God and Desperate, Pregnant Women

Recently, I had a substantial debate on the topic of abortion with three pro-abortionists and fellow Christian, pro-life blogger Detective J. Hopefully, I will be able to post some of the content of that debate on Kingdom Advancing in the future. Today, however, I want to address a very small segment of the discussion.

At the conclusion, Detective J made known his belief in Jesus (my name makes my belief in Christ rather obvious). One of the pro-choicers replied with this:

I want you to know that I believe in G-d, too — only I believe that G-d aches for desperate women at least as much as for potential [unborn] children...

Now, I don't know why she dashed out the O's in her references to God, but that's beside the point. One could make the observation that this is a great example of a "figment-of-your-imagination"-god, a violation of the Second Commandment. But, that's not how I have decided to address the issue. This is my reply (I posted a link at the original site of the debate, but nowhere else, because I don't think that the antagonists in the debate would be interested anyway):

Of course God cares about desperate women. But turning to abortion only grieves Him more. God hates "...hands that shed innocent blood." (Proverbs 6:17) He would prefer these "hands that cause sin" (abortion, in this case) to be "cut off" (banned). (Mark 9:43) Women should not look for some kind of "salvation" or "savior" through abortion. For "...there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me." (John 14:6) "Choice" is not the way; Planned Parenthood is not the truth; abortion does not bring life. Jesus says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28) He does not say, "Go to Planned Parenthood..." God does not want women to try to solve their 'problems'--real, imagined, or distorted--on their own or apart from Him in any way. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight." (Proverbs 3:5-6) For "...you cannot make..." even "...one hair..." on your head "...white or black..." (Matthew 5:36) So, trusting God, Jesus says, "Do not worry then... for your Heavenly Father [knows your needs]." (Matthew 6:31-32)

Can Jesus sympathize with desperate women and their temptations, trials, and weaknesses, even the temptation to have an abortion? The Bible says that He can. "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15) Jesus takes it a step further: "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried... He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed... the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him... He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due... My Servant will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53:4-6, 8, 11; emphasis mine)

Does God care about desperate women? As I said at the beginning: of course! "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father... So do not fear; you are more valuablel than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:29-31) Cast "...all your anxiety on Him, for He cares for you." (1 Peter 5:7) Christians are called to love "...not...with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth." (1 John 3:18) We, as Christians, should be willing to do whatever we can to make the decision as easy as possible for pregnant women.

But the Bible also tells us that women--and men, for that matter--have bigger problems than unwanted pregnancies. "For what is man profited if He gains the whole world, and loses himself [his own soul]?" (Luke 9:25) "For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23) and "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god." (Romans 3:23) Only the shedding of One--and only One's blood can rectify the dire situation. (Hebrews 10) Then, we are not to continue to sin. We are not to compound one sin (immorality) with another (abortion). "Are we to continue to sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!" (Romans 6:1-2)

Women, considering abortion based on desperateness, convenience, or a sense of entitlement, need to remember the story of the man, who, after being released from a great debt, then went to demand repayment for a much lesser debt owed him.

"For this reason the kingdom heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents [a talent was worth more than fifteen years' wages of a laborers; in other words, 150,000 years worth of labor] was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything [note: impossible].' And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii [a denarius was a day's wages; in other words, if you go by our current 365 days-each-year structure, the slave owed to the king 547,500 times as much as the other slave owed him]; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.' So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.' But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy with you?' And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed to him [note: never]. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart." (Matthew 19:23-35)

Are children--are fetuses--indebted to their mothers? Of course! They effect their moms' health, appearance, social life, finances, free time [is there any?], and the list goes on... But how much more do mothers and mothers-to-be--how much more do us all--owe to God? How great has His mercy and grace--even His common grace to believers and unbelievers alike--been? How widespread His forgiveness? How much are we counting on it in the future? How much did all our lives hang in the balance when our moms made the life-and-death decisions when we were in our earliest days of existence?

"Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them." (Mark 10:14) Permit them to LIVE! Get right with God (for without that, none of the reasoning in this article will persuade you), stand up, and say, "I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens Me." (Philippians 4:13)

~Kingdom Advancer

Plans

We must protect this flag, and the people and country it represents!!!

Two posts on politics in a row? Why not, especially since it's election time? Now, as I sort of implied in my last post, I don't want politics to be too spiritually polarizing. But, quite frankly, I think the divide between conservatives and liberals (and subsequently, Republicans and Democrats) is so stark that is has long ago become an issue of spirituality. Christian values versus non-Christian values, etc.. Therefore, I post this without qualms. By the way, I hope you voted. And if you haven't yet, I hope you have time to read this...and then vote.

First, as a precursor, I want to note that this post is actually a comment I made on another blog (sound familiar?). Go there by clicking here. Really, this is in reply to one anonymous, whose two quotes I will post first:

Ha. What's the President's plan? can he articulate it? I haven't heard him do anything other than bash Democrats....but its HIS war, what's HIS plan?

(several comments later)

How? how is he going to "finish the job" - when do we know its "finished" and again, i reiterate, "what is his plan?" Many members of Congress that authorized it are now calling for a change in policy and a change in leadership. So, what's the plan?

~ Anonymous

And now my turn:

Bush's plan, to put it simply: Protect America.

Democrats' plan: I can't really be sure.

Bush's plan: Use aggressive interrogation techniques on terrorist detainees in order to attain important information to protect Americans.

Democrats' plan: Go easy on detainees. As (I think) Bill O'Reilly says, "Democrats want to try to get information out of terrorists by giving them milk and cookies."

Bush's plan: Secure the border, by putting up a fence as well as other things.

Democrats' plan: [whistle of the wind]--perhaps amnesty and/or open borders?

Bush's plan: Surveil terrorist communications and monetary transactions.

Democrats' plan: Give terrorists and those in contact with them their "rights to privacy." Essentially, their rights to privately plot to slaughter Americans.

Bush's plan: Defeat worldwide terrorism on the terms, "If you're a terrorist--you're against us. If you harbor terrorists--you're against us."

Democrats' plan: Negotiate with terrorists. Try to appease them.

Bush's plan: Protect this country and defeat its enemies at all costs (no matter what others say).

Democrats' plan: Go through the U.N. at all costs (e.g., no matter how many resolutions are violated).

Bush's plan: Finish the job in Iraq. He realizes leaving the job unfinished would be disastrous. He also has said that the military constantly adapts. That's the plan. That's the good kind of "change" the American people should want.

Some Democrats' plan: Cut and run. (Big mistake)

Other Democrats' plan: Divide the country. (Also probably a big mistake.)

Almost all Democrats' vague plan: "CHANGE!" (Easy to say. Harder to do.)

I have to vent a little bit about that last line. Democrats criticize Bush for campaigning on "stay the course," but the Democrats could be criticized even more for their "the people want change" line. On a cold day, if cool water is the hottest you can get in the shower, do you turn the knob to ice cold for "the sake of change"? I don't think so. In the same way, although I don't see Republicans as "cool water," for those who do, I ask: why would that make you vote for Democrats [the "ice-cold" water]? If you don't like your leaky roof, why do you then decide to go out and sit in the mud and rain? That's how I see voting for Democrats for the sake of not liking how Republicans are handling Iraq.

Here's a jewel quote from an ordinary, Democrat voter (I'll leave out specific candidates names): "I really don't want to vote for [Republican candidate]. But I CAN'T vote for [Democratic candidate]--he's an idiot!"

Now, I'm not calling all Democrats idiots by association, but I do love that quote.

However, I want to remind everyone (although this may be too late, anyway) that not voting is NOT the answer. You should pick the lesser of two evils, so to speak, because if you abstain from voting, you essentially are choosing the GREATER of the two evils.

Also, I could go on about how Bush and conservatives protect Americans and the Democrats don't. For instance, Bush tries to protect the most innocent and vulnerable of humans--the unborn. Most democrats do not. Bush tries to protect the sanctity of a productive and culturally healthy institution--marriage. Many (perhaps most) Democrats don't. The list goes on into embryonic stem cell research, cloning, etc.,etc.

Clearly, someone who says Bush doesn't have a plan really means, "I don't like Bush and conservatives' and Republicans' plan."

~ 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.

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

Intelligent Design and Omniscience Part Four

Beepbeep replied to Part Three, saying that he does not support teaching any type of God-design in schools because it's un-scientific. He said some other things as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. Here's what I wrote, as my final say for the time being on the topic.

First of all, I do not claim that "god-belief" is scientific, but I do believe that explaining the probability of an Intelligent Designer is. "Evolution" is just as un-scientific as "god-belief," if not more. Having a god is not a required element of a religion. Atheists generally fall into the category of "secular humanists." This is a religion. It is a religion that makes man and his ability to reason the "god" of their religion. Evolution is the main way to "explain their origins," as you would say theists--and all other religions--explain their origins. Therefore, if teaching the potential and probability of an Intelligent Designer is not allowed in a classroom, than secular humanists/evolutionists/atheists are themselves trying to establish a religion, the religion of secular atheistic humanism--violating the separation of church and state.

This goes without mentioning the often fraudulent "proof" put forward for Evolution, as well as the fact that it is often taught AS FACT, which is more than un-scientific: it's a malicious and straight-out lie.

Lastly, as an Australian, I would not expect you to understand the meaning of America's separation of church and state, for the vast majority of Americans do not. That wording does not even appear in the Constitution. The Constitution says that the government "shall not establish a religion." This was to assure citizens that the government would not interfere with their freedom of religion--not vice versa. The term "separation of church and state" appeared first in a letter by Thomas Jefferson TO BAPTISTS, assuring them that the government would not establish CONGREGATIONALISM as the state church, like Anglicanism was in England.

Yet, now, in every public arena almost, it seems that secular humanism--or, if not that, than universalism--is established as the state religion. The Intelligent Design Movement is not asking to be the only science taught in schools. It wants to be taught alongside Evolution as an alternate. Why won't evolutionists accept this? Because they want to keep their monopoly on child-brainwashing.

Lastly, since you still won't --and obviously will never-- get my logical explanation of Intelligent Designer, I will say no more on it now.


p.s. [not in original comment] What this atheist doesn't seem to get is that the term "intelligent" is not a slap in the face of God's omniscience, but rather, it is a slap in the face of Evolution.

~Kingdom Advancer

Intelligent Design and Omniscience Part Three

This was written in response to someone who wrote in defense of Beepbeep's point of view. Her comment was very long--but more importantly, very wordy, and said nothing of substance except swinging the same theory around in circles, over and over and over again. I replied with this:

So it's same to assume, then, that if I call my Congressman, I can say that I have at least two atheists willing to support teaching "Omniscient Design" in schools? No? That's what I thought. You all are playing with words. You can call God any of the following:
Omniscient Designer
Ultimately Smart Designer
Ingenious to the Maximum Designer
So Intellectual He Knows Everything Designer
Intelligent Designer--meaning that someone Who possesses knowledge--ALL knowledge in God's case--designed the universe, as opposed to someone or something who DOESN'T possess knowledge.

As you've ignored twice, I've been saying that this term is not in the Bible. You used my statement "it's implied" to say that it's basically in the Bible. That's not what I meant. What I meant was just that which I said above.

You refer to God "not having the capacity to acquire knowledge" as if He does not have the power. As if, if somehow new facts entered into existence, God, as omniscient, wouldn't have "the capacity" to learn them. That's not how God does not have the capacity of learning. He does not have the "capacity to learn" because He has no need to. That doesn't make him un-intelligent [or not omniscient]. That's like saying that a brain surgeon (and expert) is unintelligent because he has no need to study brain surgery books, because "he doesn't have the capacity to learn anything new."

I trust that most people are INTELLIGENT enough to see through your all's "word dancing."

~ Kingdom Advancer

Judeo-Christianity's and Saivism's Views of God

Read the "P.S." on Defending a Creator, Part 3 before reading this.

Sorry KA, I should have said "oldest documented". Their writings and inscriptions are older, that's all. Unfortunatley though, that's the only tangible historical evidence we can bring to bear on the whole question, so perhaps the question should be "which God learnt to write first?" That another god might have beaten Yahweh to it would imply that He doesn't know everything though, so it's probably not the right question... --Ted

Okay, I think I can see what you're saying, and I think I can explain it. Adam didn't write Genesis. Abraham didn't write Genesis. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. If the pagan--not Jewish--religion of Saivism originated before God inspired Moses to write the history of the earth, I can see how it would be documented as older.

However, I wouldn't say that it is a "which God learned to write first" issue. This assumes that all gods are equal. This assumes that person number one is worshipping a real god, and person number two is worshipping a completely different, but equally real god.
The Bible says differently. The God of the Bible refers to Himself and is referred to as the "One True God," with all other gods being called "false gods." Some times these gods are demons, but oftentimes the worship and prayers to these gods fall on deaf ears--dead ears. False gods can almost always accredit their creation much to the efforts of pagans to turn their back on the real God.

~ Kingdom Advancer

Defending a Creator, Part 3

This is the continuation of a debate that I've had with an atheist about whether people create the idea of an intelligent designer in their own minds.

Let me get this straight, then: you wanted the argument to be between theses two choices:
1) God is not true.
2) God is false.

Oh, wait, you wanted the discussion to be an open-minded "God is true or false."

By saying this is not an issue about evolution, or about any other belief alternate from the intelligent designer, is to say that you--as a professed atheist and evolutionist--want to be able to attack without the fear of counter-attack. To advance without fear of having to retreat. To strike with the sword with no need for a shield.

Much of the proof for a Creator comes from the evidence that such theories as Evolution (and others, I guess, although this is the main one) are simply inexplicable. You cannot take this out of any argument. What? Do you expect to disarm believers and THEN debate them?

Actually, however, you prove my point. You're not claiming to be pro-any-theory in this debate. Therefore, if you refuse to espouse a theory here, you have virtually no place from which to knock down a legitimate theory. You may not think it legitimate, but it is, especially in comparison to an "I'm not claiming anything"-view. This confirms my statements:
"...you don't have a satisfactory replacement theory..."
"You reject the parachute but you jump anyway...You reject the boat but you try to swim the sea--when you can't swim."

You say: "And I do not claim, and neither does any scientist I know claim, that we came from nothing. You seem to be stuck in a very limiting either/or mentality. No wonder you create so many false dichotomies and make so many logical fallacies.
In fact, that god comes from nothing is the usual claim from theists."

Here we go again: "I don't claim-I don't claim-NOBODY ELSE CLAIMS."
First of all, anybody who claims the Big Bang believes that an explosion made everything happen. That explosion came from certain chemical elements. Are you calling that the "something not nothing"? Well, where exactly did the original elements come from?
I'm not saying you espouse the Big Bang, although it's an American freedom to speculate. But surely you know some scientists who endorse it!

The second part of your statement utilizes circular reasoning. "Theists say that God came from nothing." You don't seem to like that. But then, you yourself, are claiming that everything must come from something--that God must have come from something, or somebody. Yet Evolution (nor any other atheistic theory, by the way) cannot satisfactorily explain "what something" everything came from. In fact, ultimately Evolution says everything came from nothing. The "forever universe" theory, as I call it, which theorizes that the universe has always existed, has been proved both scientifically impossible and still doesn't answer the question of origins.

You say: "Secondly, I don't claim that we came from a process of chance. Though I would like an extremely precise explanation of what you mean by "chance" in this context."

The process of "chance" to which I am referring is that no one was behind it. No Creator--no designer--no maker. Atheists believe this because they believe that no god, or greater being, created them. Unless, of course, they believe in aliens who created them (but what, then, are the aliens origins?). So, then, if atheists espouse any theory at all, they generally regard Evolution as numero uno, which of course, is a process with no design or direction, but, of course, chance.

You say: "Firstly, that we as humans consider things complex is not evidence of any god. It is evidence of our ability to consider things to be complex. It takes an illogical leap of faith to presume a god. It is an example of a hasty generalization, also known as fallacy of insufficient statistics or the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence."

When you start talking about human beings' conception of complexity, you outsmart yourself. I believe it was C.S. Lewis who once said, "If we had no purpose, we never would have been able to discover that we have no purpose."
[You can't say that our view of complexity isn't necessarily complex and our view of simplicity isn't necessarily simple. If you claim this, then you might as well stop blogging completely: for you have nothing beneficial to add to conversations. If you don't believe in absolutes (which I'm not saying you don't, but such a statement sounds like it), then you can't try to prove anything to be absolutely false, absolutely ridiculous, or absolutely illogical. What's this "false"? What's this "ridiculous"? What's this "illogical"? When you start down the rabbit trail of "but the way we see complexity..." is a trail that will leave you as a lost hound dog.]* Deciding there is a Creator is not a hasty, generalistic, giant leap of faith. I've shown you the logic before. And complexity must be seen as complexity, not as our ability to perceive complexity, as I've pointed out in this paragraph.

You say: "...preconceived belief..." "If you assume an intelligent designer is the answer, you haven't asked a neutral question.'

I haven't assumed anything. I asked the neutral question, "Where did we come from?" [not "Who created us?"] and I came to an intelligent designer as the logical answer. This is how most Christians come to the faith...by THINKING. Don't accuse me of preconceived ideas or notions. The door swings both ways, you know.


Your claim of insufficient information is based on what you require to believe. You refuse to believe my (or anybody else pro-Creator's) logical arguments, and therefore you consider there to be insufficient information. However, the only sufficient information for people like you would probably be to see God Himself. Therefore, you would die not believing anything rather than believe in God...then you'd get to see God...then it'd be too late.

In summary: you "demonstrated" how my argument is illogical; I demonstrated how you're wrong; and you are left with only that you've "already demonstrated" that I'm wrong.

P.S.
"Actually, Saivism is the oldest religion on earth and Siva, the Compassionate is in fact the oldest god concept. Aruguing for credibility on the premise of age just doesn't work with the Judaic god." --ted

Before I could give a whole answer, I'd have to research Saivism more. However, the Judeo-Christian view has literally been around since Adam, and then established itself firmly in Abraham. If you reject these theories off-hand, then you are claiming divine knowledge yourself.

*These lines were left out of the original comment on the basis that I think I misunderstood what my opponent's meaning was. However, it's a good paragraph for other situations anyway.

~ Kingdom Advancer

Defending a Creator, Comments 1 & 2

The latest spawn of Beepbeep's imagination: that human beings created an intelligent designer in their minds. This isn't new, of course. That's what atheists have always said: that God is a crutch for the finite minds of humans. So, I shouldn't be surprised. However, the argument goes both ways (atheists actually created the idea that there is no God), and the accusation truly is an insulting, not just to an advocate of Creation, but to any self-respecting human-being. Go to his site, read the argument, and then come back here to read mine.

I didn't have dessert after my last meal, so I'm looking forward to that cookie.

Your argument falls apart on at least five levels.

1.) Look at the nearest building and/or entire city. How do you know there was a builder? Wait, answer the question. Look at the building: how do you know there was a builder? The building is proof that there was a builder.
Now, look at the nearest painting (and try to avoid abstracts. ;)). How do you know there was a painter? Because of the painting.
Examine the computer you are using. Would you dare to risk admission into a mental hospital by claiming that no one made the computer--but it just appeared, over a course of millions of years (of course)? The same goes for your car: perhaps the engine, windows, steering wheel, brakes, tires, brake fluid, axle, frame, body, seats, pedals, radio, muffler, exhaust pipe, spark plugs, windshield wipers, air conditioning, heating, radio speakers, 6-CD changer, and everything else just jumbled together (possibly from an explosion) and created a perfect car? If you believe this, you better also believe that your reputation is going down the drain.
The Swiss watch is a good example. If you took all of the pieces--separately--of a Swiss watch, put them in a plastic bag, and shook them continuously (created a "Big Bang"), how many millennia do you think it would take to get a functioning Swiss watch? Actually, we don't measure those amounts of time in millennia. We call it "infinity" or "eternity."

The fact is: THE CREATION IS PROOF THAT THERE IS A CREATOR. (Romans 1:20) Creation is far, far, far, far, far, far more complex than anything that man creates--especially given the fact that the Creator created from nothing, unlike men, who create with materials FROM the Creator.

THAT is the logical, rational, reasonable way to look at this universe, not the evolutionary, atheistic way.

2.) The second place where your argument falls apart is closely related to the first.

"12. Some human beings even go on to claim that the being created humans in its image instead of the more obvious, where human beings, being intelligent, but not omniscient, created the concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god." --Beepbeepitsme

This is as foolish as saying that the builder is made in the image of the building; the painter in the image of the painting; the carmaker in the image of the car; and the computer-engineer in the image of the computer. RIDICULOUS!

3.) The third way in which your argument crumbles is that all religions do not--as you say-- create a designer in humans' image and decide to worship it as a god. Not all religions do this: in fact, most religions don't. The Indians is just one group of people who worshipped the planets. Hindus worship animals, believe in reincarnation, and eventually becoming a part of the nothing-ness of the universe. Buddhists desire to become part of the "Great Force." Muslims do not believe in a personal god. Satanists worship Satan as a god, despite the fact that even they don't think he created the universe. Deists believe--like the Muslims--in an impersonal god. Agnostics don't know if there's a god, and wouldn't know what He's like if there was One. Others worship nature as a whole. Some cults worship demons. Atheists--whether they be Communists, socialists, Fascists, or liberals--often worship the leaders of their causes.

So you see, your argument is accurate to only a certain percentage of people: oh, yes, Christians. How conspicuous.

4.) The fourth place you go wrong is in assuming that there is no chance whatsoever that God actually DID create man in His own image, actually DID reveal this to man, and actually DID inspire the writing of the Bible. This is a big--and inappropriate--assumption. I guess you don't even make any claims to open-mindedness (although, of course, I really appreciate you printing my comments).
The fact is, the Judeo-Christian view of God has existed for six thousand years or more--the longest thriving view of God out there. If any view was credible on God, it would be this one. In fact, in those days it could probably be said that the existence of God was a given, especially to the Jews, since He talked to them, punished them, rewarded them, rescued them, and instructed them.

5.) The fifth and final place in which you even lack authority on this topic is that you don't have a satisfactory replacement theory. The Theory of Evolution is so full of holes. The fact that any educated person believes in it is virtually incomprehensible, unless you explain it with the Bible, that says that men love the darkness rather than the light.

You reject the parachute but you jump anyway. You reject the vest and get shot through the heart. You reject the shield and get sliced and stabbed. You reject the boat but try to swim the sea--when you can't swim.

If you had a good alternate, that would be one thing. But, of course, you couldn't have a good argument, because the "Case for the Creator" (you should read that) is the CASE FOR THE TRUTH. (Genesis 1:1; Romans 1:20; 2 Timothy 3:16,17)

COMMENT NUMBER TWO:

"I have not made a claim for evolution, nor have I made a claim for big bang, multi-verses, string theory or anything else." -Beepbeepitsme

Your website has something that says: "Evolution is FACT. God is just a theory."

You have a recent article that says "Fossil Find is Missing Link in Human Evolution."

You claim to be an atheist.

You have atheistic, evolutionist quotes and resources on your site.
Please, I don't have to see your claim to evolution on this particular post, do I? If I have a straw man, than you made it.

"Because we were all created, therefore there is a creator. That is the first major mistake in the argument and why thousands of gods have been created by numerous societies.
"Instead of the hackneyed, loaded religious question of "Who created us" which presumes a creator, I prefer, as do many other people of reason, a neutral question."--Beepbeepitsme

That neutral question could be, "Where did we come from?" Is that neutral enough? Well, we can tell with our intelligence that we—and everything else in this complex universe--did not come about from a process of chance and did not come from nothing. Therefore, we had to come from a process of design. Design is not a chance process. Therefore, there must have been intelligence behind it. There must have been a designer behind. It must be bigger and stronger than anything in this universe, and must not come from this universe, for it created the universe. If that's as far as you want to take logic for now, fine, but you don't seem to want to go that far.

[note (not in original comment): his claim that thousands of gods were created to explain the origins of the universe is INCORRECT. "Little-g" gods were created to explain many things, like the sun, moon, stars, animals, nature, wind, art, poetry, music, ad infinitum. The invention phenomena of false gods is not simply the ignorant conclusion from the fascination of nature. Much of it derives from trying to ignore the One True God.]

Now, for clarity, let me analyze the entire argument:

Point One: Correct. But humans can only design with what they are supplied with. Agreed?

Point Two: Correct. Ditto first comment. Agreed?

Point Three: Partially Correct. Human beings are intelligent because of the ENTIRE definition of intelligence. Agreed?

Point Four: Correct. Agreed?

Point Five: Incorrect. Human beings did not design the universe because they were not powerful enough, not intelligent enough, they weren't around before the universe was around, human beings cannot create from nothing, and who created humans?

Point Six: Incorrect. A being more intelligent than humans is not assumed, but rather this: the universe could not have been designed from a chance process; humans--nor any other creature--could've designed the universe. THEREFORE, a being more intelligent must have.

You can't possibly be calling points 7 through 12 even so much as the "next-logical-step" argument of believers, can you? If you are, you are gravely mistaken, and I addressed those points in my first comment.
Even points 5 and 6 are not completely representative of the believers' position, as I pointed out.

And just for clarification: My statement "THE CREATION IS PROOF THAT THERE IS A CREATOR" was clearly misunderstood. I'm not saying that the creation argues for a creator, and therefore there is one. I'm not saying that the very word "creation"--as a root--means there must be a "Creator." I'm saying that our very existences--the universe' very existence--our very complexity, our very design, PROVES--illustrates beyond the shadow of a doubt--that there is a Creator.

~Kindom Advancer

Intelligent Design and Omniscience Part Two

This was just written, so you probably won't see it on beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com for a while, since I have a feeling that he doesn't live in this time zone (that's not an insulting joke. I really do think that.). He doesn't want to let go of his argument (I'm seeing that as a trend), so I wrote a second-piece, enforcing the first. I saw some other Christians who I recognize also commenting on it. That's what I'm talking about!

You just don't get it, do you beepbeep?
God as an "Intelligent Designer" does not imply that God doesn't know everything, but that HE DOES KNOW THINGS. This is as opposed to your theory: MINDLESS evolution. The Intelligent Design movement demonstrates clearly the implausibility of random chance to create such a complex universe.

Intelligent design means that somebody was behind it--somebody knew what He was doing. Every INTELLIGENT human being admits that your 'god'--the theory of Evolution--is both inconceivable and improbable. (With the odds being about 1 in a million trillion, or worse.) Even Darwin, the virtual creator and father of Evolution, admitted this.

And, as I've already said, "intelligent designer" is not in the Bible, and it certainly doesn't come from the original Greek or Hebrew. Therefore, you have to take the definition FROM THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN MOVEMENT. Not "the first definition I found on so-and-so.com."

"Could I suggest that the chaotic world we live in demonstrates clearly that nothing remotely intelligent or loving could have been involved in its crazy 'design'." --Daniel

You seem serious, and yet I want to laugh. If you are serious, I pity you. If you are capable of saying this with a clean conscience, then you must not have thought about it before you typed it. You say that an intelligent being couldn't have created such a crazy world. But what you don't realize is that it is not God's fault that mankind has turned its back on Him and messed up the whole universe. God is responsible, however, for designing things like the human eye. Maybe you should go to the library and read a book about the human eye--just for starters.

"Intelligence is not knowledge; intelligence is what we DO with knowledge." --Beepbeep

So, how about this? God holds all knowledge. He applied that knowledge to create the entire universe. All your knowledge and intelligence can't create ANYTHING in the format that God created it.

Beepbeep, Austin is right on track, in spite of what you think. Your "capacity to learn" argument implies that the more you learn, the less you have a capacity to learn, and therefore the less intelligent you are. By your partial definition, you could say that a newborn baby is "more intelligent" than any adult to ever have lived, because that baby has such a high "capacity to learn," from learning how to say "dadda" to how to split an atom.
In fact, however, today's usage of the word is almost synonymous with the possession of knowledge and a high mental ability. God, as an "intelligent designer," simply possesses all knowledge and has the highest of mental abilities.

Oh, by the way, "everything from nothing" is called EVOLUTION. Maybe you've heard of it. If you truly think yourself to believe in no God, the only other option is that everything came from nothing. And, uh, where did the elements before (causing) and after (resulting) from this supposed Big Bang come from?

~Kingdom Advancer

Intelligent Design and Omniscience

First of all, I'd like to thank Beepbeepitsme for posting my first comment on his blog. Although he thinks he puts forth convincing retorts to my claims, the Word of God is “sharper than any two-edged sword,” (Hebrews 4:12) (and his arguments are no two-edged swords--in fact, he's only replied to the first line of my comment so far). As well, “The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes." (Proverbs 21:1) And when I can't be the harvester, I'll be content with being the sower.

His latest attack on Christianity is that God can't be an intelligent designer, because "intelligence" and "omniscience" are not compatible attributes, because intelligence means--as one definition--the ability to acquire knowledge, and if God is omniscient, then He wouldn't be acquiring knowledge, and therefore He couldn't be intelligent, and therefore He couldn't be an intelligent designer. Yep, I'm being honest. That's his reasoning.

Again, I make a call for you to visit his site and read it for yourself, and if you think of something different than my argument--defend the faith! Advance the kingdom! Make a comment of your own!

By the way: I'm going to make a second comment on the "Jesus is Imaginary" post--even though I don't really have to since he didn't give a satisfactory rebuttal to my first comment. But anyways, just a heads up. It will also be posted on my blog, of course. It could be posted as soon as later tonight, or as late as tomorrow afternoon.

Another side-note: I saw that some of my readers went to that guy’s site and put up a stand. Good job! Jesus talks about the workers being few (Matthew 9:37), and it seems that many “workers” aren’t really “working.” This is what it's about!
Don’t be discouraged by what seems like a good and/or confident reply from the other side. Remember, the devil knows Scripture , (Mark 1) and He knows how to twist it even better, being the “father of lies.” (John 8:44) He also knows history—or at least is good at pretending he does. Don’t be discouraged. Don’t let an unbeliever tell you that he knows more about Scripture (“I don’t remember seeing that in the Bible.”) than you do. He can’t possibly understand Scripture fully, or else he’d believe, since “All Scripture is God-breathed.” (2 Timothy 3:16) I'm not accusing atheists of being demons, but we know that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual force of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Ephesians 6:12)

Definition of intelligent:
Having intelligence; Having a high degree of intelligence.

Definition of intelligence:
The capacity to acquire AND APPLY knowledge; SUPERIOR MENTAL CAPACITY.

Definition of omniscient:
Knowing everything; Having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight; Possessed of universal or complete knowledge.


God, as omniscient, does not need to acquire knowledge. He COULD (as in, He has the capacity)--but He has no need and will never have the need , for He is the source of all knowledge. There's no knowledge for Him to gain. He does, however, apply His knowledge. And He does have infinitely superior mental powers, and an unapproachably high degree of intelligence(knowledge).

The Bible neither uses the term "Intelligent Designer" nor "Omniscient." They both are clearly implied. Henceforth, however, you cannot use just any piece of the English definition of intelligence to make a case. That is intellectually insufficient and dishonest.

One last note: an "intelligent designer" does design things. But you, my fellow bloggers, cannot even comprehend how the term "intelligent designer" applies to God. He designed from nothing. ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void. And darkness was over the face of the deep."--Genesis 1:1-2) No one besides He can do that.

End-notes (not in my comment): The idea of God having the capacity to learn more sounds ridiculous when you say He does, and ridiculous when you say He doesn't. But the bottom line is that God is not incapable of learning because He's not smart enough or He's not powerful enough. God does not learn because there is nothing for Him to learn.

~ Kingdom Advancer

The Battlefield

I wrote this today on a site called www.beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com. The host of the site is an atheist, and most of the viewers of the site are atheists. Almost all of the articles are anti-Christian, written sarcastically, cynically, and cockily, thinking each time that they've shown how much smarter they are than the smartest Christian.
The site is high-tech, at least in the sense that it seems very dedicated to warring against the Kingdom of God. It's connected to a ton of other atheistic, humanistic sites.
I'm posting my comment on my blog for two reasons:
1.) First of all, because the host of the site has "comment moderation." In other words, if he doesn't like what I said, which I'm sure he won't, he has the opportunity to keep it from being posted. Therefore, at least my readers get to read it here.
2.) Secondly, I think this is important for my readers to see. This is our battlefield. Discussing doctrines of hell and the like is great, and I'll conclude that series soon, but this is where our efforts should be centered. I strongly beseech my Christian readers, if they are mature in their faith, to go to this site, and other anti-God, anti-Christian sites and put up a defense of the faith. Now, there's something to be said for throwing pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6), and these people aren't exactly "asking for the hope that is within us" (1 Peter 3:15), but we must still give a defense of the faith in the hopes that some might be saved, and so those that still reject will have even less of an excuse than they already have.

This particular article said that the author had found a way to prove that "Jesus was imaginary." He used two passages in Scripture, slammed 'em together, and ignored all context to come up with this:
"Get together with another person, pray that Jesus will appear, and if He doesn't, then you know He's not real."
I encourage you to go to his blog to read the whole story and other people's comments before reading mine (so it will make sense), and I'd like to hear your comments, but I'm writing this on my blog since I doubt that you'll see my comment on his.

Those who say that Jesus might never have existed probably also say (or might as well say) that George Washington might never have existed. Those who say these things are the same ones who are ABSOLUTELY sure there are NO ABSOLUTES. In case you didn't know, Jesus' existence can be verified by more than the Bible.

The Bible says that it is impossible to please God without faith. (Hebrews 11:6) Why exactly would he appear to a bunch of agnostics who spend all their time trying to disprove His existence? Besides, God doesn't need to make any special appearances (Romans 1:20)to prove His existence. And also, Jesus pointed out that, if you need such a blatant sign, you still wouldn't believe if you got it. (Luke 16:31) Jesus was always skeptical of those who followed Him just because of His signs. (John 2:24-25) He rebuked Thomas for doubting: "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." (John 20:29)

The Bible also says that when you pray, you must pray without doubt, for those who have doubt are worthless. (James 1:6) If Christians have "the faith of a mustard seed,"(Matthew 17:20) and do not doubt, they can move mountains. I'd like to see someone move a heavy feather with such cynical prayers [as "BeepBeep" proposed].

It also says to "delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart." (Psalm 37:4) If you delighted yourself in the Lord, you'd see all of Jesus that you needed to. Christians are also to pray in imitation of Jesus, praying for the "will of God." (Luke 22:42)

The reason Jesus appeared immediately after His resurrection, is because He was establishing His resurrection with over 500 eye-witnesses!!! This would prove almost any case in court. If He had resurrected and disappeared without so much as a goodbye, you'd all be saying, "There were no eye-witnesses."

Also, Jesus must have resurrected, because of the sacrificial spirit that was adopted by so many of His followers. There was nothing to gain by promoting a scam, except: beheadings; crucifixions; being thrown into boiling wax; getting beaten with cats of nine-tails; imprisoned; mocked; stoned; burned; dis-owned; exiled; and persecuted in every way imaginable. There was nothing to selfishly gain. If it was a lie, it couldn't have been a "crutch," as some agnostics like to say. It would have offered no peace. In fact, it offered no chance for pride or self-exaltation. "I am crucified with Christ, and yet I live. Yet it is not I who live, but Christ who lives within me." (Galatians 2:20) Christians are to consider themselves "dead to sin." (Romans 6:11) Christians are under temptation to sin, (1 Corinthians 10:13) and certainly Christians realize that there are "pleasures of sin for a season." (Hebrews 11:25) Those are given up by the true Christian. And you think it's for an imaginary entity?

To say that Jesus never lived is ignorant and arrogantly defiant; to say that He wasn't resurrected is outlandish (perhaps you should read the "Case for Christ" or the "Case for the Resurrection"); and to say that this test proves your case is extremely overly-optimistic.

None of this is hateful. I want you to see the light, to no longer be "hearers but not doers." (James 1) The unsaved are blinded, but God can open their/your eyes. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

I realize this blog has comment moderation, so I understand that only the blog owner might get to read this. It's still worth it to me, nonetheless, to defend my Lord and to be a witness for Him, (1 Peter 3:15) that "some might be saved." (1 Corinthians 9:22)


~ Kingdom Advancer