My question for you this beautiful, lightly snowing day here in Burnsville is this – what are the reasons that you believe in God? God reveals Himself in many ways to us Earth dwellers, and some are easier to see than others. In this post, I thought I would touch on three (3) of the best reasons I believe in the 'truth' of Christianity. Now if you think there are better choices than the three (3) I list here, I say YES! I am providing this list based upon my observations and issues I have dwelt with through my life. Because each of us has different life experiences and viewpoints, the reasons we may believe in Christ will differ from person to person. And so I hope that by thinking about our reasons to believe, that we will be more willing to share with others these reasons. You know, we should always be prepared to share the hope that we have in Christ Jesus. So let's get started with a list of what I see as the most persuasive showing God's presence.
Why did I entitle this post as 'Apologetics'? Apologetics is the study of the defense of the Divine origin and authority of Christianity (Websters). And so, Apologetics is the proper way of discussing reasons to believe in the God of the Bible. I have three reasons for believing that Jesus is the only way for a person to receive a saving faith. Tomorrow, I might have three different reason, but for today, these are my top three (3):
1). The Bible. Yes, it's the most widely read book in the world. Yes, it's the most widely published book in the world. And if you're an atheist or any other kind of unbeliever, if you have not read the Bible, any words you say about the Bible or anything about spiritual or philosophical topics can be dismissed summarily. And so, if you haven't read the Bible you are a culturally illiterate person. There is only one way to understand great authors like Shakespeare, the founding documents of our country, or not-infrequent comments by all of our nation's Presidents when invoking God, you must have read and understood the Bible. Why not start today?
But this isn't the reason why the Bible has made my Top 3 reasons for why we know Christianity is true. Instead, because there is common belief that there is an Intelligent God who is involved in this world, it is logical that God would reveal Himself in different ways. Yes, God reveals His character through nature. Yes, God reveals Himself to us in times of trouble, through providing peace, comfort, strength and answered prayers. But the way God most clearly reveals Himself is through Jesus the Messiah, and the Holy Bible. (See, Colossians 1:15-16; Hebrews 1:3). And ALL of the Bible testifies about our Lord Jesus. See, John 5:39. Am I saying that the Books of the Old Testament are about Jesus, even though they were written hundreds of years before He was born? Yes, I am as John 5:39 makes clear.
And yes, the Bible is filled with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 6:17), which comes to us as we read the Scriptures. We hear God's Voice through the Bible verses we read or when we hear it preached. And we become transformed through this "living" Book. It is an amazing Book that can reveal God's Mind to us puny humans. Yet, even the Bible which sometimes describes God's anger and wrath to us, is more clearly a Book of God's love. We receive salvation through the Gospel of Christ provided in its pages (Romans 1:16). And so, this is easily the first reason to believe in God – the power of His Word, the Bible.
2). Israel, God's Chosen People. I am not an expert on the history of the nation of Israel. But I can see that it is the world's most hated ethnic group. And we see in the Holy Scriptures descriptions of other people and nations that have tried to eliminate God's Chosen People – from the nation of Persia, as shown in the Book of Esther (the only Book in the Bible that does not mention God), to the destruction of Israel the generation following Jesus' death by the Roman Empire (See, Luke 21:20-24 describing the upcoming destruction of Israel, and that Jerusalem would be "trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled."
The continued existence of a distinct group of people, who have remained religiously and culturally distinct for over 4,000 years, is a great proof of God's having spoken to the world through the Bible. The Bible gives a prophecy in Genesis 15:18 that Abraham's descendants would have their own country, and that it would be between the river of Egypt and the river Euphrates. This is commonly called the 'Promised Land'. Are they really all that different? Let me give you one example to show that they are – circumcision. Only the Jewish people keep a 'covenant' with God through the ritual of circumcision. And this made them physically and nationally a distinct group. Add in their observance of the Sabbath, dietary restrictions, distinct head coverings, etc. and it is easy to see that the people of Israel are a distinct group that God has a future purpose for (See, Romans 11). The continued existence of Israel as a distinct cultural and ethnic nation is a powerful reason for believing in the existence of the Christian God.
3). Cell's Do Not Change. Science provides us with clear evidence that Darwinist/natural means of cell reproduction cannot create a new species. Through the published scientific studies involving E-coli, HIV/Aids, and malaria, the scientific evidence shows that through many generations of reproduction, there is a limit of changes that can take place in an organism of only up to three (3) amino acids from a parent. Three (3) lousy amino acids?! And Darwinism is based on this measly performance? So remember Darwinism's claim – all animals descend from a single parent. And this all had to have taken place 530 million years ago, when the Cambrian Explosion took place. Wow, 530 million years sounds like a lot of time doesn't it. But Darwinists have the completely nonsense belief that Natural Selection and Variation is the mechanism that can cause all of the variation we see in our world today including bacteria, viruses/germs, birds, frogs, fish, whales, squirrels, bears, cows, and ultimately mankind through changes made in only the past 530 million years.
Think about all of the systems that have to be created brand new and working during this timeframe – male and females sexual organs, a spinal cord / central nervous system, blood, circulatory system, lungs, respiratory system, and of course, the human brain. And through the scientific studies involving malaria, e-coli, HIV/Aids cells, at the end of thousands of generations of mutations, natural selection/variation was only able to build up to three (3) amino acid changes. These changes were helpful for the bacteria because it helped them in fending off / provide resistance to its anti-biotic medicine enemies. But c'mon, no new species were created through these many generations – no new proteins were created. And nothing distinct was ever made through the many generations – an e-coli cell made other e-coli cells. As any animal breeder will tell you – a cat makes more cats, and not dogs. And the claim that invisible changes are being made over time is now demonstrably false – at best, three (3) amino acids is the most that can be changed even over thousands of generations. And so, we now know enough about mutation rates, error corrections within a cell, and the greater likelihood of deterioration / harmful errors, rather than helpful errors within a cell, to confidently say that Darwinism cannot be the tool by which all of the world's species were made. Unless you believe in aliens, this leaves you with one other choice: the God of the Bible is responsible for the Earth's vast diversity. Because Darwinist evolution cannot provide an explanation for life's diversity, it leaves us with one rational explanation: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1). And that by Jesus, all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible (Colossians 1:16). The world of the cell, and because it does not change much even over many generations is the reason why I have included it in my top three (3) reasons to believe in Christianity.
I hope you have found this post helpful in thinking about the reasons why you believe. And if you have different reasons, then think about those reasons, and be prepared to share the reasons why you believe with someone else this week. The week before we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Messiah. In Christ, /s/Tom Wolff.
10 comments:
Hi Tom,
Joyous Solstice to you. On this holiest day of the year, we look forward to rebirth and renewal... the never ending cycle of life... And the re-birth of the never-ending cycle of your same old arguements of religious egotism...
1) Until you have read the Koran and the Gita's you are JUST as illiterate as anyone who has not read your Bible (which I have, cover to cover, albeit a somewhat cursory reading 30 years ago). I would include several other writings, such as the Talmud, The Book of the Dead, and any basic primer about Wicca, but I wouldn't want to extend the shame you should be feeling for having made such an intolerant, un-loving, and downright arrogant statement.
Incidentally, thinking that a book is just so gosh darn SWELL isn't really very solid evidence for it's truth. There's a lot of ugly hate, searing violence, and poorly written propaganda in that same tome, but you never mention any of those... They do tend to get in the way of taking your religions claims seriously...
2) I'm guessing that a fair number of Jews are scratching their heads right now, and wondering why you're stealing their accomplishments as proof of YOUR religion. I'm fairly certain they don't see it that way, and utterly certain that any Logic teacher would not as well...
3) You're just so darned CUTE when you're parroting somebody else's bad pseudo-science. Did you ever take a look at the Nat'l Geo article from 2004 that summarizes why Evolution is stronger than ever?
BTW, never have you so clearly stated the principle of Ignorance = God before. Stating it more clearly does not, however, give it any more credence than it's ever had.
You do realize, don't you, that not one of your reasons made any rational sense? No arguement for religion ever does. That holds true even for my own nearly non-existent beliefs. It's all based on "Wishing will make it so."
We have both chosen something to wish for, hoping it will be true. I like my imaginary friends a lot more than I like yours. Mine are quieter, don't lie as much, are more tolerant and loving to a much larger segment of the world's population, have no ambitions for taking over the world, and don't want to force everyone to live by some weirdly inconsistent Do-As-I-Say-And-Not-As-I-do morality.
So on this Yuletide Day, this Solstice, I am grateful for a morality that is flexible and forgiving enough to allow me a moment of pettiness in reminding you that nearly every aspect of your mid-winter holiday celebration was stolen from my spiritual brethren. The only original parts of the Christian Christmas are the Grinch, the ritual massacre of millions of genetically-altered, mutant turkeys, as well as "Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer," and, more importantly, "Christmas in Sarajevo."
Thank you for allowing me to bring the Light of Reason to your blog for yet another year! May there be many more...
Merry Yule, and yes, even Merry Christmas...
Pax,
~E~
Hi Ed,
An unusually weak response from you. I hope everything is ok.
1) Yes, other books are written. But there's only one book that has sold 6.7 BILLION copies. And of course, you are culturally illiterate if you haven't read the world's best-selling book.
But you also ignored the Bible's claim that it reveals the Mind of God, and that it is "living". None of the other books you mentioned makes this kind of claim.
2) Yes, Christians can lay claim to the nation of Israel, because you know, our Lord and Savior is a Jew. Also, Jesus fulfilled prophecies about the destruction of Israel (Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21), written before the event took place, and fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Roman army of Titus.
But more, in the New Testament books of Luke and Romans, there is lots written about the nation of Israel. So yes, which is why Christians are big supporters and evangelists of Israel.
3) You see, we discuss science by using scientific studies. To mock me by calling me "cute" is fun. But it has nothing to do with discussing science. If you can find a scientific study where multiple generations of an organism are studied, and more than three amino acids are changed, then show it to me. But you don't have these studies. And I do. If you want me to give you the names of these published studies again, I will. And so, until you have something to back up what you say Darwinism can do, all you are doing is waving your hands. Nice try though.
"Three (3) lousy amino acids?! And Darwinism is based on this measly performance?"
You find my use of "cute" as non-scientific after this tidbit of useless hyperbole?
I was poking a little fun at you, because you tend to accept, hook, line and sinker, any poor or hasty conclusions from purportedly scientific studies that seem to support your foregone Creationist conclusion, while at the same time sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "LA LA LA!!!" when confronted by the preponderance of evidence supporting Evolution.
Please explain to me your understanding of why a change of three amino acids can have no evolutionary significance. Then explain the potential pitfalls in using cherry-picked data to represent all living species. Then do a little research on this assertion: E. coli and most other pathogens are actually very highly evolved already, being quite able to survive in their ecological niche, and we don't expect to see much variation there. So are sharks, turtles, crocodiles, horseshoe crabs and any number of other species.
You still, after all these years, fail to understand what Evolution is, and more importantly, is not. The "goal" of Evolution is not some structured progression to an imagined point of utter perfection. Evolution is not a conscious process. Evolution doesn't wake up one morning and say, "Gosh, that ape-like thing would do much better with an opposable thumb."
We don't expect everything to "evolve" at all... That is the danger of comparing germs to humans. Some germs, like influenza, are unstable, and mutate rapidly, but their structure isn't conducive to he kinds of mutations that will "allow" them to "evolve" to a different form. That's why I used the term "cherry picking" earlier. you can't use oranges to "prove" a theory about apples.
End of part one... Blogger strikes again...
Part 2 of 2...
"So remember Darwinism's claim – all animals descend from a single parent. And this all had to have taken place 530 million years ago, when the Cambrian Explosion took place."
Wrong! Wrong at so many levels... first of all, before the PE, sex organs, eyes, lungs, legs, nervous systems and brains were all well-established. Life had already been around for over a billion years at that point. The significance of the PE was that the terraforming of the Earth had progressed (NATURALLY, through the actions of plants), that the oxygen content of the atmosphere was suddenly high enough to support a modern oxygen transport system (the circulation systems advanced rapidly at the beginning of the PE). This allowed far more mutations to become successful, and the niches were available and empty, so competition was light for millions of years. Vast new forms had an "easy" time surviving, so Evolution went nuts.
Now to confuse you even more! Most of what we see didn't take 530 million years to evolve, but far, far less! You totally fail to grasp th4e significance of even a million years... Homo sapiens are only 150,000 years old, and we have undergone several major changes since then. You wouldn't recognize an original H. sapiens if you saw one... you would think he is closer to earlier species, but you would be wrong.
This is yet another danger of thinking in terms of "generations" like in the malaria and E. coli experiments. H. sapiens has been around about 10,000 generations... We have changed quite a bit in that time, but not enough to be a different species (yet). "Generations" are not really a useful scientific term, and leads to bad conclusions, like your experiments.
Evolution is a tree, not a straight line. A new species is created whenever a changed form can no longer successfully produce fertile offspring with it's nearest relatives. The classic example is the Finches of the Galapagos Islands. The population there had become separated from finches elsewhere. Mutations occurred, some variations were more successfully adapted to living in that one spot, and they reproduced more. By the time Darwin got there, the finches there were no longer capable of producing successful offspring with other finches elsewhere. That is the difference between species and breeds, like dogs, which can successfully reproduce.
There are lots of scientist who would argue my definition. After all, dogs and wolves can often successfully produce fertile and successful offspring, so there are other ways of defining species, but reproductive capability is the most commonly used.
If you look at the "tree" of Evolution, you see sideways and backwards progression, and well as movement "upward" from ocean algae to humans.
I've read enough of the pseudo-science you've asked me to, now it's payback time. Read that article from Nat'l Geo (2004.. I'll find it for you), and refute it how you will...
Have a Happy Snowstorm!
~Ed~
"1) Yes, other books are written. But there's only one book that has sold 6.7 BILLION copies. And of course, you are culturally illiterate if you haven't read the world's best-selling book."
Yawn. Christians are, as a group, more literate than other major religions, so of course they have more extant copies. Same for the USA... We print more books than any other country. If we were a Muslim nation, the Koran would have it all over the Bible. The number produced means very little when you realize the Gideons alone have produced 1.5 BILLION, or 20% of the total (www.gideons.org), and very few of those are in regular use.
While the Bible always has been the most widely published book in America, and the best SELLING book in the world, in the period from 1966 to 1976 the most widely owned, read, and quoted, book in the world was Mao's Little Red Book... did that make it any more authoritative? Appealing to popularity is a popular informal logical fallacy.
"But you also ignored the Bible's claim that it reveals the Mind of God, and that it is "living". None of the other books you mentioned makes this kind of claim."
Oh please... You're arguing semantics, not content. Of course I ignored it. It may add to the Wishing-Will-May-Make-It-So factor, but adds no factual evidence. Ask any Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan or Animist, and they will all tell you their gods are alive and quite well, thank you very much. They will also claim that the will of their Gods are revealed quite sufficiently, thank you very much. Rephrasing concepts might give them a fresh and unique sound, but it changes little.
Your claims of stunning religious uniqueness are pure wishful thinking. Non-Christians give those claims no more credence than Christians give to theirs. ALL religions have a shtick that they use to separate themselves. Just like some ad campaigns stand out in TV history, so to do the shticks of a few religions put them on top of the heap.
(darn Blogger... end of part 1... again)
part 2 of 2 (Silly Blogger!)
In the world of retail, every big store (Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, etc) claims to have the lowest price and will match any price on the EXACT SAME model. So what do they do? They make deals with the manufacturers to give THEIR stores' boxes a unique model number. Even though the VCR is the same one, it has a different model number at each big store, so EVERYONE can have the lowest price.
Religions are the same... each lays a differing claim to fame, so that all can claim to be unique, and therefore, the Truth.
Even the differing cults within each religion follow this pattern. Christianity has Protestants and Catholics, Protties have about 30 flavours, including one called Lutherans. Lutherans are further broken into Synods, which threaten to further propagate every time someone gets their undies in a bunch. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus... all claim to know the Truth, but all are internally fractured. All use differing parts of their own Scripture to prove they are better than their own brethren, as well as the rest of humanity.
====================
Now, having said all that, something happened yesterday that restored a tiny bit of my faith, as the reasonable bounds of coincidence were stretched pretty tight. Couple of somethings that put me in the right spot at the right time to do a lot of good for two people I love dearly. I don't WANT it to have been coincidence.
But who gets the credit? The people I helped were both very devout Christians, and both profusely thanked your God for my help.
On the other hand, I set out to do some good, and it worked out WAY better than I had dared hope, making me feel great... Which is exactly what the Pagans would say is how the Goddess works.
Even if it was just pure dumb luck, I felt a bit of awe and humility that it might have been more... and awfully, awfully, good.
====================
Too bad we aren't next door.... with the storm canceling everyone's plan, sitting around the fire debating religion would be a fine way to wait out the worst of it...
Pax,
~E~
"2) Yes, Christians can lay claim to the nation of Israel, because you know, our Lord and Savior is a Jew."
According to two of my Jewish friends, you probably don't want to go making these claims in Synagogue. Jews are not amused by Christians "hijacking" (his word, not mine...) their religion for use as proof of your own. They both said that if what you claim were so obviously true, then all Jews would have become be Christians long ago.
They both claim that Christians as a whole have revised and twisted history to make Jesus out to be more than he was. One even further stated that Jesus may have cynically used Jewish tradition and prophecy to further himself. He cited various points where Jesus does things JUST to satisfy prophecy, not because it just worked out that way. He believes (I and many Jews apparently agree) that riding into Jerusalem on an ass was a publicity stunt done just so Jesus could claim to be prophecy fulfilled. I believe the Bible even supports that, although I don't remember the verse. I ran into it looking up one of your references this past year.
Let is snow, let it snow, let it SNOW!
~E~
"You see, we discuss science by using scientific studies. "
You got a mouse in your pocket? Watch how you use "We"... In general, the ID community uses very little actual science, or they use it poorly, which earns them not a lot of scientific credibility. For every study you use, there are hundreds you ignore.
You march to Behe's drum, repeating exactly what he tells you to, and using his carefully constructed series of defensive fall-back positions as your Full Plate Armour +5 vs. Reason.
First it was the eye, then the wing, then the cell, then the brain, now amino acids. As each shakily built arguement collapses, you cease discussion of the fallen logic and retreat to the newest and shiniest bastion of irrationality.
Why do not hear the eye and wing arguements any more? Because they failed, and were shown to be utter rot. The cell arguement is collapsing as new data comes in, and the brain arguement was stillborn in the first place.
I think I can already refute this odd amino acid arguement, but it's been too many years, so I need to bone up a bit before I'm sure... Better contact Behe and find out what your next set of instructions are...
---------------------------
As snow falls outside,
Winter wind shreds bad logic,
Muffles bad science.
---------------------------
If you Christians had invented Haiku, I might give you more credence, as it is as close to perfection as the written word may come (even though English butchers it)...
Pax Christopher,
(The Peace of Superman be upon you)
~E~
"3). Cell's Do Not Change. Science provides us with clear evidence that Darwinist/natural means of cell reproduction cannot create a new species. Through the published scientific studies involving E-coli, HIV/Aids, and malaria, the scientific evidence shows that through many generations of reproduction, there is a limit of changes that can take place in an organism of only up to three (3) amino acids from a parent."
Okay... you'll have to expand on this... just a cursory refresher on amino-acids (AA) reveals that your statement is gibberish. Perhaps you over-simplified it into meaninglessness, or perhaps the author of the study did... In any case, you need to clarify. Perhaps a link to the study itself?
Are you're talking about primary alpha-amino-acids, of which there are 20 freely occurring? These 20 are like the letter of the alphabet, and make up "words," which are proteins, in all life forms (there are 2 more primary, but naturally synthesized alpha-amino-acids used only in a few specialized life forms). Changing ANY of those would be like substituting Cyrillic or Hebrew characters into the English alphabet. The results would not be life as we know it. These would all be bad mutations.
There are thousands of customized AA formed by PTM (post-translational modification). These thousands shape, tweak, and potentiate the primary proteins made up of the primary alpha-amino-acids. Although there are thousands, a bare few make up the vast bulk of these "residual" AA that hang off of every protein string. These residual AA give the protein form, shape, ridigity and help with functioning of the protein within cell/organelle structure. If the right three PTM AA are changed, the entire organism may be transformed. Dismissing a change of "only" 3 AA without knowing which three is foolish.
It also matters what you are referring to as "change." ANY deviation from the template genes provided by the parent gametes is the very definition of a mutation, most of which are either survival neutral or downright bad.
It is oddly phrased bits like this cause me to accuse you of parroting something without really understanding what it means.
I strongly suspect you have fallen prey to some bad scientist using cherry-picked data from species that are highly evolved already, and thus very stable. E. coli and most disease-causing bacrteria aren't expected to show much change, so their value as a "proof" that change can't happen is zero. This would be an example of the misuse of science to further a non-scientific agenda.
Using the changability of a virus like HIV is also very shaky for a couple reasons. First, there is considerable debate as to whether virus actually qualify as life. If they ARE life, then the sheer number of distinctly different viruses occurring in a linear fashion is actually an excellent bit of evidence in favour of Evolution. The human genome is mainly leftover anti-body forms for viruses we faced in our past, that are no longer present. They evolved into new forms and the old ones died out. They are called retro-viruses, and we store info on 40,000 of them (out of the 100,000 bits in the genome). Look them up.
===========================
Not even 2100 yet and 2 inches of snow out there already. It's pretty and all, but worrisome asa well... If God owes you any favours, there is a feral cat we feed who hasn't been here today... He's gonna get awful hungry by Friday, and staying warm takes a LOT of energy. He eats 3 or 4 times what an indoor cat eats, and is still skinny.
~E~
Wow Ed, you can tell that you must be home-bound, with your prodigous Comment posting. Thank you.
Ed wrote: Now, having said all that, something happened yesterday that restored a tiny bit of my faith, as the reasonable bounds of coincidence were stretched pretty tight. Couple of somethings that put me in the right spot at the right time to do a lot of good for two people I love dearly. I don't WANT it to have been coincidence.
But who gets the credit? The people I helped were both very devout Christians, and both profusely thanked your God for my help...
====================
Tom says - Hmmm, would you care to share a little more about what happened? I'd be interested to hear about anything that you see as possibly more than just a coincidence.
Ed writes: Too bad we aren't next door.... with the storm canceling everyone's plan, sitting around the fire debating religion would be a fine way to wait out the worst of it...
Tom: I agree. With the long weekend, it'd be fun to sit around, game a little, and discuss the philosphical ideas we each hold.
Post a Comment