Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Welcome to the modern dark ages

Modern society "burns" even the idea of aided evolution, thinks they are better than what the RCC did to Galileo

Is science questionable? That is what I thought about today as I constantly consider the evolution / creation debate. If science is not questionable then it is not science. It is dogma.

What baffles me is that science is based on observation. Real science, therefore, can only call itself science when it is observed. I understand the implication, since we do not directly observe God, He cannot be scientifically verified.

But with this in mind, we have to ask, can science explain everything? The answer, of course, is not yet. But now, are there things that will never be explained? The answer to this question is incomplete - we cannot know what we do not know, unless the evidence comes about in the observable universe, and we cannot know what we will be able to prove in the future.

So with all this doubt, we have prospects. These prospects are wonderful. We are capable of questioning first principles and detecting assumptions. These tools help us in our inferences based upon the universe. I admit my assumption, that God exists. But I wonder how many people admit that there are gaps in their knowledge, and that if evidence of God where to exist, would they be able to question the assumption that He does not exist?

When you stop the ability to ask questions, you create the dark ages. If you challenge the modern thought, for some reason you are not seen as a visionary, but a scapegoat for ridicule. The Roman Catholic Church burned Galileo at the stake, for questioning an assumption. But today he is revered as a martyr for the freedom of scientific thought.

By removing the concept of the possibility of God, the world has shown that it is not religion (or Christianity) that makes bigots, but that people are naturally inclined to become violent towards a particular belief system when there is enough evidence to challenge it. I welcome challenges, but the modern world is slowly slipping into the very same trap they did in the dark ages

There is also another note. Faith does not say "I don't look for answers because I believe." Faith says "I look for answers, but I can sleep without having the answer for everything." I think the challenge for the modern western mind is to accept that there are some things there may not be any answers, but I also believe that is why God claims to grant PEACE, not necessarily ANSWERS on this side of the grave.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Invitation to the masses

9Gag.com and Membase are not just a 'funny image' websites. They are not where one can go wind down and look at a few funny images. I would have liked it if it were that. No, occasionally it turns into a hate perpetuating moral toilet for those who want nothing more than to slander those of other religious / political / ethnic viewpoints. Every now and then I do see a ray of light though.

They are places to go to feel empowered. People flock there to 'have their say' and ultimately, their say is drowned in the sayings of others. I am not going to encourage readers of this blog to go to these sites, but rather, I have provided the inks necessary for you to check it out for yourselves. The fist image I have linked to reveals a supposed 'call to equality.' It is funny how all religions are thrown into one basket here. You know I have never seen any other religion being slandered or blasphemed on this website. Only Christianity is blasted there. Only Christ and the true God of the universe is slandered there.

What I love is that they are doing what the devil has been doing for years. The users on this site reveal that they are not actually using their brains, but are rather a product of the culture they live in. They only attack Christianity, because they seem to think that is the only religion. They group all Christians into one basket, as if all of us go out protesting and hating others.

By the way - NO Christian HATES. If they do they will be in the group of goats to which Jesus says: "And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’" [Matthew 7:23]. If Westboro Baptist Church does not offer a message of hope and salvation to those in sin, and admit to being sinners themselves, they are far more gone than any homosexual or pro-'choice' person.

I am starting to get sick of using a logical argument - and let me defend that (yes, with logic...). Logic only takes people so far. And what is hilarious is that you can have the wrong premise and the logical outcome can be fairly rational. However faith and logic can be a powerful tool. I do not throw away my faith when I come to a failing in my logic (something I am at least capable of admitting to), I rethink, go back to first principles, and hopefully move on. I am not even asking for the world to approve of my logic plus my faith. All I ask is the opportunity to defend the truth that "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" [Romans 3:23] and that there is no injustice with God (the claims that he says not to kill and yet kills people [This is a blatant and childish attempt to bring God down to human standards.]) [Romans 9 : 14-15] and that he does not offer freedom from death, but freedom from hell and eternal death.

What really scares me is the eschatological implications of the way the world is going. My view of the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ says that the history and future of this world have a sort of 'poetic balance' in and of themselves, and what I see revealed in the history of the bible and today is an alarming symmetry. I see the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, I see the lifestyles of the Roman empire, I see the wretched faith of a stubborn people, both in the now and in the then of the bible. Why is this balance there? To show us that God is not surprised with what is going on here.

Here is my demotivational poster, I need to find a group of 'christians' protesting something the world really loves (like pro-homosexuality) and put that picture in here, and that will be my contribution to 9Gag.

Just again: I am not anti-homosexual. I am anti-sin. I will not protest sin in the streets, not condemn anyone who practices it without knowledge. Just as much as you have the freedom to sin, I am not capable of obliterating it. I will try to lovingly tell you that what you do will have an eternal affect on your position with God and that if you repent and believe you will be forgiven. But once you have heard and rejected my message all I can do is protect myself and my loved ones as best as possible. I will never vote allowing people to sin. I cannot change your heart or see what you do when you are alone, I can only pray that the One who can and does will change your heart and grant you repentance.

Friday, June 8, 2012

Does Evolutionist = Racist? (aka If I am a big enough bully, I win the argument)

If there are two things I hate in this world it is ad hominems and straw men. As a creationist SECOND and a Christian FIRST it must be stated that I am better than the other side. Dear Evolutionist, I refuse to resort to the simple minded tactics that you would use on me. As someone who was captain of the debate team, I learned early on the best way to defeat an argument was on the premises of the argument itself. Or as the bible induces 'from within.' In other words, present the argument correctly and consistently, because a bad one is easily destroyed by the proponents as misrepresentation.

Where does this come from? Well, people read my bible the wrong way. The call God immoral, they misread biblical texts in order to introduce supposed erratum, they call Christians bigots and hypocrites. While this brand of 'mud' slinging does wonders for the validity of the arguments themselves, I fail to understand why both camps still do it. By employing Jesus' best trait we can win the fight, at least in worldly terms, by eating a rather large slice of humble pie.

I believe that when I resort to certain tactics, the tactics I learnt while not a Christian, I do my own argument detriment in the eyes of the onlooker. Take people who picket abortion clinics or those who have anti-homosexual protests. These people exhibit an anti-Christian behaviour that is inconsistent with their theology. And you know what? It's obvious that they do not understand the very underlying nature of their beliefs.

But that is only from the Christian side. The (non-Christian) evolutionist has no such 'saftey net' into which they may fall. I propose to you that if evolution really teaches racism, the obvious answer is 'so what?' Just because we see it as a social evil does that necessarily mean it is not true? Did you really think that kind of argumentation would convince someone that a (supposedly) scientifically proven process is untrue? Because you claim it promotes racism? Do you think genes care?

I would say to Christians that we need to up the ante here. We need to stop looking for our petty 'solutions' to the evolution problem regarding scripture.

Can I tell you why I don't believe evolution? Because of my EYES (with reference to the scientific method of observation, not to the eye as a physical 'unevolvable' appendage). Really. I have not seen genes pop out of nowhere and extend the length of a DNA strand. In the first place, I have never seen a report where NEW information (NOTE: a system with {a, b} in it producing {a, b, c} where c = a + b is not NEW information) was generated inside an already existing cell. Secondly, I have never seen a report where the DNA structure was ENLARGED as a result of breeding. Thirdly, death cannot come before sin, which makes God a liar.

The more I consider the argument, the more I believe science will eventually come around. But to tell them to 'stop sciencing' because 'mah bahbel tellz em so' is counter-productive. Let them search for truth, and eventually, eventually, they will be filled with so many contradictions that they will eventually start questioning the assumptions.

There are no easy answers, I have heard several stupid ones lately, namely:
  • If we came from apes, why are there still apes? That really has to be a knuckle-headed question. There are still apes BECAUSE THEY SURVIVED. Evolution does not claim that it throws the old away, it claims that changes happen over time.
  • Conservation of angular momentum. This one is silly. Some would say that if the big bang is true, everything should be spinning in the same direction. Wrong conclusion. Please go look at your clock. Make sure you take note of which way the hand is turning. Now stand behind the clock, which way is the hand turning now? Anti-clockwise! That proves that in a 3 dimensional universe an object can flip over and be spinning in the opposite direction.

Monday, June 4, 2012

If faith is blind, then so are you

This is by no means earth-shattering, but it is a thought that has crossed my mind as I was reading the title [here]: "Faith obeys, without knowing how." (I do not consider this great literature as it poses thesis' in an unnerving tone)

Now while I certainly believe the statement, it got me wondering about the creation / evolution debate, a.k.a the religion vs science debate. Now the latter title is clearly wrong, there is not a distinct line separating the two - you can have religious science, and you can have a scientific religion (I am one of the former).

But what I want to speak of is this: faith knows not HOW. This is interesting if you actually stop to think about it. While atheists and the like will childishly stipulate that not knowing HOW is the reason why they do not believe in God, they miss the point entirely. Knowing all the internal mechanisms is not an answer to the bigger questions. I think God gave us what we need 'at base level' in the bible, and has left the joy of discovery of the rest of it up to us. But the bible does not put all the answers to HOW things come about.

And then the question is: is this reasonable? Can we truly believe in a God who expects an acceptance without knowing HOW? I think the absence of HOW is exactly that: faith. Which then categorizes evolution very nicely into the religious sphere. In fact, a lot of science then falls into this sphere. I will not pretend to know so much as others, but the purpose of science is to divulge that of a earthly nature, the purpose of Christianity is to expose that of a spiritual one, using the same mechanisms.

The fact is, all science and human knowledge is based on faith. For example, what is the smallest thing in the universe? Atoms can be broken down into... what? And further than that? And further than that? Can you ever PROVE you have reached the smallest thing ever? You can't because FAILURE is not a definitive answer. And yet we have entire branches of sciences in these fields expecting things to work consistently, regardless of their blind faith. A way to demonstrate this would be to argue: Do you believe that things that happen in nature happen according to rules? Why do you believe that? Are there ever exceptions to these rules? Can you explain all of them? If you can't get any smaller, how do you know that? These questions initially seem to be the rantings of an annoyingly energetic toddler, but they reveal the ugly truth - that at some point, all people are willing to stop and say 'I have gone far enough in terms of understanding this thing.' That, is faith. If you have ever put down a topic even for a moment, being quenched for a period. You just exercised faith.

That is kind of 'micro' faith. But what about belief of big things? Can we know something for sure on the 'macro' scale? Not entirely. For example: You are either a biological evolutionist or a geographical one. You cannot be both. I would argue that you don't know everything in your field, but I certainly lack the ability to question you within your field. I can say, however, that you would have very little at your disposal in evaluating the discoveries of those who exist within the field opposing yours. So how do you develop an infallible system? Well, you don't. You develop a system in which TRUST forms a major role. I would call it a 'hazy' truth (the term fuzzy is taken). A truth that you promote even though you lack the necessary tools to fully grasp it yourself (You may even misrepresent these truths from time to time). Hmmmm, sounds an awful lot like Christians (Who just happen to be people too). So basically you can argue that two branches of science agree on a truth, but there is no way you can absolutely sure they correlate (e.g. Age of the earth with respect to both the evolutionary 'timetable' and the geological), unless you get an experts in all fields.

So just because Christians have more experience with 'hazy' truths, does not mean we have established all the truth there is to define, nor does it mean we are better at truth than that of others. We have the same struggles as all men do. We are no better off 'logic-wise' than other people. But we have completely different goals. Our goal is not necessarily to see you understand the mysteries of the universe, it is too see the one who put it there. For some people the worst possible thing that could happen to them is death. I disagree, I believe the worst thing is after death for those who have not known Jesus Christ as saviour and Lord. That puts scientific discovery after theology in importance.

Here is the big question: since I claim to know God, why can't I show Him to you? I can show you all the bible I want, all the history I want, but why can't I prove not only the existence of God, but of the Christian God. Ah, you see, that is not the reason I have been put on this earth. My purpose as a Christian is not to explain the HOWS of God, but rather the NEED for God. You must understand that God must reveal Himself, as I believe He did to me. HOW? Well, the only way is to truly humble yourself before Him. But even here I cannot help you. It is within my system of belief that there is NOTHING you can do to force / coerce God to reveal Himself to you, but it is in the realization THAT there is nothing you can do to save yourself, that God has promised to prove your faith worthwhile.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Re-Blog: Christian interaction in the digital age

This blog points out a sin I am very, very guilty of committing. My responses are not always thought out with prayer and I have trouble seeing an argument from the biblical perspective in the heat of the moment.

However my take is a little different to his, while I agree that responses should be kind in both directions, I ought not expect that of my readers, and I do feel that since I have a public space on which to say something, I want to allow people to respond, that we all may learn, be it from my bad example if necessary.

If there is one thing I cannot tolerate anymore, and I refuse to allow it, is anonymous critics. You will notice I have turned off anonymous comments because this blog is not anonymous. The least people can do is have the courage to associate their words with their name. God is not anonymous.

Peace and blessing to all!

Friday, May 18, 2012

The salvation of infants who die, now with added scripture

A few years ago, I made a post that gave my heart exceeding joy. Not because of the manner in which it was written, but because it uses a very simple logic to show a small spec of the magnificent goodness of God. [REF]

However, you will notice the argument is based on biblical logic, which I believe is correct, but I did not list the scripture which supports this argument. Now I write this blog for one reason: to remember the lion and the bear, in David's words. And it seems that most Calvinist's "I am not going to touch that one" attitude towards infant death makes me want to get my bible ducks in a row.

My issue is: How do we council the grieving mother? What do you tell her? Is there good news? Because if there isn't, well, there isn't. But if there IS good news, and you do not tell her, then shame on you!

Everyone dies. Of that, there is no question. It cannot be deemed unfair that people die, since even God subjected Himself to it (Even though He did not have to. He is the potter, you are the clay. Do you ask your pottery permission to behave as you would? [REF]). What is of more importance is where they are going. And eternity is FAR more important than the here and now.

There are many verses which indicate that God does not punish the children for the sins of the father:
"Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it." [Deuteronomy 1:39]

"Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?" [Jonah 4:11]

"11 Why did I not die at birth,
Come forth from the womb and expire?
12 Why did the knees receive me,
And why the breasts, that I should suck?
13 For now I would have lain down and been quiet;
I would have slept then, I would have been at rest,
14 With kings and with counselors of the earth,
Who rebuilt ruins for themselves;
15 Or with princes who had gold,
Who were filling their houses with silver.
16 Or like a miscarriage which is [b]discarded, I would not be,
As infants that never saw light.
17 There the wicked cease from raging,
And there the [c]weary are at rest.
18 The prisoners are at ease together;
They do not hear the voice of the taskmaster.
19 The small and the great are there,
And the slave is free from his master." [Job 3:11-19]

"22 He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' 23 But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."" [2 Samuel 12:22-23, emphasis added]

"12 Now you, arise, go to your house. When your feet enter the city the child will die. 13 All Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam’s family will come to the grave[NOTE: the rest of the family will be dead in the streets for the dogs], because in him something good was found toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam." [1 Kings 14:12-13, Emphasis and notes added]

"So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish." [Matthew 18:14]

The 'counter-verses', or verses that show damnation, serve to prove that infant who die cannot fall into this category:
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." [Romans 1:18-19]

"And they *sang a new song, saying, Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." [Revelation 5:9]

Some people may argue that when Jesus speaks of children, He is making an analogy of all belivers. John MacArthur says, it's a perfect analogy:
A child can do nothing for himself to be saved. A child can earn no salvation. A child can offer no accomplishment, no merit, no achievement, totally dependent on sovereign grace. That's the way we come. The Kingdom is full of people just like them, saved purely on the basis of sovereign grace. [SOURCE]

So what do we say then? We say that God is righteous, and the matters of life and death sit fairly in His hands. That He gives and takes according to His righteousness. But what a wonderful thing to know that He is not fair or just, He is gracious!

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Is there a stranger in your home?

Here is a little story doing the rounds. I liked it:

Ever since I can remember, a stranger has been living with us. From the beginning, Dad has been fascinated with this enchanting family addition. The stranger has been a vital part of the family, even before my arrival. As I grew up, I never questioned his place in our family. In my young mind, he had a special niche.

My parents were complementary instructors: Mom taught me good from evil, and Dad taught me to obey. But the stranger... he was our storyteller. He would keep us spellbound for hours on end with adventures, mysteries and comedies. If I wanted to know anything about politics, history or science, he always knew the answers about the past, understood the present and even seemed able to predict the future!

He made me laugh, and he made me cry. The stranger never stopped talking, but Dad didn't seem to mind. Sometimes, Mom would get up quietly while the rest of us were shushing each other to listen to what he had to say, and she would go to the kitchen for peace and quiet. (I wonder now if she ever prayed for the stranger to leave.)

Dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions, but the stranger never felt obligated to honor them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our home - not from us, our friends or any visitors. Our long time visitor, however, got away with four-letter words that burned my ears and made my dad squirm and my mother blush. My Dad didn't permit the liberal use of alcohol but the stranger encouraged us to try it on a regular basis. He made cigarettes look cool, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished. He talked freely (much too freely!) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing...

I now know that my early concepts about relationships were influenced strongly by the stranger. Time after time, he opposed the values of my parents, yet he was seldom rebuked... And NEVER asked to leave. The stranger has blended right into our family and is not nearly as fascinating as he was at first. Still, if you could walk into my parents' den today, you would still find him sitting over in his corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures.

His name?.... We just call him 'TV.' He has a wife now....we call her 'Computer.'

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Stumbling blocks

After re-directing a friend to one of my blog posts, he walked away with completely the wrong message. I was trying to point out that without Christ my friend is lost and hopeless. Instead he walked away confused as he was introduced to the Calvinist / Arminian debate on the nature and state of the free will of man, in the midst of an abortion debate. I can understand him being confused.

Which leads me to think: if someone walks away with the wrong message, who is to blame? I have to admit that I am at least partly to blame for not being clear in what I am trying to get across.

But then I realize: God is in control, even to the point where my friend may remain blind. All I can do is take the horse to water, how the horse gets himself tangled in the weeds is not something I intened, nor was it the point of what I was trying to accomplish. God knows what everyone needs and when they need it. I am not going to abandon the garden just because something went wrong1. I know that creation, abortion, denominationislm, calvinism etc. all create FAR MORE heated arguments within and without the church, and they ought to be issues that get addressed. If someone peeks their head in and gets the wrong message, that is really not my fault.

Nor is it God's. They have the full access to the right information. The point of my blog about infants was not to stir the arminian / calvin debate, but rather to display the glory of God in the consistency of salvation for ALL MEN (babies included). What that blog is saying is that infants that die go to heaven because they are saved by a gracious Father. The question one should walk away with is not how to hate arminian theology, but to strike the correct kind of fear in the heart for that person to say

"if I can only get to heaven the way those children gets into heaven, surely I am without hope."

The fear that results from that would cause any person to seek an alternative, and the desire would cause them to call out

"Lord, I am a sinner, I am without hope, I cannot save myself! Only you can save. Please save me."

This is my gospel, that God answers that prayer, and that it is not the praying of the prayer that saves, but the God who gave you the fear of Himself that saves. For you cannot pray this prayer meaningfully unless God gives you the ability. This is so there may be no boasting in your salvation other than boasting about the work Christ has done, not the work / prayer that you have done.

1 Wrong in my opinion. There is a Sovereign God at work after all.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

I really want to interpret this for you

But I am not going to.

But at least we aren't moving backwards (this one is just for a hoot):

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

On healing, tongues and special knowledge

It has been a while since I have done a post on theology. But there have been cases now where I have to take a stand on the 'charismatic' gifts. This is a contentious issue, so I want to start off with my presuppositions:
  1. Let me list what I am NOT talking about:
    • "Holy" laughter
    • Falling on the floor (being 'slain' in the 'spirit')
    • Speaking in 'angelic' tongues
    All of these are never mentioned in the bible as occuring, are used by it's proponents to create classes of Christians and are just plain illogical. If the fruit of the Spirit is self control, none of these fall into a category that is consistent with God.
  2. I have ALWAYS been a cessationist (believing that the charismatic gifts have ceased). Before I was a Christian (but wanted to be one), I did not follow this. I have to admit even as a small child I strongly rejected the idea of these gifts working today.
  3. As a cessationist, I do not limit the power of God. God can and does heal every day. When you break a leg, He knits it back together. What I object to is the concept of 'healers' and 'miracle workers' - not healing and miracles

With that out the way, let us look at the bible:
1 Corinthians 13
1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

If we look at the text, we have to see that Paul is saying that prophecy, tongues and special knowledge will cease. The obvious question becomes: When?
James 5:14-15
14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
15 and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.

Why does James just say call for Pastor Chris or Benny Hinn? Why call the elders? Why is James laying this down if he did not believe that healing had already began to cease?
Revelation 22:18 - 19
18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and [i]from the holy city, which are written in this book.

The bible says that prophecy is closed. Anyone claiming to know anything about the future other than what is revealed in scripture is a false prophet.

But besides this, look at 1 Corinthians 13:11. Why is that there? This is something that was brought to my attention yesterday. It is saying that the "childish" things of the church will fade: prophecy, tongues, special knowledge. So someone who practices these are still stuck in childish ways. The mature Christian practices faith, hope and love.

But then what about God? Have I put Him in a box? Of course not. God is free to do what He wills when He wills. But He gave us His word so that we might know and love Him properly. God tells us how He works in the bible. He has told us these things will cease, and so let it be. Does this mean God does not do these things HIMSELF? No - God does these things all the time (He IS the future, He can speak all languages, and He knows all there is to know.)

What this all means is that God can still communicate through time, language, dreams etc, but that if He does it will be PERSONAL. Just for you. There are cases of people being told by God in dreams to do this. God used John Bunyan's dreams VERY mightily. But they are not evidences or for mass edification. The BIBLE is for that.

There is a final point I must make regarding healing. If we are sick, we have to remember that God is sovereign. We may not be ill because of sin, but we are definitely where we are in life so that He may be most glorified. Do not rush to be healed before asking God why He permitted you to be sick. Take some serious stock. These are words coming from a man regarding his sickness, but whom also suffered mightily for the name of Christ:
2 Corinthians 12:9
9 And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Open Letter to Redbull

This letter was made in reference to Youtube: Redbull Jesus

Good day,

I am a devout Christian, and I want to applaude (even PRAISE) you for the advert that you put up. There is NO REASON why you should have to remove it.

I am not a Redbull drinker, but I want to commend you for what you did and the way you did it. I cannot say I LIKE what you did - I believe that taking my Lord and Saviour's name in vain is a sin punishable by eternal hell. HOWEVER - why should you be forced to take down the advert when there are television shows and movies that do it all the time?

The public has spoken - they do not mind Jesus being ridiculed in their entertainment. I can fully understand your confusion as a non-christian company. We are sending the wrong signals. I think what you did was great, not because I agree, and not because 'it made the Christians wake up,' (because it didn't - 'Christians' reacted very childishly) but because it is consistent with our culture and our entertainment industry.

Quintin Balsdon


I got this response:

Dear Quintin

Thank you for contacting us regarding the Red Bull advertisement broadcast on South African television. Given the time and effort it has taken for you to contact us directly, we appreciate how strongly you feel about this.

For over twenty years, Red Bull cartoons have looked at well known themes with a twinkle in the eye. It is never our intention to hurt anyone’s feelings. We regret that you have been offended by this particular cartoon.
This advertisement was part of our regular Red Bull series, it is now off air and has now been followed by another.

Red Bull

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com


To which I responded:
Dear Redbull,

No thanks to you for contacting me with your generic response regarding the Red Bull advertisement broadcast on South African television. Given the time and effort you have put into actually reading my e-mail, which was thought out and NOT A COMPLAINT, I appreciate how badly you must really feel (which, of course, is nothing). What I was trying to offer you was a reasonable reaction with which you could have gotten the Christians' backs against a wall - one where your advert could have stayed on air.

But now, since you do not read your e-mails anyway, I will complain.

"For over twenty years, Red Bull cartoons have looked at well known themes with a twinkle in the eye. It is never our intention to hurt anyone’s feelings. We regret that you have been offended by this particular cartoon."

Making an advert with Christ blaspheming in it could only have been intended to offend. You got your reaction, but my God is bigger than you. I am not the one offended, not am I the one who will be held accountable for your godless trash.

"This advertisement was part of our regular Red Bull series, it is now off air and has now been followed by another."

I am very sure it will. You must have known what kind of reaction you would get, and therefore had time to get everything ready, including another advert.

Should you actually want to read my e-mail, here is a link: http://gthruf.blogspot.com/2012/03/open-letter-to-redbull.html


I feel like I am crying in the wilderness. Why will Christians not listen? We invite this trash into our homes every night - we pay to watch movies with it in, and you sit back and drink it up.

And then when we see something like this, then we COMPLAIN? Wow - we are really no better than the Exodus. You resort to your RIGHTS? Paul could not do that! Peter could not do that! If we are going to complain we must take it to ALL aspects of the media.

Until I see Christians doing this (and maybe we are getting better), I will support any company who gets a bad reaction from the half-hearted lukewarm 'Christian' demographic.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Eschatology: A great summary

I found a really well-written article on the differing views on the end times here.
Please be aware - I am repeating things found at the original post. This is not my work.
In a nutshell, the author looks at the different approaches one may take to events:
Preterist: Belief that the event(s) (such as the tribulation) happened in the past.
Historicist: Belief that the event(s) happen throughout history.
Idealist: Belief that the event(s) are symbolic or parabolic and are always present.
Futurist: Belief that the event(s) are yet future.

Then he separates the three main events in the book of Revelation:
Tribulation - Matthew 24 & Revelation 4 - 19
Millennium - Revelation 20
The Second Coming and The New Creation - Revelation 21

And then he simply defines the differing positions by how they treat these three events:

Historic Premillennialist

Event #1: Tribulation: historicist, preterist, [futurist], or idealist
Event #2: Millennium: futurist
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futurist

Dispensational Premillennialist

Event #1: Tribulation: futurist
Event #2: Millennium: futurist
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futurist


Event #1: Tribulation: historicist, preterist, or idealist
Event #2: Millennium: idealist (normally)
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futurist


Event #1: Tribulation: historicist, preterist, futurist, or idealist
Event #2: Millennium: historicist (normally)
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futurist

Partial-Preterism (considered orthodox Christianity)

Event #1: Tribulation: preterist
Event #2: Millennium: preterist
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futuristic (believes Christ came in Judgement, but that this was not the 'Second coming')

Full-Preterism (considered heterodox by orthodox Christianity)

Event #1: Tribulation: preterist
Event #2: Millennium: preterist
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: preterist [this is the heresy]

Well, I thought it was helpful! I then put this data into a table:
POSITION / EVENT Tribulation Millenium Second Coming
Historic Premillenialist H, P, [F], I F F
Dispensational Premillenailist F F F
Amillenialist H, P, I I F
Postmillenialist H, P, F, I H F
Partial Preterist P P F
Hyper Preterist P P P*
H Historicist
P Preterist
F Futurist
I Idealist
* Outside of the orthodox teaching of scripture

Monday, January 30, 2012

Hollywood is not dying, they are just greedy

The following infographic is very eye-opneing, espcially with my whole 'voting with your wallet' scenario. Click the image to got to the orignal site.

I never knew studios got back from rentals. That makes me glum. That means whenever you rent, buy, legally watch a movie you are voting with your wallet. I was hoping that there was a legal way to watch a movie without voting with my wallet. But God is more important than entertainment by far!

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Self-destruction is probably not a good thing

The ultimate problem causing the whole SOPA thing is that people are possessed by entertainment. Christians ought to be able to rise above this. (NOTE: I know that SOPA is not just about downloading movies, it's all about content, but if you can't think that this is originating from hollywood, then please go back to your own planet)

I have found it rather strange watching anti-piracy clips they add onto DVD's. With no moral rule on which to place people, they have to go with "Piracy is crime, so don't do it." The people have responded: "You don't really do anything about it, so we don't care."

And this is valid - the very system that shoots down any kind of moral absolute is now trying to get people to behave themselves. @Hollywood - You glorify in that people can believe whatever they want, yet NOW you have an issue with people stealing your stuff? Shame on you!

Stealing is wrong, plain and simple. God's law says that if you obtain anything unlawfully you are sinning and must repent. This includes the downloading of entertainment. If you are a Christian and you do it you must repent now. There is no exception here. There is nothing to argue about. Here are some of the classics (with the response for free):

1. Hollywood actors earn to much
A three part response here:
  •  Supply and demand - people do pay for it, and so the price goes up with demand (I am sure I have the pirates smiling now - please read the next response). 
  • Too bad! You don't steal it! God said no, so you will listen. THERE IS NO justifiable excuse - it took me 30 minutes with a non-Christian (going through all his excuses), and the only thing he could admit to was that it was stealing. He didn't care either. 
  •  There are other people being hurt. Believe it or not not all the money goes to the big-wigs and hollywood directors. What about the guy who designed the poster? played the guitar for a musical piece? There are actually a lot of expenses in the industry that must be paid for!
2. I got so bored with this I am giving you the response to any other argument right here
God said no stealing. It is not right to get something you didn't pay for. That's it. You can come up with a thousand excuses but you cannot break me on this one. At the moment, it is illegal. If you are a Christian, you should have a Spirit within you that abhors sin. You can live with less of their filth anyway.

But anyway, back to my main line - evil is self-destructive. I read this post on why this guy is a pirate and I have to admit, he makes a good point. There are many factors here, but the end of it all is that I am smiling. Why am I smiling? The industry that blasphemes the name of my Lord is being destroyed by the very morals it has spent years eroding, and the dam is about to burst. I am glad to have a seat, I think I'll even make some popcorn.

Oh, and then there is this article - http://torrentfreak.com/while-drafting-sopa-us-house-harbors-bittorrent-pirates-111226/. Watching the world burn.