A Reminder and Some Updates

I just wanted to remind everyone that all of my posting is still taking place on We Want a Christian President...

Also, I'm officially suspending The Kingdom Courier. I hadn't sent an issue out since late November, and it simply did not pan out the way I had hoped. However, I am happy with what I am accomplishing on WWCP.

I will be leaving The Christmas Watch up for now, but it looks very improbable that I'll ever re-start that effort. If someone--preferably whom I know--would like to take it out of my hands, I'd gladly hand it over.

New Blog Under Construction.

Just so you know, I have been blogging the past couple of days--just not for Kingdom Advancing. I have been designing a new blog entitled "We Want a Christian President." I believe it has a lot of potential to unite Christians in search of a quality, Christian presidential candidate.

I'm not going to give you the URL now, because I want the blog to be in fully functioning condition before I open it for business, so to speak.

~Kingdom Advancer~

You Got Something in Your Eye...

In contrast to several thousand other visitors--most of whom were happy for or at least interested in the opening of the Creation Museum--atheist, humanist, and evolutionist protesters were a pimple on the face of the Creation Museum's grand opening to the public on Memorial Day (which ended with a fireworks display pictured on the right). Or...from another perspective, were they just a beauty mark, a sign of a job well done? After all, if humanists and atheists were not up in arms about something like this, you'd have to wonder if a good job had been executed by those at Answers in Genesis. Jesus told his disciples not to be surprised if the world hated them (which they did). So, perhaps all the protesters and critics are/were more of a pat on the back then a slap in the face to Ken Ham and AiG.

Some of the signs held by the protesters read: Do you deny gravity too? Don't brainwash our children. It's [creationism] NOT science. A plane flew over pulling a sign with the message "Thou shall not lie." The makers of the Museum have been chastised for "instutionalizing" a "scientific lie."

All I can say to these people is: can I borrow your lines and signs? Because, I'd like to picket in front of public schools, college and university campuses, other museums, television studios which make nature shows, and publishing houses which print scientific textbooks.

Jesus said, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5) Behold, the log is indeed in evolutionistic atheists' eyes! (Read just some of the problems with Evolution here, at Ambassadors of Christ.) Unfortunately, they don't feel compelled to listen to Jesus' words (obviously) or to subject themselves to the law of God (Romans 8:7). Rather, they show conditionally selective moral outrage--like decrying supposed lies of this Museum--when it's convenient for them and their purposes (Judges 17:6).

However, they would do well to heed Jesus' words in this case, as in all cases. Their volatile opposition will likely only rouse more interest into a topic that is attention-grabbing by itself in the unveiling of a $27 million edifice. If people look for answers, some will find them. And those answers--true answers--don't lead to an evolutionary outlook. So, indeed, what was meant for evil, God may mean for good (Genesis 50:20), for--in the least--those who love Him (Romans 8:28).

To demonstrate the "log" of the evolutionists, I am going to break down some of the token phrases I have heard and seen, starting with, "Do you deny gravity too?"

First off, atheists are the ones making the denial of all denials--denying God's existence (Psalm 14:1)--so that type of condescension on the part of atheists is not very sharp, though expected (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Secondly, creationists not only do not reject scientific studies, discoveries, and research, but the law of gravity is observable, operational science. On the contrary, the Theory of Evolution is in the realm of historical, origins science. It cannot be repeated in a controlled setting. No one was there to see the beginning of the universe (except God--from the creationist perspective). And evolutionists even admit today that we cannot expect to see macro-evolutionary changes occur in front of our eyes. Not to mention all the evidence against Molecules-to-man Evolution, all the hypotheticals, all the theoreticals, all the gaps, all the holes--none of which is similar to the law--not theory--of gravity. That's telling in and of itself: atheists put so much faith in Evolution that the person holding this sign equated it with a scientific, testable law. That's how important it is to them for their to be no God. How much must they really love sin?

Speaking of laws, this apparent opponent of a Creator God walks right into a question that she herself cannot satisfactorily answer: where did laws like the law of gravity come from? And what about the precision of the universe's laws and arrangements--a fact which, were it not the case, would make life nonexistent? (See The Privileged Planet.)

Next, we have the doozy, "Don't brainwash our children." This one may take the cake, along with the "institutionalizing a lie" claim. Believe it or not, I did not make these up. For years, and years, and years, evolutionists have had a veritable monopoly on the education of children and young adults...using public funds! (A good book detailing and analyzing the claims of three of the most common high-school biology textobooks is Evolution Exposed) Yet, they have the nerve to rebuke a not-for-profit organization for building a private museum attended by visitors voluntarily (even if a school took a field trip, it could be optional)! While other museums present millions and billions of years like accepted fact, heavily seasoning exhibits and episodes with evolutionary theory, some have the gall to attack the Creation Museum as an "institutionalized lie"! Where's the academic freedom, tolerance, relatavism, and openmindedness? It is apparent that true colors are on display, and that these people are not really that concerned with the "horror" of someone "cornering the market," but rather, with anyone who does not agree with them voicing their opinion.

And that leads me to the next line, which calls for "science, not superstition." First off, it should be noted that it is not uncommon for detractors of Christianity to refer to it as a "cult" or "superstition." These terms carry heavily negative connotations, so they serve the purposes of anti-Christians by appealing to a person's pride of reputation. (Most people don't want to be wrong or grouped with a faction upon which people look down.)

But who is really superstitious? Who is really paranoid? It seems that the atheists have an irrational belief--an irrational fear--of Christianity. Many of them avoid and/or decry anything having to do with God or the Bible as if it is a ladder with a black cat flying underneath it across their path on a witch's broom. Really, the claim of superstition is a hollow one, emotionally-charged in the attempt to bring about an emotional response.

But I haven't seen that attack all that often. One that I do see regularly is that creationism is "not science." Not only is this infinitely easier said than proven, but it is also simply another elementary technique, reaching the headline reader--not the dedicated researcher. It invokes a false dichotomy (Molecules-to-Man Evolution is not, in contrast, "scientific"), a sweeping generalization (Of course some creationists may be very unscientific, but certainly not all), and often a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy when the evidence for creationism's unscientificity is the lack of the scientific method (In historical, origins science, the presence of the scientific method of testing, repeating, controlling, and observing is impossible; therefore, either nothing in this sphere is scientific or the scientific method is not the barometer). These logical fallacies will have to be discussed more fully in a later post.

Finally, I should address the idea that the Creation Museum is teaching "lies." This accusation is unbacked and untrue. Conveniently, no evidence is presented to support such a claim, except the appeal-to-authority and bandwagon fallacies of the "scientific consensus" argument, faulty dating methods, and biased interpretations. Besides, to say the Creation Account is scientifically factual and provable would be--at this point in history, anways--lying; but to say that the Creation Account is true by God's Word and supported by scientific discoveries is not lying, for two reasons: 1) It presupposes faith in God's Word--if you throw that out the window, you throw creationism out with it, though evidence may still pull you in the direction of an Intelligent Designer; the Bible spawns creationism, and the science of creationism endorses the Bible; 2) The allegation of deception assumes falsehood; but, if the Creation Account is true, and science therefore (naturally) backs it up, and creationists believe it because of God's word compounded by the testimony of His Creation, there can be no lie. Of course, Evolution is not a lie, in and of itself, either. It's a theory--just like any other theory which can be imagined at any time, without being considered deceptive. However, teaching it as fact, or even close to fact, is dishonest.

Christians know that the Creation Account is indeed true, for Jesus said to the Father, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17) How horrifically ironic is it that the Father of lies (John 8:44) would use the deceitful accusation of a lie to bury the truth?

All of this being considered, we must pray and support groups like AiG and efforts like the Creation Museum. The state-of-the-art, $27 million structure is a veritable "city on a hill"; AiG is "salt," attempting to be a preservative in one of the most decayed environments in the modern world--"light" in one of the darkest places: science (Matthew 5:13-15).

The Christian has become a benefactor, a volunteer, a painter, a carpenter, a construction worker, an engineer, a technician, a scientist, and one reviled, "so that by all means we might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)

~Kingdom Advancer

P.S. Answers in Genesis has been "Responding to Protesters' Propaganda" all week, and you can read their responses at their website.

The "Divine Foot" Takes a Step in the Direction.....

The Creation Museum presents a unique and unparalleled experience, a walk through time portraying significant, life-altering events from the past illuminating the effects of biblical history on our present and future world.
Be prepared to experience history in a completely unprecedented way.

The state-of-the-art 60,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form, and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden's rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Peter and John peer into the empty tomb. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating color and details, provide realistic scenery for many of the settings.

That's what can be read on the front and back of the Creation Museum guide, which I received as I was privileged with a sneak preview this week. The Creation Museum is set to open to the general public on May 28th, and it appears that it will open with a bang. Ken Ham said that he has done 38 interviews since this past Monday, and there's more to come. (Read about it at his blog.) Protests are scheduled against the Museum. Petitions are being signed by educators in an attempt to discredit Answers in Genesis' claims, and I've seen one absurd hit-piece of journalism published in a local newspaper. I'm sure there are more.

The truly "state-of-the-art" museum cost around $27 million to build, but it has been estimated that, without volunteer work and donated equipment, the cost would have been somewhere over $100 million.

Located in Petersburg, KY, the Museum is strategically located, near the airport in Cincinnatti, Ohio, and just a day's drive (or less) from the majority of the U.S. population. The area is beautiful, as is the pond, walking area, and building itself.

Although those who closely study AiG and the Creation-Evolution debate probably won't find any terribly profound information in their Museum experience, it is not to be missed. Highlights include the planetarium, which demonstrates the vastness of God's universe and some problems for evolutionists located therein; a walk through Eden; a video presentation of the Days of Creation; a monologuing Methuselah in his tent; a 40-foot tall replica of a section of Noah's Ark under construction, complete with complaining workers, a worker sawing away, and Noah trying to convince one of the workers to join him on the Ark; models of the Ark and Flood; large, robotic dinosaurs; Martin Luther nailing his theses to the church door; and much, much more.

Criticisms of the Creation Museum have generally been, at worst, pathetic, and, at best, misguided and unbacked. One writer (in fact, Lawrence M. Krauss, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, as well as the Chair of the Forum on Physics and Society of the American Physical Society) went so far as to say that we creationists, "if we were intellectually honest," wouldn't use any technology, since we obviously don't believe in science. (note: my sarcasm) Never mind the fact that young-earth [biblical] creationists do believe in science, just not the corrupted, evolutionary and atheistic interpretations of it. That's the point: a scientific person does not have to be an evolutionary person--by all means nay (!); a believer in science does not have to be a disbeliever in God. To the Christian, science means to "think God's thoughts after Him." The difference between the scientist who is a Christian and the scientist who is not is this: one starts with God's Word as foundational; the other does not, replacing God's Word with man's reason. The main thrust of the Creation Museum and AiG is to demonstrate that, indeed, a scientifically honest person should not accept Evolution and billions of years as unadulterated fact--quite the contrary! Also, they are showing why Christians should not feel obligated to compromise the Bible in order to reconcile it with man's claims.

Some appear to simply be fear-mongerers, as this aforementioned writer feels compassion for the children who could be "intellectually injured" by this Museum. (DefCon has claimed the Museum is "institutionalizing a lie.") He ended the article by making a battle-cry to parents to bring lawsuits against any school that would use public funds to have a field trip to this Museum. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state, of course. (note again: my sarcasm) Never mind the fact that the theoretical, problematic science found in most natural history museums is connotatively religious at its core anyway. But, these people don't appear to care about separation of religion and state and multi-cultural, open-minded education...so much as separation of Christianity and state. (Read about one group, DefCon, here)
Sure, the claims of this Museum are incredible, but they simply state the plain dichotomy: believe God's Word? Or (non-Christian) man's word?

All I can say without taking much more of your time is, although some outlets are treating Ken Ham and AiG much fairer than others, don't believe everything you see, hear, or read in the press--as if I really needed to tell you that! Something this groundbreaking is bound to scare people; remember that many of these people have not been "trained up in the way they should go" (Proverbs 22:6)--rather, they've been brainwashed with evolutionary theory; and the devil, as the Father of lies (John 8:44), is bound to resort to his characteristic tactics. Be ready, for instance, for the ever-popular "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, as well as the "sweeping generalization" fallacy, along with emotionally charged language, all prominent in this debate.

Christians must rally together, for those against Christianity already have been. The opening of this Museum is another step in the direction of the demise of the intellectual and educational domineering of the evolutionary, atheistic, naturalistic, secular humanist agenda that won't "allow a Divine Foot in the door." This frightens them, but we can't have the Foot take a step backwards. They don't want to believe, or anyone to believe, that the "fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1) They don't want to admit they are "without excuse." (Romans 1:20) They don't want to yield to the reality that they--and all humans--are responsible for the fallenness of nature. (Romans 8:19-22) Why? Why can't they just believe? "Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God..." (Romans 8:7) And because "a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

For this reason, we must pray for these people, as for all people, for God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4) We must also pray for the safety of Ken Ham, other leaders of AiG, and the Museum itself, especially over these hectic, and potentially volatile, next few weeks.

The debate over origins is pivotal. God's existence is not apathetic knowledge. Trust in the Bible and the biblical account of creation is no insignificant thing. The battle for souls is at stake. A loss here would be a damaging blow--to either side.

"If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3)

~Kingdom Advancer

P.S. The debate over whether a Christian should/can believe in Macro-Evolution and billions of years can be found here: Christian Evolutionist: Oxymoron?

Kingdom ACTION!

I usually don't do posts like this, but, on the spur of the moment, I thought I ought to tell you about this:

READ AND ACT:

The Thought-Police: What the Hate Crimes Bill Would Do
By: Chuck Colson

New bill would gives special preference to homosexuals [Employment Non-Discrimination Act]


CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE PRESIDENT, TODAY! (YOU CAN E-MAIL PRESIDENT BUSH FROM THE SECOND LINK.)

~Kingdom Advancer

Analyzing a False Analogy

Cho Seung-Hui. I'm you've heard of him already. He is the poor example of a human being--an unfettered picture of man's depravity--who is now infamous for being responsible for the worst school shooting in the history of the United States of America. On the campus of Virginia Tech, on the morning of April 16, 2007, he gunned down in cold blood 32 students and faculty, along with injuring many.

I'll spare you any further details, since--unless you've been hiding under a rock this week--you've probably heard, read, and seen more than you wanted to.

My focus of this article is one statement of Cho, which was made in his video manifesto that he sent to NBC News. As he tried to blame others for his actions and as he made himself out to be a martyr and hero, he stated, "...I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people..."

It's sadly ironic that this young man, who knew enough about Jesus to think he was dying "like" Him, neither died for Jesus nor appeared to know Him in life.

Since whackos and wicked people occasionally drag Jesus' name through the gutter as if they are/were drinking buddies, and since some less-studied observers might consider the comparisons valid, I have decided to dismantle this false analogy of the mass-murdering Cho.

What is a "false analogy"? Well, one textbook defines it as "...a comparison in which the differences outweight the similarities or an assumption that if two things are alike in one or a few ways, they are alike in all ways."

Okay, so let's look at the similarities between the Virginia Tech-gunman and Jesus Christ first:

1.) They both died.

All right, now that we're done with that, we can move on to their differences.

1.) First of all, Jesus is God. (John 1:1, 14) Cho? Not so much. Could there be a more important distinction? You'll often hear someone run off a list of people, saying, "Confucius, Socrates, Jesus, etc." While, for the intended purpose of a given statement, it may be an appropriate comparison/grouping, ultimately, to one extent or another, it's insulting to Jesus' deity.

2.) Secondly, Jesus is sinless. (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22 ; 1 John 3:5 ; Hebrews 4:15 ; Hebrews 7:26) The Virginia Tech shooter? Start with murder, hate, and lust (he allegedly stalked and took pictures of women), along with blaspheming Jesus by the simple act of comparing Him to himself, and go from there, keeping James 2:10 and Romans 3:23 in mind.
This is another important aspect to note. The difference between an innocent man--completely innocent and unstained--dying and a flagrant sinner is significant.

3.) Thirdly, Jesus didn't kill anyone. Any comparison which may otherwise have merits (though this one does not) has to come to a screeching halt here. Christ did resurrect some, and many will be resurrected in the future. As part of the Godhead, Jesus will judge the world, and can make righteous judgments at any time He so desires. However, as a Man on earth, He said, "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe in Him is judged already." (John 3:17-18)
Napoleon Bonaparte, of all people, has something profound about Jesus' non-violent ministry: "I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him."
Jesus was peacefully arrested--telling Peter to put away his sword (Matthew 26:52)--and He quietly accepted His undue punishment, "...Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter." (Isaiah 53:7)
2 Peter 2:23 tells of Jesus, "...while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously." He exhibited the biblical attribute of "longsuffering." In stark contrast stands Cho, whatever wrongs may have been done to him.
Jesus said on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34) No such forgiving spirit is apparent in Cho's words or demeanor.

4.) Jesus didn't kill Himself. This becomes a bit complicated theologically, but the bottom line is that Jesus did not commit suicide (an act that severely diminishes the value in a person's demise), though He did come with the purpose to die. One needs only to look at the passive voice in Isaiah 53. Cho tried to transfer responsibility for his death, but he did so in vain. It was an aggressive suicide mission, plain and simple.

5.) Jesus said, "He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him... I do not seek My glory..." (John 7:18; 9:50) Jesus bore our sins and did the will of the Father (Isaiah 53), showing the righteous characteristic of unselfishness. In contrast, Cho took pictures and a video of himself, comparing himself to Jesus among other things, and sent the material to a major news corporation. Then, he committed the worst school shooting in U.S. history. Selfishly seeking glory? You decide.

6.) Jesus not only died, but also rose again. That, along with being God in flesh and sinless, is what primarily makes Him "inspiring" as Cho would say. Will Cho resurrect? Well, he'll be resurrected for judgment (John 5:29), but I wouldn't hold my breath for anything before that.

7.) Lastly, a common fallacy found with people who like to throw Jesus' name around for their purposes is to mis-name His primary mission on this earth and through His death and resurrection. Isaiah 53, which I have referenced several times in this post, says, "...He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him... He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due..." (vs. 5, 8; emphasis mine) John 3:16, one of the most popular verses in the Bible, says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believers in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (emphasis mine) Did Jesus inspire "the weak and the defenseless people"? Of course, but don't confuse the side-effects with the main solution. Besides, will Cho even do such inspiring? I hardly think so.

Because of this standard, does this mean that no comparison can ever be made to Christ? No--Christians can. As Christians, we "...may become partakers of the divine nature..." (2 Peter 1:4) We are adopted as children of God. (Acts 17:29 ; Ephesians 1:5 ; Romans 8:15 ; Galatians 4:5) We are to be imitators of God. (Ephesians 5:1) Paul tells us, "To live is Christ..." (Philippians 1:21) "It is no longer I who live, but Christ Who lives in me." (Galatians 2:20) As Christians, we are by definition "little Christs" called to godliness.

Though we may not always live up to that standard, we know that, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) so that we are washed "...white as snow." (Psalm 51:7)

What a blessed thought! What blessed thoughts!!!

~Kingdom Advancer