ACLU are constantly trying to destroy not only the religious freedoms of Christians, but also the heritage of America and any symbol of God on public property. On the other side of the coin, however, you can find organizations like the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), headed by Jay Sekulow. This group of lawyers adamantly and effectively supports religious freedoms (including chaplains'), as well as other pr0-moral and pro-tradition ideals, such as traditional marriage. It is a formidable opponent for the ACLU's secular, atheistic, and amoral ideologies.

Marriage:

In this day and age, it seems to be becoming increasingly popular to think that marriage is "whatever we want to be." Yet, Christians know that's not so, and this thought-process is evidently not in the majority, for wherever a marriage amendment has been proposed or offered, it's been passed by the people.
Perhaps you've seen the bumper stickers that have a picture of a stick man, a plus sign, a picture of a stick woman, an equals sign, and a picture of a stick person family. In other words, it says "one man, one woman, equals a family [or marriage]." President Bush supports a constitutional amendment (to see an article from 2004 about the President's support, click here), and whether one is made could hinge on this upcoming election. Voting is as important as it's ever been. Also, there are some petitions that could be signed, but I don't know enough about them at present to endorse them publicly.

Abortion:

I think one of the biggest mistakes the Christian constituency could make would be to give up on the issue of abortion. Abortion is as unconstitutional, inhumane, murderous, grotesque, deplorable, and shameful as it has ever been. A significant percentage of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal except in cases that threaten the mother's life (and whether that is even appropriate is up for debate). So, what are pro-life people doing about it? Well, like most other issues conservatives and Christians face--not as much as they should be doing. But there are pro-life organizations and efforts out there, including the National Right to Life. And, like in other issues, battles are being fought and much again hinges on this election. Vote for life! If you can't vote, get involved where you'll have more than a one-vote effect!

Media:

If you didn't hear, "Air America," a liberal radio broadcasting network, filed bankruptcy. However, conservatives (many of whom are Christians), including Janet Parshall, Albert Mohler, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, and others are doing quite well it seems. Talk radio--and TV--are big battlegrounds that obviously can't be ignored. Even if you don't agree with everything these people believe or their methods or personalities [I've got to admit, I don't agree on everything with everyone on this list] they're better than the flip side of the coin, aren't they? Even a character like a Bill O'Reilly, with his new book Culture Warrior, is fighting against the "secular progressives," as he calls them. Surely he's on Christians' side of the line in the sand, at least on some issues.

Note: I realize some people's qualms about joining people who aren't necessarily evangelical Christians. Those dilemmas are understandable. But issue by issue, I think it's important to stand for what Christians believe in, and sometimes non-Christians see things the same way Christians do, and I think it is necessary and appropriate to join with these people--issue by issue. Especially if protecting this country, protecting the unborn, protecting traditional marriage, protecting Christians' freedoms, or something similar is at stake.

Entertainment:

And that brings us finally to the realm of entertainment, what has long been becoming more and more a quagmire of sin and anti-Christian sentiment. But even in this spectrum, Christians are working so that Christianity and its values are making a come back.

Believe it or not, this article was originally going to be titled "The Movie Movement," but clearly there's been an unforeseen change of direction. Instead this article has been a quick overview and summarization of some of the hot issues facing Christian society today.

My main focus was going to be on the new Bible epic based on the Book of Esther and the novel Hadasseh by Tommy Tenney: One Night with the King. I also wanted to discuss Facing the Giants, a Christian football movie produced entirely by a Georgia [ I think] church for an economical sum (by Hollywood's standards) of $100,000. I even was planning on mentioning the upcoming Nativity Story and perhaps even discuss not as overtly Christian productions such as the Chronicles of Narnia, the Lord of the Rings, and the Passion of the Christ (yes, this is overtly about Christ, but some would say that it's overtly Catholic, not Protestant). I was even considering doing some research on some other projects that I'm sure are out there.

However, all that will have to wait for a later date. Bear with me, and I hope you enjoyed and got something out of this article.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I should remind everyone that all of these efforts cannot be sustained without your and my support in four things:

1) Name

2) Deed

3) Finances

4) Prayer

Some efforts need names on petitions. Some efforts need volunteers, or at least help spreading the word about their projects and organizations. Some efforts need financial support, which can often be profitable, when you consider the tangible entertainment value of seeing Christian movies. And all of these efforts need prayer--lots and lots of prayer. It is the easiest thing of the four to do, but often it's the most neglected thing, as well. The Bible affirms and assures that we can do all things through Christ (Philippians 4:13); if we humble ourselves and pray, God will answer our prayers (2 Chronicles 7:14); nothing shall be impossible with God (Luke 1:37; Matthew 17:20; Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27) ; if we delight ourselves in the Lord, He will give us the desires of our hearts (Psalm 37:4); and if we seek, we will find, knock, receive, ask, be given (Matthew 7:7-8; Luke 11:9-10)


~Kingdom Advancer

p.s. I covered the things I'm really concentrating on right now, but if anyone knows of any efforts, organizations, or persons on topics worthy of mention, let me know.

Christians should be encouraged by the fact that there are battles for souls and societies going on right now. Win some, lose some, and some are stalemates--but battles none-the-less. This is not a peaceful takeover by the secularists, if they're winning at all.

The Importance of Origins

Why is the Creation-Evolution debate so important? Why is where we came from--Who we came from, if anyone--so important? Why is the origins debate so important? This is why:
The realization of a creator [or The Creator] is NOT apathetic knowledge. In other words, when the discovery is made that we ARE created--we ARE purposed--and there is Someone out there Who is more powerful than us, then we are forced to take some ensuing actions. Few people can realize that God exists and toss that fact off to the side without investigating it further.
Of course, all those who believe in a creator are not Christians. They don't necessarily feel any conviction to live right, or to live for the "right" God. But it really bugs me when someone says that we should focus on telling people about "the love of Jesus." In reality, someone who doesn' t believe in God is NOT going to believe in God's SON. Someone who doesn't believe in the Christian definition of sin and evil is NOT going to see "a need for a Savior." Someone Who doesn't believe in a Creator Who created the entire universe will not believe in a Creator Who "created" a book filled with His words [The Bible].
Here's a few examples of works by atheists: Jesus is Imaginary; Was Jesus Gay?; Before Jesus [there was Krishna].
The simple fact is this: You can believe in a creator without believing in Jesus [being a Christian], but you can't believe in Jesus [be a Christian] without believing in the Creator.

We should note both parts of this statement:
First of all, yes, you can believe in a creator without being a Christian. That's obvious. Here's a super-short list of non-Christian belief systems that make room for a Creator, noting that MOST religions have an inherent god:
Deism
Agnosticism (doesn't know if there's a God)
Mormonism
Jehovah's Witnesses
Catholicism
Islam
Judeism
...........

In fact, before recent times (the last 300 or 400 years, let's say), it was majoritatively conceded that God, Who created, existed. But we know that much evil has always been in the world: it hasn't just been recently--since a creator was rejected--that immorality has surfaced. People have been willing to ignore the existence of a Creator (rather than deny one) or create a god of their own to be the universe's creator (rather than deny one completely).
Even today, some statistics show that anywhere from sixty to ninety percent of people (especially in America) believe in God. But, when you look at modern facts of life such as abortion, Evolution, prayer out of schools, Ten Commandments out of schools and courthouses, the push for homosexual rights, and restrictions attempting to be put on military chaplains, it can be clearly recognized that most believers in God are not Christians--or at least true ones.

That's where some people and organizations criticize Intelligent Design. Answers in Genesis, for one, which is dedicated "to upholding the Scriptures from the very first verse," doesn't like Intelligent Design for several reasons: 1.) Intelligent Design doesn't point to any particular god as Creator; 2.) Intelligent Design doesn't use or defend the Bible, but rather "discovers" God naturally; and 3.) There are some problems that Intelligent Design can't solve.
Answers in Genesis is correct on all accounts. But there are a few reasons why Christians should not abandon the Intelligent Design Movement, in my opinion.

First off, Christians should support Intelligent Design for the sake of the schools and schoolchildren. Though it's difficult, I admit that the God of the Bible should not (or at least never will be) taught in the science class--or else, yes, in the sake of American religious diversity and equality, every other god-theory would also have to be taught--unless, of course, such a vast majoritative percentage of the American population became Christian that Christianity could be taught in schools without incident . Answers in Genesis, in all likelihood, will never get into the public schools' curriculums. Their efforts are centered on getting the truth directly into the hands, minds, and hearts of students so that they can defy secular falsehoods and theories which are taught as fact. That's a noble and worthwhile endeavor, and I fully support it.
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, no matter what some atheist wants to tell you, IS as unbiased as can be expected--in other words, it is no more biased than the atheistic Theory of Evolution. Its theories, like "Irreducible Complexity," are often much more intelligent and logical than anything Evolution puts forth. Intelligent Design CAN and SHOULD get into the schools, if nothing else, than as an alternate to the Theory of Evolution. Though it's not a guarantee that children will come to Christ because of Intelligent Design, Intelligent Design is certainly a step forward from the science of atheism/secular humanism: Evolution.

Secondly, Christians should support Intelligent Design because it personifies Romans 1:20. Although the Christian has God revealed to him/her through God's Holy Word, anyone can have God revealed to them as Creator through His glorious, magnificent, complex, beautiful, designed creation. Restating what I've said before, no one can become a Christian before first believing in Christ, Who is part of the creating Trinity Godhead (John 1:1). Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that, no, Intelligent Design is not enough, but, it's a start--one of many creationist starts, but a leading, powerful, and effective one that should not be thrown away.

Thirdly, Christians should support Intelligent Design because, like in the schools, Intelligent Design can reach places where more devout biblical creationism cannot. In many intellectual circles and colleges and the like, Intelligent Design is considered and accepted before any other creation theory. Is it watered down? Yes. But perhaps the best thing for Christians to do is build up people's "tolerance" to "God-talk." Intelligent Design now, Answers in Genesis later? Maybe. It's already happening in individuals' lives; perhaps it can become commonplace on a massive scale.

Fourthly, Christians should support Intelligent Design so that Christianity won't become a "kingdom divided against itself" in yet another area. I heard one statistic the other day that said--worldwide--that there are NINE THOUSAND CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS. That in and of itself "waters down" Christianity's influence. A pie cut into nine thousand pieces does not feed and satisfy nine thousand people--it starves nine thousand. All agree that there's a Creator--however they might deviate from Scripture. But it seems that all do not agree about the way to PROVE a Creator. Though I would disagree with some ways to prove God (for instance, I would not support the "flipped a coin and it landed on heads, therefore God" method), I think the differences held between some Christians who oppose Intelligent Design and those who support it are too small, trivial, and/or reconcilable to terminate the progress which the movement has already made and is currently making.

Epilogue: Witnessing

Ultimately, the origins debate--from the Christian perspective--is all about salvation. What's the point of proving that we are created if the people who realize this don't get saved? They are lost all the same.
When witnessing to an atheist, Christians can do one of two things. If a person has already been prepared by the Holy Spirit, they can cut straight to the person's heart [conscience]; however, if the person is a staunch and hard-hearted atheist who answers every sincere attempt with "I don't believe in God, I don't believe in the Bible, I don't believe in Jesus, I don't believe in evil or 'sin,'" then first you must show that person the logic and inevitably of a Creator, since an atheist has blinded himself and scarred his conscience for the sake of denying a Creator.

~Kingdom Advancer

God, The Five Senses, and Beyond

Some say that they don't believe in God because they cannot see God. But it can wisely be said that--to have an excuse not to believe in a Creator God--you'd have to be completely blind--unable to see anything.
Some say that they don't believe in God because they cannot hear Him speak audibly. But it can wisely be said that to be able to really deny a Creator God's existence, you'd have to be deaf--unable to hear anything.
Some say that they don't believe in God because He doesn't seem tangible to them--they can't touch Him, feel Him, "taste" Him, or "smell" Him. But it can wisely be said that to reject a Creator God's existence on this basis, you'd have to be completely insensitive--unable to touch, feel, taste, or smell anything.
Some say that they don't believe in God because of death. But it can wisely be said that--to not believe in God for this reason--you must not be alive--you yourself must be dead, or at least you must be brain "dead"--pardon the pun--enough to not comprehend the miracle of life.
Some say that they don't believe in God because of suffering. But it can wisely be said that to deny God's existence, using this as a valid alibi and leaving the topic un-investigated, you'd have to be experiencing mental "suffering" and/or apathetic, intellectual laziness.
Some say that they don't believe in God because of the presence of evil. But it can wisely be said that to hold this belief would require a comprehensive LACK of knowledge and understanding of good and evil.
Some say that they don't believe in God because they believe in Evolution--that we are just animals who have evolved from lower life forms. But it can wisely be said that--to use this as a viable excuse for denying God's existence--you'd have to BE a lower life form.
Some say that they don't believe in God because an "Intelligent Designer would never have designed such a crazy world." But it can wisely be said that--to seriously use this as a reason--you'd have to BE crazy, or you'd have to totally ignore, or be ignorant of, design.

Some say they don't believe in God because of a combination of the above factors--perhaps all of them. But it could be wisely said, then, to have ample reason and/or excuse to believe such things, you'd have to be a lower life form who's blind, deaf, insensitive, mentally handicapped or un-knowledgeable of certain things, crazy, not diligent, and yes--DEAD.

Of course, we all know there's no such person. We--at least we Christians--also know that sight problems, hearing problems, insentivity to touch and smell and taste and feel issues, mental issues, laziness, and inhumanity are NOT the keys to the epidemic of atheism. The key to atheism is a heart issue. When a person looks at Creation, he or she should clearly see that there is a Creator. Then, upon investigating God's Word many of our more complicated questions are answered, as well as our simple ones. Then, upon maturing as a Christian and praying for wisdom and discernment, even MORE of our questions our answered. At that point, the Christian has learned [if it wasn't learned earlier] to trust in God for any of the remaining questions--rather than rely on one's own finite and fallen reasoning ability.
So why are people so determined to deny God's existence and His will for their lives? As I said, it is because of the heart. People have motives for denying God a place in their lives. They "love the darkness rather than the light." Though their bodies our not dead, the Bible says the unsaved souls are "spiritually dead" and must be raised again to new life by the Work of Christ. Therefore Christians must pray for a work to be done in their hearts by God, as the Bible tells us He can.

And I leave you with this:
Romans 1:20

~ Kingdom Advancer

Keeping Some Context

This is written as a Christian retort to an atheist who attempted to turn Scripture against itself to show that "nobody can get to heaven." Of course, this atheist doesn't believe in heaven. She's just saying that nobody could get there by Jesus' standards, anyway, because the bar is set so high. She lays it down as an eight-step, biblical process.

Step 1, according to her, is found in Luke 10:25-28:
And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?"
And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself?"
And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this and you will live."

Now, the atheist thinks this step is pretty simple. I do too. However, Jesus is not implying that we can earn our salvation here. No one has been able to keep this part of the Law. "All have sinned," (Romans 3:23) "There is none who is good," (Luke 18)...and the list goes on. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my Commandments." (John 14:15) This includes His command to repent, turn from your sins, accept Jesus as your Savior and Lord [a.k.a. the road to salvation.]

The "second step," Luke 18:18-22, is where her thought-processes get interesting:
A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
"You know the commandments. 'Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'"
And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth."
When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

The atheist came across with the false impression that Jesus is saying--in order to enter heaven--everyone must sell everything they own. This is what I say:
First of all, look at what the ruler said, "What must I do to be saved?" This teaches us two things about this encounter:
1.) Jesus' general advice could apply to everyone's salvation, but any particulars apply only to the individual.
2.) The man was showing his self-righteousness and self-reliance. He wanted to know what HE could do to be saved. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and THAT NOT OF OURSELVES, it is the gift of God." (Ephesians 2:8, emphasis added)

Jesus FIRST told the man to keep the Law; the man thought he had. But no one has kept all of the Law, all of the time. And if you break one part of the Law, you're guilty of all. (James 2:10) That's why Jesus questioned the man's assessment of good. The man likely had a misunderstanding of the Law, and Jesus also knew that He was breaking the First Commandment continously, by making a "god" out of his wealth. Note verse 23, which says that man was "very sad," because he was "very rich." He did not want to give up his money to be saved or in order to follow God. The Bible tells us that we "cannot serve God and wealth." (Luke 16:13)

Jesus was not saying that everyone has to sell all their belongings. He was pointing out that the man could do nothing himself to be saved for he had already violated the Law and was still violating the Law: He would need Jesus. If he sold all he had, it would be the equivalent of repenting--it would demonstrate that he had removed his god of money--but He would still need to follow Jesus.

That being said, Christians are merely "stewards" of God's wealth and should be using it for His will and glory.

Step 3, Luke 14:26-27, 33:
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

"So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions."

The atheist feels there's some hypocrisy here. How can you hate your parents and honor them? How you can hate everybody and love everybody? This is what I say:
Here another thing is taken out of context. "Hate" is used here in a statement of hyperbole. Jesus is making an extreme comparison. Jesus, again, is saying that God must be our priority--again referencing the First Commandment. Remember that many families would hinder a member from becoming and growing as a Christian, even to the point of execution sometimes. Jesus was saying that salvation is more important than family unity or safety.

The atheist also tossed in verse 33 as another example of giving up everything. But notice:
"who does not give up all his own possessions." We must not cling to our own possessions selfishly. We must be willing to offer them to God and keep our focus on God and spiritual things, for "What does is profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?" (Mark 8:36) We must "store our treasures in heaven," (Matthew 6:20), for "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:21)

Step 4, John 6:53-57:
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me."

First of all, I think when an atheist turns to the topic of communion, it shows that they really don't have a great argument. Anyways, the atheist thinks this is "grotesque" and "satanic." I say:
I'm sure we are all familiar with the woman at the well. The blood and body of Christ means no more in the literal sense than the "Living Water" which Jesus offered the Samaritan woman is actual water. It's spiritual and figurative. Jesus said about drinking and eating of Him: "Do this in remembrance of Me." (1 Corinthians 11:24) We must always remember Christ's sacrifice and act on that remembrance. We must always rely on Jesus's blood sacrifice and His sacrifice only to cover our sins. We must partake of His sacrifice--spiritually and figuratively. During the Last Supper, Jesus said about the bread and wine [and I paraphrase]: "This is my body; this is my blood." (1 Corinthians 11:23-25) So we don't have to be vampires: but we should keep this sacrament, in spirit, if not in deed.
Besides, no one, including the original disciples, could or did eat and drink Jesus' physicality. Therefore, even if the Gospel writers are thought of as conspirators, then it is implied that Christianity has an internal out-clause. Why would the Gospel writers make dis-proving Christianity so easy?

Step 5, Matthew 18:3-4:
He said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

The atheist thinks there's something strange with this. I don't see anything strange here. She says it doesn't have anything to do with humility, but I say:
1) Look at verse 5: "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." So it has nothing to do with actually becoming a child. It's about losing pride and humbly asking for forgiveness, for "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5) So yes, humility is a big part of salvation--becoming "like a child" is a big part of salvation. Humility is a natural precursor to salvation.
2) The atheist seems to think that being like a child means being gullible. I say:
It certainly does not mean gullibility. And I must say, anyone who believes in atheism, evolution, and the lack of a need to believe in absolutes, definitely does not have room to talk about gullibility.
3)This passage likely partially means dependence on God and in Jesus. Like a child would trust and depend on his parents, so are we to depend on and in God. This takes us right back to the rich man. One must "cling" to the Savior to be saved. One must "trust in," "believe in," "believe on," and "have faith in"--in other words, depend on-- Jesus Christ and God. because "without faith, it is impossible to please God"(Hebrews 11:6) [and therefore impossible to be saved].
See, the same theme runs through this passage.

Step 6, John 3:3-8:
Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
"Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everything who is born of the Spirit."

First things first. The atheist says that "Jesus is completely wrong here. We do know where the wind comes from and where it's going." Well, a couple things to note:
1.) Certainly people of those times didn't have knowledge of the currents.
2.) Secondly, we cannot track with complete accuracy the wind. Jesus was not necessarily talking about major currents; He might've been merely talking about the unpredictable breeze.

Then, the atheist shows how much she's like Nicodemus, by her saying, "What Jesus says here makes no sense." Well, as the saying goes, nothing makes sense to someone without the sense to make sense of it. Jesus said, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)

Here's an explanation:
If a man is to experience the grace of God and enter into everlasting life, he must experience a radical change of heart, which is like a new birth. He must become a new person.
...Jesus explained that the new birth is by water and the Spirit. He was referring to baptism in which the water is the symbol of the purification accomplished by the Spirit of God. The new birth is inward, not outward, and is a rebirth of the soul. This work is like the wind. It cannot be traced or charted, but the results of His presence are obvious and cannot be denied.
(Ministry of Christ By: Francis Breisch, Jr.) [emphasis added]

Step 7, Matthew 5:20:
"For I [Jesus] say unto you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

The atheist thinks that this means we really are expected to follow the 600+ laws that the Pharisees followed. But Jesus was actually saying two other things:
1.) First of all, the Pharisees had corrupted the Law. They had narrowed some parts and expanded others. They "tithed mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law," (Matthew 23:23) like the essence of murder and adultery, hate and lust. (Matthew 5:21ff)
2.) Jesus was once again showing us that--to enter heaven on our own merit--we'd have to be "perfect, as God is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) This is impossible--not even Christians can match up to this standard, for it would require total perfection--past, present, and future--not just future perfection. Therefore, we need Jesus' sacrifice, for there “ is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

Step 8, John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whosoever believeth in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

The atheist actually has nothing to say about this. Her point was proving it's not that simple according to Jesus. Here's her last few paragraphs:

If you are a normal, intelligent adult, then 3 things should now be obvious to you. The first thing is that John 3:16 is only one slice of an eight slice pizza. However, you have probably heard John 3:16 thousands of times and you never hear about the other seven slices. The other seven steps have just as much weight in the bible, but you never hear about them. Why is that? It's because when you look at the other seven steps, they make absolutely no sense.
Let's see, you have to love everyone and hate everyone. You have to be a little child and also be a pharisee adult following the 613 ridiculous laws. You have to eat flesh and drink blood and then there is the part about selling everything. Jesus actually mentions that part twice because it is so important. But let's be honest, you are not going to sell everything. NO ONE IS. This entire list is ridiculous.
That leads us to the second thing. It should be obvious to you that jesus had no idea what he was talking about. He was making all of this stuff up. If jesus were perfect, then everytime he talked about eternal life, he would have given the same answer. Any intelligent person can understand that. Instead, jesus's answers were all over the map. They all contradict each other and they are impossible to follow.
--Beepbeep

1. The "other seven slices" only seem to hold the same amount of weight in the Bible if you take the entire Bible out of context. They actually hold the same amount of weight WHEN TAKEN IN CONTEXT.
2. Although John 3:16 is over-quoted, no honest Christian will say it's as simple as one verse anyway.
3. Jesus made different points different ways and similar points different ways. So why would He speak like a broken record? Salvation is not altogether simplistic, and Jesus used several examples and analogies to help the people understand.
4. Did Jesus not know what He was talking about? I've already proven He was being perfectly consistent.
5. "That leads us to the third thing. It is time for us to state the truth. HEAVEN IS A FAIRYTALE. It is a fairytale just like Jack's beanstalk and santa's sleigh. Heaven is completely imaginary."--Beepbeep
And this is from the person who doesn't believe in absolutes. Plus, the fact that she can't possibly be certain--I know she's wrong--so she's speaking from her personal preference and opinion and beliefs.

Lastly, I realize I'll be accused of "interpreting" the Bible according "to what I want to believe," but that's false. In all factuality, what I'm doing is called "keeping things in context," or--in other words--doing the exact opposite of what this atheist is doing.

~Kingdom Advancing.

p.s. If anyone genuinely wants to know how to be saved by Jesus Christ from their sins, let me know and I'll do my best to help you out.

God, Lawyers, and Paperboys

To the Christian:

Do not be discouraged and do not be bitter if an atheist seems to defeat or humiliate you in an occasional debate. Know this: God does not need lawyers to defend Him. It is the atheist--as well as everyone else--who needs a courtroom advocate on Judgment Day. The only possible advocate for them is Jesus Christ.

We Christians are the paperboys for the "Good News--Bad News" newspaper. We beseech all to listen, read, and act. Those too puffed-up by their own assessment of their knowledge refuse to purchase the paper and act on the news. They will suffer for their LACK of knowledge.

I re-inforce: it is important to note that a victory for the atheist is an actual defeat, although it is also a defeat for the Christian. Every time one refuses to listen to the Christian, to the Bible, and to his/her own conscience, he/she is losing the battle for his/her own soul. What good is it in the end to win all the arguments from the point of view that God does not exist if He DOES EXIST?!? "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet loses his own soul?" (Mark 8:36)

However, I should note that the Christian still should desire to win a debate, for the following three reasons:

1. To increase the confidence, strength, and faith of fellow Christians.
2. To convert others to Christ.
3. To cleanse one's own hands of the wicked's blood by fulfilling our duties to God.

But my message stays such as this: Christians cannot be ultimately defeated, for God cannot be defeated.

~Kingdom Advancer

A Question on Cloning

The poll is not functional right now, so vote here by commenting on this blog until I can get the poll up and running.

Supposing a human was successfully cloned, would the clone have an eternal soul and be made in God's image?

• Yes: the clone would share all the attributes that all humans share.
• No: the clone would have no soul.
• Yes, I think so, but I'm not sure.
• No, I don't think so, but I'm not sure.
• I have no idea.
• Whether or not is un-important, because they will never successfully clone a human.
• I don't believe that ANY humans have souls or God's image.

~ Kingdom Advancer

P.S. Thanks for understanding that the "official" poll is not working.

Defending a Creator, Part 4

This post consists of my replies to all of the quoted comments. Of course, another reply was made to this reply, but I haven't answered those arguments, if I will, since this debate seems to be beginning a circular cycle.

I don't have much time, so let me see if I can go through all your statements once more.

"Well, no you didn't as you assumed a beginning. It is also a possibility that the universe, in some form or another, has always existed. I don't know if it has or not, and neither do you."--Beepbeep

By trying to play everything to your advantage, you come out with the disadvantage. Once you say that if the universe had to have a beginning, then so would God. Then you say that the universe--"in some form or another"--might always have existed, implying that much of the universe had a beginning, but the universe itself might not have needed one. You can't play both sides of the argument at the same time.
And by the way, whether "I know" or not is both irrelevant (since you wouldn't believe my proof), and not your place to say.

"I have evidence that you DO have a preconceived belief in a creator, as per your post - " My beliefs do define me. I'm not afraid to say it. Your beliefs don't define you. I know that."--Beepbeep

This suggests that I took my beliefs on a whim. That's not true. My beliefs have grown stronger and stronger over the years, not because I force them to, but because--as I've stated previously--I grow in my relationship with God, my knowledge of the world, the Word, and the way things work, and through my experience, my beliefs are verified. God proves Himself to me every day...not in a way sufficient for you, but that's because your life is predicated on proving He doesn't exist so that you can live your life exactly as you want to.
Yet, I want to re-inforce, my "preconceived belief" is not some blind and deaf belief. Yours is more than mine, for I imagine your worst nightmares have something to do with having no choice but to believe in a Creator, and therefore, you'd do anything to deny His existence. My belief is based on knowledge--which has been built through experience, relationship, and faith. So, in other words, saying I have "preconceived beliefs in God" is like saying that you have "preconceived beliefs that you are a human."

"Well, I agree that points 6-12 are not logical. Now show me that all christians do not think they are logical. Sorry, but you can only speak for yourself, not for all christians; in the same way that I can only speak for myself and not all atheists." --Beepbeep

Consider your points consist of saying that people "imagined their must be an intelligent designer," and then "decided they would call him 'god,'" and then "came to the decision that humans must be made in His image, rather than the more obvious answer,bla,bla,bla."
I don't think you'd have many Christians saying they agree with that. I can't speak for all Christians, but com'on.

"I don't know if any gods exist and neither do you. The difference is that you BELIEVE they exist and I don't."--Beepbeep

First of all, I don't believe in godS! I believe in the One True God.
Secondly, you brought up the "and neither do you" argument again. Well, it sounds as if you KNOW that NOONE CAN KNOW if God or gods exist. With your stubborness and your self-assumed but not appropriate authority of telling me what I do and do not know, I'm afraid I'm left only with "We'll see." The difference is, I know what we'll see. You don't.

"Also, you seem determined to suggest that if there is an unknown, it proves the existence of a god."--Beepbeep

Actually, I've said more than once that disproving other theories does not prove God for sure, but is part of THE LOGICAL INDUCTIVE METHOD. It's a step forward. (Why are you making me sound like a broken record?)
The reason that I debate this way, and the difference in our views, is that I have [at least one] leg to stand on. I've shown that you have none.

"Your reasoning ability is obviously insufficient as I still don't believe in the existence of any of the gods, including yours."--Beepbeep

I'd like to thank you for calling the One True God "mine." That is one of the nicest things someone can say to me. Perhaps I am [or can be] a "man after God's own heart," like David.
More directly related to your comment, however. It has nothing to do with my reasoning ability. I pointed out that it has everything to do with man's fallen, sinful, finite reasoning ability. That's all of our reasoning abilities, including yours. However, Christians have the truth and the "truth has set them free."

The following is on everything you said about origins and god-belief:

I already pointed out that the reason there are so many gods is not because all religions tried to explain their origins the same--through an intelligent designer. I explained that the reason there are so many gods is because those who hate god must try to explain why they're here by creating a god of their own. You've actually taken the next logical step for unbelievers, to deny the existence of any god, so that you can sin to your heart's desirous extent.

"This is your belief speaking. In the same way that thousands of other peoples and cultures claim that THEIR god that they believe in, did it also."--Beepbeep

This doesn't make all beliefs wrong, any more than thousands of people on the streets are all the same. Because I believe something to be true, does that make my beliefs equal to all other belief-systems because everyone believes their beliefs to be true? No.

"I am sure many of them think the same thing about your god. Because every believer, having picked a god, believes that they have the picked the right one."--Beepbeep

And it's a sad state of affairs that I must ultimately pray about, for I can't do it all myself--in fact, I can do nothing apart from God, although "I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me." (Philippian 4:13)
Before you start analyzing others beliefs, though, notice that you've made a god out of your own fallen mind, which, as your "god," is telling you that NO OTHER GOD EXISTS.

"Whether I accept evolution or not has nothing to do with the topic. You only want to bring evolution into the topic of discussion because you cannot prove the existence of your god."--Beepbeep

You only want to keep it out of the discussion because you CAN'T PROVE EVOLUTION.
Whether you accept my and others' proofs has nothing to do with whether God is provable. Someone can refuse to believe airplanes exist, if they want, no matter what you say.

"I just don't believe in one more god than you." --Beepbeep

I believe in the only beneficial One to believe in. Plus, you can believe in thousands of other gods. But, if you don't believe in the One True God, all your other beliefs won't help you at all.

"You keep harkening back to this "chance process" as if somehow this will lend credibility to belief in a god. Once again, you have failed to realise that you claim that a god exists. Prove the existence of said god without trying to use another argument as your foil."--Beepbeep

If we had to be designed, then we couldn't have come about by chance. Chance can't design us, and chance can't follow through with our design. Therefore, someone[or something--if you must] must have designed us. You'll probably say again that I'm committing "logical fallacies," but that's a broken and false record, so save your keyboard.

"Once again, it is YOUR claim that I believe nothing. Have I expressed such a thing? No.""Well, I didn't say I believe in "more than nothing" either. I am beginning to think you might have a comprehension problem. "--Beepbeep

Who's got the comprehension problem again? Read your statements twice through, and then you can take your foot out of your mouth. So you don't believe nothing, but you don't believe more than nothing, either? What? Do you believe "less" than nothing?

"Firstly, well, giving god a chance to me means to have faith in the existence of something. I am not prepared to do that. You are.
Not only that, you claim that your faith in something is evidence of the existence of said something. Not my cup of illogic at all."--Beepbeep

Giving God a chance means not approaching everything with the sole purpose of denying the existence of God and the inerrancy of the Bible. That is all.
I did not say that faith is proof of truth; I said that faith in the One True God comes from Divine knowledge of the truth.

" Of course I read it critically. "Cynically" is the descriptor you use, not me. I read all books critically. If I didn't read books critically and with a degree of skepticism, I might be praying to Papa Smurf."--Beepbeep

Describing the way you read things autobiographically does not make your self-analysis accurate. You go into the Bible saying "It's not true. It's not true. It's not true. I refuse to believe it's true. I'll read only commentaries that tell me it's not true. These are the words of men." (And then you repeat these things like a mantra.)

"So, only people who read the bible with a "seeking heart" are ones who will believe it. That is probably true. Those who want to believe it, will believe it regardless of what it says or doesn't say."--Beepbeep

That's not what I meant. You don't read the Bible SEEKING TRUTH. You don't even accept the possibility of the Bible being true. Even when you take the time to read the Bible, you are reading it not to seek possible truth, but to prove the Bible truthless. That is what I meant when I said you need a seeking heart.

"Faith IS blind. So to talk about "blind faith" is redundant. "--Beepbeep

My faith is not blind. If you're saying my beliefs are firm and unwavering, I'm complimented. But my faith is the "assurance of things hoped for," as the Bible says. In other words, I don't have blind hope--I have assurance of my hopes.
Your "faith"--in atheism--is more blind than mine. For you have a lot at stake in your belief: your freedom to sin; your right to your life to do with what you please; your right to your pride and self-sufficiency. Therefore, you will not accept the idea of God because you have so much of your own pleasure riding on your atheism.

These comments are about your comments about theocracy and the secular state:

You're not going to make this about governmental structure, now, are you? Although religion can't be completely separated from politics, I'm not making the case for a theocracy; I'm making the case for conversions. Christianity is not about making a nation a theocracy; it's about making a nation's worth of individuals believers.

I'm not imposing my belief on you with guns or governmental infractions (as some religions do). If you think I am "imposing" my beliefs on others, than you are too sensitive.

"A secular state supports people's right to a religious belief and also their right to no religious belief."--Beepbeep

Have you forgotten the genocides of "secular states" like Communist Russia and the current persecution by "secular states" like Communist China against Christians? I'll admit that a Christian attempt (although it's mostly been Catholic in the past) to spread the faith through violence is wrong--how can you convert someone who you killed? But, you must also admit that "secular states" aren't always so big into the idea of religious freedom.
And, by the way, you can't consider America as an entirely secular state.

"There is always the odd whacko out there that denies the preponderous amount of scientific evidence to the contrary."--Beepbeep

I'll take that as you referring to Evolutionists who cling tightly to the Theory of Evolution, denying "the preponderous amount of scientific evidence to the contrary."

"Religion is evolves or is almost self correcting as well, which is why people don't stone homosexuals to death very often anymore, or burn women at the stake for being witches." --Beepbeep

Yet, Muslims do these types of things incessantly. And there are many other Christian-haters who persecute Christians.
The reason that people are not often hanged or burned for their sins is not because religion has evolved, but because Christianity is less often executed with "zeal without knowledge," as the Bible says. Such acts damage the Faith, and doom forever those guilty of the sins for which they were punished. Christians' job is to save sinners, not eliminate them--unless if "eliminating them" means by washing them in the blood of Christ. Jesus' words to the women caught in adultery--saving her from execution but telling her to "Go and sin no more," should be the Christian's example.
Of course, our society HAS "evolved" and that also causes some of the change.

"I know you have no proof."--Beepbeep

I know you know that you will refuse any evidence I have and would put forth, for you hate God and therefore the very existence of Him. Don't worry, though. Others have this same feeling before getting saved. So don't think there is not hope for you!

"I am using my right, if you make your beliefs public, to question any beliefs that you did not keep private." --Beepbeep

As the Bible says, I am not to hide my "lamp" under a basket. I'm to put it out in the open. The Bible calls for Christians to be "cities on a hill" and "the salt of the earth." I do not despise you asking questions. Especially since the Bible tells me that the wicked will be punished, but if the righteous don't warn them, then their blood will also be on the hands of the righteous. This is my warning to you, and I'm happy to do it: for my sake, for God's sake, and for your sake.

The following comments are about you talking about my "emotional needs":

1.) You can't even explain emotions, although you try to explain away the spirit and soul in terms of emotions. So I find it funny that you would even refer to such a thing.

2.) I'll admit that people do create gods to fill their needs. Not usually emotional, however. The essence of the 2nd Commandment is that people create gods to suit themselves. "My god wouldn't send anybody to hell." Well, of course your god wouldn't, because your god doesn't exist. He's a figment of your imagination.
I could go on with many other mentally created gods, but they generally have the same thing in common: their "gods" want them to be happy; therefore, they can do whatever vulgar, grotesque, sinful, lustful, selfish things they want to, cause "their god" allows it. You take it to the next logical level with your beliefs: you believe in no god, meaning you have absolutely no rules forced on you.

3.) But my question is, why do you think I'd pick the God of the Bible? The One True God certainly does not cater to all my fleshly desires. Quite the opposite. He does not cater to my selfish desires. Quite the opposite again: I have to give up my life to Him. He does not cater to my self-sufficiency: I must depend entirely on Him. He doesn't even cater to all my immediate emotional needs: for sometimes I don't always get the answers immediately.
I believe in God and the Bible because I've seen my need for a Savior, I've seen the certainty of a Creator, I've seen the inerrancy of the Bible, and I've seen the work that God has done in mine and others' lives.

You can see your need for a Savior, too, Beepbeep. If you would listen to your conscience, which you've probably been denying, ignoring, and scarring for many years, you'd realize that you've transgressed God's Holy Law. You've most likely lied (false witness), lusted (the essence of adultery), stolen, coveted(desired to steal), hated (the essence of murder), put other gods or things before god (I know you've done that, and that's the essence of the First and Second Commandments), taken God's name in vain, violated the Sabbath, and more, at least once each.
Now, you've said that you don't believe in evil, but your heart knows evil exists--your conscience knows it. When you transgress the Law, you know you are doing it. You are doing it with your conscience ("con" means "with" and "science" means knowledge: "with knowledge.")
My comments have not been to insult or polarize, but to shine the light of the Gospel in your eyes. I can only pray now that God will do a work in your heart.

~ Kingdom Advancer