The Culture Chronicle

The Culture Chronicle

The following list of events is a representative sample lifted from recent headlines and compiled in this format to offer some perspective concerning the current trends in our culture.  Items included were selected at my sole discretion.  Jim Whiddon.

 

January 1 – February 28, 2014

Over 40,000 new laws went into effect across the US on January 1. One Oregon law allows mothers to take home their baby’s placenta as some believe that eating the tissue in pill form, raw or perhaps in a smoothie can help ease postpartum depression.

 

Flower Mound, TX mayor Tom Hayden publicly declares 2014 “The Year of the Bible.”

 

“The Wolf of Wall Street” sets record for “F-bombs” in a motionpicture with a total of 506.

 

The English department at UCLA; considered one of the US’ premier programs, has replaced curriculum requirements of Shakespeare, Milton and Chaucer with courses on gender, race, ethnicity, disability and sexuality studies. (Wall Street Journal)

 

The WSJ reported that 41% of American children are born out of wedlock today. By comparison, in 1963, that percentage was 6%.

 

A two-year old child in Longmont, Colorado was rushed to an emergency roomafter ingesting a marijuana-laced cookie.

 

“Smart” PJs are now available that read bedtime stories to kids via smart phone or tablet.

 

After seven years in the Top 10 among nations, the US has fallen to #12in the annual Index of Economic Freedom. (WSJ)

 

A judge strikes down the Oklahoma ban on gay marriage previously approved by over 70% of voters in a state wide referendum in 2004.

 

NFL commissioner now considering removing marijuana from bannedsubstance list for players and allowing them to use the drug in states wherelegalized.

 

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education survey of 427universities indicated that ~60% of them have speech restrictions which violatethe First Amendment of the Constitution. Many have set up very small “freespeech zones” on campus which must be reserved months in advance and come with alabyrinth of rules.

 

In a lengthy interview with The New Yorker magazine, Pres. Obama conveyshis belief that pot smoking is no more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. (Washington Times)

 

The Dallas Morning News reports that now 60% of college degrees are earned by women. For the first time ever, women earn more bachelors, masters and doctoral degrees. This is a recent (3-5 years) phenomenon.

 

A White House report says 1 out of every 5 college women have beenphysically assaulted while pursuing their degree.

 

HSBC [Bank] customers are being asked to provide documentation for reasons cash is needed for withdrawals of 3000 pounds or more. (BBC)

 

San Francisco is considering handing out free crack pipes to slow the spread of HIV.

 

The Pentagon has changed uniform rules to allow Sikhs to be able to wear a turban and/or maintain a beard while in US military uniform. (FOX News)

 

Christian music artist Natalie Grant walked out of the Grammy Awards because of what she called a “satanic performance”.

 

Russian President Putin suggests the US is “godless” under Obama. Aspart of its defense of “Christian values”, Russia has adopted a law banning”homosexual propaganda” and another that makes it a criminal offense to “insult” the religious sensibilities of believers. (Wash Times)

 

A North Carolina High school football coach was ordered by the school superintendent to stoppraying with players and/or baptizing them after a suit is threatened by the FreedomFrom Religion Foundation. (CBS Affiliate, Charlotte)

 

In the US, 143 million Americans check their Facebook account daily compared to 40 million (est.) who read the Bible. (Associated Press)

 

The SEC Defensive Player of the Year, Michael Sam of the University of Missouri announces he is gay.

 

Vancouver, Canada officials have allowed the installation of crack pipe vending machines.

 

Attorney General Holder calls for allowing America’s 5.8 million felons to have voting rights.

 

Carl DeMaio, an openly homosexual Republican candidate for Congress in California, rolls out election ad featuring him and his partner.

 

A federal judge reverses the gay marriage ban in Virginia negating referendum by state’s voters.

 

The Ninth Circuit in CA rules in favor of allowing the carrying of a concealed handgun. Meanwhile, as many as 300,000 Connecticut  gun owners defy a new lawto register their “assault” weapons, thus technically committing a felony offense in that state. (Fox News)

 

Facebook adds about 50 new terms – other than Male and Female – to allow users to identify their gender. Examples of new terms: androgynous, bi-gender,inter-sex, gender fluid or transsexual. (AP)

 

Music network VH-1 announces plans for a 10 episode series called “Naked Dating”. Each episode will feature a man and a woman each having a date with two naked suitors with the idea of “what happens if you take one man and woman and strip them of all their pretenses.” (The Hollywood Reporter)

 

A federal judge strikes down the gay marriage ban in Texas which has been in place since voters approved in 2005. In Dallas, a gay couple with a 53-year relationship are publicly married by a United Methodist minister. (Dallas Morning News)

 

So we can confidently say,

 “The Lord is my helper;

 I will not fear;

what can man do to me?”

— Heb. 13:6

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle, posted every Monday, is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from myriad sources. I read 75-100 books per year in all genres. My goal is to share the best of what I come across each week. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, Jim Whiddon

11. HARD WORK “There is no elevator to success—you have to take the stairs.” — Unknown

12. MAN’S BEST FRIEND “A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of.” — Ogden Nash

13. SERENDIPITY “The story of 3M’s Post-it! Notes was well chronicled in Tom Peter’s classic book, In Search of Excellence. What was (and is) fascinating about the story is not merely the success of the sticky notes, it’s the fact that 3M, well known for its strong adhesives, screwed-up during research and development and created an unusually weak and seemingly useless adhesive. In fact, the glue was so weak that it couldn’t hold paper together permanently. Voila!

Velcro was developed in the 1960s by NASA to hold things down so they wouldn’t float all over the place in outer space.

Preparation H is used by actors to remove the puffiness under their eyes.”

Excerpt From: Avrin, David. “It’s Not Who You Know — It’s Who Knows You!.”

14.SELF EDUCATION “Most great men in history have become great because they aggressively pursued knowledge. They overcame gaps in their early education. They studied to understand the world at a level well beyond their years. They took responsibility for their education and did not wait for the knowledge they needed to come to them.

There isn’t the space here to list all the great men who set themselves apart through self-education. Winston Churchill read so ravenously when he was a young officer in India that a biographer later wrote that “he became his own university.” Lincoln was also enflamed by a hunger to learn. He read every book he could buy or borrow.

Devotion to self-education is unquestionably one of the marks of an exceptional man. Passive men wait for knowledge to come to them. Weak men assume what they need to know will seek them out. Men of great character and drive search out the knowledge they need. They take responsibility for knowing what they must know to live effectively in their generation and to prosper. I know this sounds old school. I know this sounds like a lesson meant for the barefoot boy born in a dirt-floor cabin in the 1800s. I assure you it is a lesson for men today. In fact, it may prove to be one of the most important lessons for men today.”

Excerpt From: Mansfield, Stephen. “Mansfield’s Book of Manly Men.”

15. COMFORT  “Our Heavenly Father has provided many delightful inns for us along our journey, but He takes great care to see that we do not mistake any of them for home.” — C.S Lewis

16. HISTORY WRITTEN BY THOSE WITH BEST PRESS AGENTS “It was Amerigo Vespucci, an acquaintance of Columbus, who is credited with America’s discovery in 1497, five years after Columbus landed in the Caribbean Islands while searching for a new route to the spice-rich Far East. Chinese Admiral Cheng Ho, who visited the Americas in 1421, could lay claim as well — and there is also evidence that Scandinavian explorer Leif Erikson reached the Americas hundreds of years before any of these other explorers.” Excerpt From: Ben Carson, M.D. “America the Beautiful.”

17. COMMITMENT “Some people want to master every corner of the God question before they make a commitment to believe in Him, and they miss the heart of the issue—the issue of the heart.”

Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”

18. RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR GENERATION “If there must be trouble,” said American revolutionary Thomas Paine, “let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

Will our grandchildren enjoy the freedom and prosperity we enjoy, or will they ask us, “Where were you when freedom died?”

As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Not to stand is to stand. Not to speak is to speak.”

Saint Catherine of Siena said, “If you are what you should be, you will set the whole world on fire.”

Excerpt From: James Robison & Jay W. Richards. “Indivisible.”

19. LAWS AND MORALS “Did the abolition of slavery and the passage of civil rights laws affect people’s attitudes about slavery and race? Did Roe v. Wade, which struck down state restrictions on abortion, influence people’s views on abortion? If same-sex “marriage” is made the law of the land, do you think that will affect the sexual attitudes and actions of schoolchildren? If suicide for the terminally ill becomes widely accepted, do you think this will affect how we view the sick and the elderly? If the sale of marijuana is legalized, will that influence views on the morality of smoking pot? Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.”

Excerpt From: James Robison & Jay W. Richards. “Indivisible.”

20. WORRY ABOUT FUTURE  “We would rather have the security of our yesterday than the uncertainty of our tomorrow.

But it’s the uncertainty of our future that really strengthens our faith. I mean, if we knew what it was all about, then it would take no faith. All it would take is obedience. If you knew what was going to happen in the next ten years of your life, what kind of faith would it take to walk that path?

It’s the mystery of it all that gives it the power, the mystery of the whole process called God’s working that makes the power so magnificent.”

Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Wisdom for the Way.”

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from myriad sources. In reading 75-100 books per year in all genres, my mission is to share the best excerpts I come across each week. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, Jim Whiddon

1. CHINESE PROVERB: “It is better that wisdom come late rather than not at all.”

2. IDEAS “The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.” — C.S. Lewis

3. HYBRID CARS “Paying up for a car that will save on gas. Lexus makes a hybrid that gets an extra four to five miles a gallon but costs something like $30,000 more than the conventional model. My friend Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation, recently flagged a Barron’s review of the hybrid. Barron’s pointed out that if gas cost four dollars a gallon, it would take something like two hundred years of driving 15,000 miles annually to cover the extra cost of this hybrid.” Excerpt From: Richards, Carl. “The Behavior Gap.”

4. PLANNING “Think of the difference between a flight plan and an actual flight. Flight plans are really just the pilot’s best guess about things like the weather. No matter how much time the pilot spent planning, things don’t always go according to the plan.In fact, they rarely go just the way the pilot planned. There are just too many variables. So while the plan is important, the key to arriving safely is the pilot’s ability to make the small and consistent course corrections. It is about the course corrections, not the plan.” Excerpt From: Richards, Carl. “The Behavior Gap.”

5. NAMES “The secret of the universe is the naming of things” — Native American saying

6. BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW “When we neglect or reject the revealed truth of Scripture, even our most brilliant scientists and professors are little more than mice scurrying around inside a piano, analyzing all the hammers and strings, willfully ignorant of the musical score sitting on the stand above the keys.” “it is exceedingly odd that scholars master whole libraries seeking wisdom, while the janitor nearby has enjoyed it for years.” Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”

7. LEAVING TOO MUCH FOR KIDS “French novelist Gaston Leroux, creator of The Phantom of the Opera, was almost destroyed in this way. When his father died suddenly, leaving him with a fortune of almost one million francs, Gaston abandoned his career and relaxed into a dissipated existence of gambling and pleasure in colorful Paris society. Within a year he had squandered his inheritance— another sadder but wiser prodigal. Solomon is warning us that accumulating mountains of money becomes meaningless to us within two seconds of death. In fact, the very reality of death strips our possessions of lasting significance.” Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”

8. STEWARDSHIP “How important it is, then, to keep God in the middle of our bank accounts, our possessions, and our portfolios. Picture your hands out in front of you, cupped together, palms up. In your open hands are all the things He has entrusted to you—money, cars, a home, furniture, everything. All of this is His gift (James 1:17). We are the stewards, and faithfulness is our charge. That means our hands must never close over the gifts, but remain open so that He may use them as required—and refill our hands.” Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”

9. UNCERTAINTY OF LIFE “It is said that on Veteran’s Day! November 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy visited Arlington Cemetery to pay his respects to America’s fallen heroes. Gazing over the rolling Virginia hillside from Arlington House, he remarked, “It is so beautiful that I could stay here forever.” Two weeks later he returned in a flag-draped coffin to be buried beneath an eternal flame.” Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”

10. REPLENISHMENT “You are literally not the same person you were seven years ago physically.  Scientists tell us that every seven years we replenish all the cells within our bodies. What about spiritually?” Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”

/by

Getting Over a Hump: Does the Lack of Camel Bones Disprove the Historicity of the Biblical Patriarchs?

In a recent article published in the journal Tel Aviv, Drs. Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures, believe that they have pin pointed the date of the domestication of camels in Israel.

Their research is based primarily from data that they have collected from the Aravah (or Arabah) valley located in the southern Levant. The Arabah which is now desert, was a once verdant valley in antiquity. The Arabah is located just south of the Dead Sea and runs roughly north and south bordering Israel & Jordan (see image below)

The Arabah (from Google Earth)

The Arabah (from Google Earth)

The conclusion of their research indicates that camels were domesticated between the 9th – 12th century B.C.. An article which summarized the finding stated:

“In all the digs, they found that camel bones were unearthed almost exclusively in archaeological layers dating from the last third of the 10th century BCE or later — centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the Kingdom of David, according to the Bible.”[1]

The researchers seemed overly eager to point out the discrepancy with the Bible.

“Camels are mentioned as pack animals in the biblical stories of Abraham, Joseph, and Jacob. But archaeologists have shown that camels were not domesticated in the Land of Israel until centuries after the Age of the Patriarchs (2000-1500 BCE). In addition to challenging the Bible’s historicity, this anachronism is direct proof that the text was compiled well after the events it describes.[2]”

But, is it really the case that the biblical narratives which mention the patriarchs, were written after the events they describe? Or, could there be another explanation?

Camels and the Biblical Patriarchs

As far back as the book of Genesis, camels are can be linked with such Old Testament patriarchs as Abraham, Jacob, Laban and Moses. Camels are also mentioned periodically on various other occasions throughout later Old Testament history.

Francisco Hayez - 1844 (Wikicommons)

Jacob meets Esau by Francisco Hayez – 1844 (Wikicommons)

In Genesis 12:16 & 24:10-67 camels were used for a trip to Syria; they were also included as a bride price, and when Abraham was in Egypt camels were a small part of larger herds of other animals.

In Genesis 30:43; 31:34; 32:15 Jacob’s flocks along with Laban included camels as herd animals for Esau in the Seir area. In the Joseph narrative (Gen. 37:25) camels were used by Midianite-Ishmaelite traders caravanning to Egypt. In Exodus 9:3 camels were among the animals which were plagued during Moses’ day in Egypt.

Resolving the Camel Anachronism

For those of us who hold that the Old Testament patriarchal narratives are historical in nature, how does one solve the dilemma that this new research seems to reveal? Does the lack of camel bones in southern Israel (in the Arabah) during the Patriarchal period reveal the biblical narrative to be the work of late writers?

There are four good reasons why I do not believe this recent “discovery” is fatal to the historicity of the Old Testament patriarchs.

First of all, one of the many things that the history of archaeology in the Levant has shown over the past several decades is that one report is certainly not the last word on any given subject on ancient or biblical history. New research continues to overthrow long-held assumptions and biases against the Bible.[3]

Secondly, the archaeologists primary research area was conducted (according to their own report) in copper mining sites in the southern Arabah. According to the Bible, the patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, et. al.), were pastoralists and semi-nomads whose travel itinerary would not have left them in any one place for any length of time. It is not surprising why little camel remains are discovered in the southern Levant.

Third, as Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen points out, camels don’t actually figure that large in the lives of the patriarchs in any significant sense anyway. He writes:

“A common claim is that mentions of camels are anachronistic before circa 1100. What are the facts? In biblical terms, between roughly 2000 and 1200 their role is minimal.”[4]

In other words – yes – the biblical patriarchs owned camels, but it is not as if they were camel traders or camel herders. Camels played a small part in their lives.

But even so, other research suggests that camels have been present on the Arabian peninsula since at least 6,000 B.C.. From 2200-1200 B.C. rock art in Southwest Arabia and possible camel remains from Bir Risisim in the Levant suggest that camels were used for their milk and for transport.[5]

Camels were definitely present in the geographical area, as well as during the time of the patriarchs, so merely because we don’t find their remains in one specific location or archaeological period, certainly doesn’t mean that there are none at all.

This leads me to the fourth and final reason – Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – a phrase often attributed to the great American Biblical archaeologist, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi. In chaper IV of Dr. Yamauchi’s great book, The Stones and the Scriptures (written 42 years ago) he rightly asks:

“How much of the evidence has survived the ravages of time? How many ancient sites have archaeologists been able to excavate? When does the lack of evidence for a biblical statement prove that an error is involved? Does archaeology offset the negative appraisal of the Bible developed by higher criticism? …Historians of antiquity in using the archaeological evidence have very often failed to realize how slight is the evidence at our disposal. It would not be exaggerating to point out that what we have is but a fraction of the possible evidence.”[6]

For more information on the historicity of the Old Testament Patriarchs see my previous articles here

            [1]http://www.aftau.org/site/News2/2024116989?page=NewsArticle&id=19673&news_iv_ctrl=-1 (accessed, February 11, 14)

            [2]Ibid.

            [3] For example: the discovery of the “Tel-Dan inscription” in 1993-4 by Avraham Biram in Northern Israel, containing the extra-biblical name of David (in the Tel-Dan Stele)

            [4] Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Cambridge, U.K.; 2003), 338-9.

            [5] See, Juris Zarins, “Camel,” in David Noel Freedman, Editor, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 1, A-C (New York, London: Anchor Doubleday, 1992), 824-6.

            [6] Edwin M. Yamauchi, The Stones and Scriptures (Philadelphia & New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1972), 146-62.

/by

The Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye “Post-Debate” Round Up

, , , , ,

Just as expected, the much anticipated and hyped debate between Kan Ham (CEO of Answers in Genesis) & Bill Nye (the “Science” Guy) sparked a “mini-blizzard” of blogs and articles from people on both sides of the debate (I guess this is just one more to add to the pile).

Ham-Nye debate

If you happened to miss the debate, it will be posted here on the AiG (Answers in Genesis) website and will also available for purchase. An estimated three million people viewed the debate which was streamed live from the internet to schools, churches and colleges across America and around the world.

It is certainly easy to play “Monday morning quarterback” on these sorts of debates. Both men are to be admired for being willing to stand “in the arena” and defend their respective views and take criticism.

I thought both men handled themselves admirably, although I must say that I thought Nye was more personable and passionate when he was speaking which certainly plays to his favor rhetorically. One of Ken Ham’s strongest moments, I thought, was when he played the clips of various PhD. scientists who are  creationists and have either invented useful technologies [MRI] or have conducted peer-reviewed research, undercutting Nye’s claim that a belief in Divine creation stifles or limits science.

Nearly everyone has thoughts on what “should have been said” or “what kinds of evidence should have been used.”

I read though the various blogs and articles, however, I came across several great points which I will highlight in a moment.

Originally, I had planned on writing a point-by-point critique and evaluation of the debate, but since that has already been done on numerous other sites (which I will list below for your consideration); instead, I will review just a couple of my personal expectations on what I thought the debate would accomplish (I originally shared all six on my personal Facebook page) and whether or not they “played out” as I expected.

1. Both debaters represent a popular understanding of the respective positions on this debate (Faith & Science). It will certainly not be settled in this debate, but will spark even more debate and reams of new blogs from apologists scrambling to distance themselves from “Simple minded” creationists like Ken Ham.

As expected, I remain unconvinced that someone who was watching the debate last night will walk away with a deeper and more enlightened understanding of this complex issue (i.e. faith and science and their compatibility).

There’s certainly nothing wrong with public speakers who try to popularize complex ideas and communicate them to an broad audience (that’s what I do!), but I don’t believe that these two gentlemen were the best representatives of their respective “camps.”

As a friend of mine pointed out last night, “…they both seemed like they were giving infomercials for their respective audiences.” I agree.

Also expected and fulfilled were the reams of new blogs and articles from apologists offering alternative explanations and perspectives (I guess this one is a self-fullfilled prophecy!).

2. As a classically trained apologist (in the vein of Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Geisler, et. al.), I cringe at the very likely possibility that Ham will “…beg the question” in his presuppositional approach to defending the Bible. When and if he uses evidence, I will rejoice and be glad.

The question that was debated was “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” While this is a good question, it actually doesn’t get at the root issue which is whether or not a theistic God exists and what evidence, if any points to His existence.

At CrossExamined we don’t take an official position on the age of the earth. We have students and supporters who defend each of the mainline views on origins (i.e. Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism, etc…).

That said however, we confidently stand on evidence in support of our belief in a personal, all-powerful, space-less, timeless, immaterial Creator. We leave it to Christians to sift the evidence for themselves, as to whether or not the earth is young or old.

The question of the age of the earth is a “second order question.” The question of God’s existence is a “first order question.” In dialoguing and debating non-believers, we should not front-load the conversation with secondary questions. Establishing God’s existence is primary.

Last night Ken Ham’s very starting point for science was the Bible itself and the age of the earth. The only problem with that is that Bill Nye and perhaps millions of others, don’t accept the Bible as true because they don’t believe there is a God.

My criticism isn’t necessarily leveled against Ken Ham’s Young Earth Creationism (or some of the other evidences he presented), rather it’s against the WAY that he argued which is just as important. In beginning with the Bible, he put the cart before the horse.

Let me be perfectly clear – I am a staunch defender of Biblical inerrancy, but in order for inerrancy to be philosophically true, Truth (with a capital “T”) must exist, God must exist and naturalism (as a worldview) must be false. The space-time universe is not a closed system, so miracles and the supernatural are very reasonable possibilities.

3. The truth of Romans 1 & Psalm 19 has been in full operation since the creation of the world when there were no publicly hyped debates.

One of the great things about God’s Word is that its truths are timeless and ever relevant.

Creation itself (which is silent yet vocal – Psa. 19:3-4) is the greatest evidence for the Creator. The evidence is so great and overwhelming that there is no debate – all men are without excuse (Rom. 1:20). The age of the earth wasn’t an issue when Paul penned Romans, yet he tells us that “everyone can know that there is a Creator.”

Below are a few blogs that I found especially helpful in illuminating and evaluating the Nye/Ham debate.

Helpful Blogs About the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate On Feb 4th, 2014

Casey Luskin (Discovery Institute) Old Earth Creationist 

David Coppedge (Creation Writer) Young Earth Creationist 

Melissa Cain Travis (Houston Baptist University) Old Earth Creationist

Dr. Albert Mohler (President, Southern Seminary) Young Earth Creationist 

 

 

/by

Christians in the Super Bowl

Here’s a compilation of comments from Seahawks and Broncos who are Christians (or at least believers in God).  Thought some of you might find this inspiring.  (The major media only seems to carry such comments when it’s impossible not to– when they are made live.)

/by

How to Reach Your Non-Christian Relatives this Christmas

Why Is God So HiddenIt’s going to happen again this year.  You’re going to get together with a bunch of people who would rather talk about anything but Jesus.  What can you do to reach them?

Face it.  You’re probably not going to get them to accept Jesus by the end of dinner.   A direct frontal assault with facts isn’t going to work because many of them don’t want Christianity to be true.  So I think your goal should be more modest.  How about just planting and watering seeds (like Jesus and Paul did!)? In other words, getting them to doubt what they believe and/or getting them to think about the claims of Christianity.

Here are few ideas you might try:   

  1. Pray: Start praying now for opportunities and for hearts to be open.  Then volunteer to pray before the meal (No one will interrupt or critique a prayer!).   Keep the prayer short and thank God for:
    • Your family members and guests by name
    • The food
    • Coming to earth that first Christmas in the person of Jesus to pay for our sins and to offer forgiveness and salvation for free to anyone who trusts in Christ
  2. Serve: Get off the couch and serve people as if you were a real Christian!
  3. Ask:  Seriously ask people how they’ve been doing this year.  Then ask them, “Is there anything I can pray for you about?”
  4. Testify: If they ask you how you’ve been doing, fold in a story of how God is working.
  5. Agree & Affirm whatever they get right.  It will make points of disagreement more acceptable.
  6. Use Tactical Questions When They Get Something Wrong: When people make truth claims, it’s not your job to refute them—it is their job to support them. So before responding to their statements, ask these questions.
    • What do you mean by that?
    • How did you come to that conclusion? (Or what evidence do you have for that?)
    • Have you ever considered…? (Fill in the blank with the evidence you would like the person to consider).
  7. Use the Quick Answers section of the CrossExamined App to respond to specific objections.   
  8. Show them what makes your walk easier: Glo Bible, You Version Bible, CrossExamined App (people love gadgets and apps).
  9. Seed the conversation:  Depending on how the conversation goes, some of these statements may get people thinking and even get them to ask you questions.  They include:
    • If I were perfect, I wouldn’t need a Savior.
    • God won’t force people into Heaven against their will.
    • I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
    • The greatest miracle in the Bible is the first verse.
    • What motive did the Jewish New Testament writers have to make up a new religion?
    • If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

    10. Write them afterwards:  Following up on a conversation later via email can be very effective.  That’s because you can present your ideas more clearly and completely while the other person can actually consider what you are saying without feeling the pressure of having to respond immediately.  You can also include links to articles or websites for those that want to go deeper.

I hope some of these ideas will help you move people closer to the gospel this Christmas!  I’d love to hear what actually worked for you.  Please you story in a comment below or drop me an email at Frank@CrossExamined.org after the holiday.  Blessings to you this Christmas!

/by

Does Causality Apply Outside of Space and Time?

, ,

The-Law-of-Causality-JM2 During a radio debate I had with an atheist recently, I pointed out that the universe had a beginning and thus needs a cause.  He responded by claiming that since there was no space or time prior to the creation event we shouldn’t appeal to the law of causality to claim that the creation event was caused.

Dr. Lawrence Krauss cites a slightly different objection. When Dr. Krauss says that every physical thing requires a physical cause, he is talking about what Aristotle called “material” causality—namely, what the cause is made of.  But the objection my radio opponent made deals with what Aristotle called “efficient” causality.  An efficient cause is what most people think of when they think of a cause.  It is the primary source of the effect:  an author writes a book, a spider builds a web, a quarterback throws a pass.  They are efficient causes.

Atheists who make this claim are saying that there is no efficient cause of the universe because it didn’t take place in space or time. Let’s look at that argument in a syllogism.

  1. The law of causality only applies to physical things in space-time.
  2. The creation of the universe did not occur in space-time (it was the creation of space-time).
  3. Therefore the law of causality does not apply to the creation of the universe.

This argument doesn’t work because the first premise is false. Notice that there is no physical relationship between the premises and the conclusion of the argument above (or any argument).  Also notice that the premises are not objects in space-time.  Yet, there is a causal relationship between the premises and the conclusion.  In other words, true premises cause valid conclusions.

If this atheist argument were sound, then no argument could be sound.  Why?  Because if the law of causality only applied to physical things, then no argument would work because premises and conclusions are not physical things.  For any argument to work—including arguments against God—the law of causality must apply to the immaterial realm because the components of arguments are immaterial.

In other words, logic itself wouldn’t work if the first premise were true. But since logic works, the law of causality applies metaphysically not just physically.  In fact, to deny causality beyond space and time would be to deny logic, which would be self-defeating and would negate our ability to argue anything.

You can also see why it is self-defeating to deny the law of causality by simply asking anyone who doubts it, “What caused you to come to that conclusion?”  Or more precisely, “What reasons do you have for your position?”

If the person cites scientific experiments or observations as the source for his evidence, then point out that experiments and observations presuppose cause and effect.  You couldn’t make those observations or draw any conclusions without the law of causality.[i]  Likewise, any process of reasoning he uses would also use the very law of causality he would be denying.  In other words, it’s self-defeating rationally and scientifically to conclude that effects do not need causes. That’s because any denial of the law of causality uses the law of causality. 

[i] Some atheists will appeal to the quantum level to question the law of causality.  But just because we can’t predict cause and effect among subatomic particles, doesn’t mean that there is no cause and effect.  That could be a matter of unpredictability rather than uncausality.  In other words, the limits of our knowledge of the quantum level might be the issue. Moreover, any conclusion the atheist makes about the quantum level would use the very the law of causality he is questioning.  That’s because his observations of the quantum level and his reasoning about it use the law of causality!  While it is possible that causality does not apply at the quantum level, given the fact that the law seems universal everywhere else and the scientist uses it in all of his conclusions, why would anyone conclude it’s more plausible to believe that causality does not apply at the quantum level?  Could it be because it helps one avoid God?

/by

“Eternity Has the Floor:” Another Look at Pascal’s Wager

, , , , ,

Silent you stand before the altar of death! Life here and life after constitute an eternal conundrum; but its expiring spark awakens us to holy devotion and quiets every other voice except religion. Eternity has the floor.

~Alfred Nobel: read at his funeral (1896)

The above words were spoken at Alfred Nobel’s funeral service in 1896. In life Nobel was an interesting but ironic man. He is remembered, of course as the Swiss chemist and engineer who invented dynamite among other things, and also the man whose name is associated with coveted prizes in physics, chemistry, literature and peace. Nobel was also an atheist, and yet he also left large sums of money to churches. In 1888 when Nobel was reading through a French newspaper, he was astonished to read about his own obituary – the heading was “The merchant of death has died.” As it turned out, it was actually his brother Ludwig that had died. It would only be eight years later that Alfred himself would die by a brain hemorrhage at age 63.

Apparently Nobel had given some thought to that moment when he would face his own mortality. It’s not a pleasant thought – thinking about one’s own death, but one day every person must stand in silence and enter that mysterious realm beyond this life on earth, or as Nobel says… that eternal conundrum…

Cementary

The Old Testament patriarch Job pondered this question millennia ago when he asked, If a man dies, will he live again? (Job 14:14)

Atheists and materialists alike, stake their eternal souls on the belief and the affirmation that there is no afterlife or soul which survives the body after physical death. But is science equipped to answer such a question? Pascal would say no.

In the 17th Century (the 1600’s) a brilliant Frenchman (child prodigy, pioneering mathematician, inventor of the world’s first mechanical calculator, philosopher and scientist)[1] named Blaise Pascal put forth a rather strange argument for religious faith – and not just generic religious faith, but faith in full orbed Christianity.[2]

This is Pascal’s famous argument called “The Wager” (or The Bet).

But first let’s clear up a common misconception and make one clarification about Pascal’s famous Wager.

(1). He is not proposing “faith in faith” (a blind leap in the dark), but assumes that we have our data correct (faith is only as good as its object) – i.e. that the true God is the God of Christianity and that salvation is found only in a belief in Jesus Christ and that rejection of Him will result in eternal damnation.[3]

(2) Similar to the above notion – the Wager should not be considered in complete isolation from the larger work of Pascal’s Pensees (his apologetic for Christianity).

As philosopher James R. Peter’s observes, “Properly understood, the wager makes a compelling but limited point….”[4]

Kreeft clarfies:

“The Wager is not an attempt to prove the God exists. It is not a new argument for the existence of God. Rather it tries to prove that it is eminently reasonable for anyone to “bet” on God, to hope that God is, to invest his life in God. It moves on the practical, existential, human level rather than the theoretical, metaphysical, theological level. …It is not an alternative to the traditional arguments for the existence of God… [the Wager]…is addressed to unbelievers, to those who are skeptical of both theoretical reason and revelation.”[5]

What Pascal’s Wager highlight’s is the fact that we are all “in the game” – there is no neutrality on the question of God’s existence or of eternal salvation in Jesus Christ.

He writes:

“Let us examine this point, and let us say: ‘Either God is or he is not.’ But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager? Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong.

Do not then condemn as wrong those who have made a choice… ‘No, but I will condemn them for not having made this particular choice, but any choice, for although one calls heads and the other one are equally at fault, the fact is that they are both at fault: the right thing is not to wager at all.’

Yes, but you must wager. There is no choice, you are already committed. What will you choose then? Let us see: since a choice must be made, let us see which offers you the least interest. You have two things to lose: the true and the good: and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness.”[6]

Finally and interestingly, the Wager comes down to a pleasure (or a happiness) calculus – which appeals to what a person has the potential to gain from such a wager.

Here is what is at stake.

A. God exists (& Christianity is true)

  • If I believe it and it turns out to be objectively true then I gain eternal happiness and lose nothing.  
  • If I do not believe it and it turns out to be objectively true then I lose everything (including happiness and pleasure).

B. God does not exist (Christianity is not true)

  • If I believe this and it is objectively true then I gain nothing and lose nothing.
  • If I do not believe this and it is objectively true then I gain nothing and lose nothing.

If Christianity is true then those who don’t believe it have everything to lose. But if it is not true then nothing, in the end, is lost to the pious believer. It is really the unbeliever who has more to lose if they are wrong.

Pensee 241 provides a good summary:

I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true [& it not actually be true].

On death’s threshold “eternity has the floor,” then religious questions don’t seem so silly after all.

What will you choose then?

[1] For an old but excellent biography of Pascal’s life see Morris Bishop’s classic, Pascal: The Life of Genius (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1936)

[2] See his Pensees, 418.

[3] For more on this point see Peter Kreeft’s excellent book, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensees Edited, Outlined & Explained (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), pp. 292-3.

[4] James R. Peters, The Logic of the Heart: Augustine, Pascal, and the Rationality of Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 188-9.

[5] Kreeft, pg. 291 [emphasis mine].

[6] “233” in Pensees, Translated by W.F. Trotter, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Editor in Chief, Great Books of the Western World, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 213-6 [emphasis mine].

/by

Human Design Blindly Echoes Design in Nature

,
"Gears" from a plant hopping insect look designed

“Gears” from a plant hopping insect.

Scientists continually tell us that certain features found in nature are not “designed” but are the product of unguided evolutionary development. In his book The Blind Watchmaker biologist Richard Dawkins curiously has to remind his readers and warn them that some things in nature may appear designed when in fact they are not. He wrote that, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

A recent article posted by Christian apologist, Melissa Cain Travis, offers some compelling reasons that nature is in fact, designed. Many of these designs are copied either unconsciously or consciously (via the science of Biomimicry) by humans. The most reasonable inference is that these designs come from an Intelligent Creator.

You can read about it here

 

/by