CNN.com - Court rejects 'intelligent design' in class - Dec 20, 2005
Wow - this is scarey! A US District Court banning discussion of an idea in our classrooms.
The courts have made clear that they reject Intelligent Design because it is associated with religion, and that is somehow unconstitutional. But, the court itself is the one injecting the specific religious abuse into the ID argument. The ID community consists of many disparate people - christians, to be sure, but also muslims, jews and even a few who perceive something greater behind the universe while remaining outside of any religion. Admittedly, Christians are the biggest proponents of ID in America, but no one today calls the civil rights movement 'racist' simply because it was most strongly supported by African Americans. Christians just happen to be the largest part of the group unfairly affect by the status quo.
Science rejects ID as non-scientific, but I beg to differ. Science is about proof, but it begins with a hypothesis - venturing to explain the world around us and by testing our thoughts to learn. Science has certainly never avoided a hypothesis because it could not be proven (That would eliminate Evolution itself!). Instead, science carries on testing what it can. But, somehow an "intelligent designer" in the universe is outside the realm of circumstances science can evaluate. Honestly, many scientists are committing intellectual suicide just as much as the unquestioning religious zealots they resent. Who's close minded now?
Interestingly, this does illustrate the true nature of our constitutional protections: they are little stronger than the prevailing national sentiment. Almost 100 years of slavery sanctioned under our current constitution bears witness to the fact that we the people aren't as altruisticly democratic as we like to think.
Christians have been 'on top' for a long time in this country - long enough for hem to forget that this is just not normal. True Christianity has been consistently under attack and reviled since Christ himself was crucified. In fact, he even said as much. In John 15, He says not to be surprised if the world hates [Christians, ergo Christianity] - it hated Him first (my paraphrase).
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Bill's Thoughts: Some thoughts on Xmas
Bill's Thoughts: Some thoughts on Xmas
Bill makes a great point in this post! It sheds some more light on the myth that many Christians live under, that this is a "Christian Nation" and we should have some special place in the society.
It would be great if the world would recognize God for who He is and give him the glory he is due but that is not what we're told to expect. Instead we should expect the opposite (John 15:18).
Bill makes a great point in this post! It sheds some more light on the myth that many Christians live under, that this is a "Christian Nation" and we should have some special place in the society.
It would be great if the world would recognize God for who He is and give him the glory he is due but that is not what we're told to expect. Instead we should expect the opposite (John 15:18).
Sunday, May 08, 2005
New and Improved, Christianity 2.0!
"That's right, folks! The religion you've used for years has been improved! With minimal commitment, easy to follow rules, and increased control over your own salvation, why not upgrade today!"
Okay, I imagine that sounds a bit silly, but its not far from the claims of quite a few new and old religions (cults?) alike. It seems that there is no end to the number of people who have taken it upon themselves to recreate Christianity with their own improvements.
This weekend marked the opening of a new Mormon temple in San Antonio. While the Mormons were offering an open house, many Christians attended with the intent of sharing the truth. You can imagine that this was characterized as one "version" of the truth, though. Many are offended by the lack of "tolerance" but this brings us right to the heart of the issue - is there more than one version of the truth?
Modern western sentiments often suggest that "all roads lead to the top" and "what is true for you may not be true for me." But that denies first the nature of truth. "All roads lead to the top" is a faulty analogy because it contradicts what many religions believe. Christ said He was "THE way" and that "NO man" (emphasis mine) gets to the Father except by Him (John 14:6). So, sorry, but the "Budda" road along with all other roads is washed out. Sadly, though, many who can see the problem with an "alternative" religion like Buddism get completely lost when the Truth is added to.
Groups like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and even Muslims offer a new twist on the truth. The uniting factor between these and many others is that while they start with the truth, they then add to it - Christianity new and improved. The perfect truth of God is mixed with the nature of man. While God desires to save us through Christ's perfect sacrifice, these religions add "good works" to the mix and diminish the uniqueness, necessity and even deity of Christ.
Sadly, because they use the name of Christ, some like the Mormans even calling themself "Christian", many are led astray. Truth is always going to draw the human heart to itself - we are geared for it. We instinctively desire truth. But many will see the seed of truth in these false religions and be led astray just at the point that they begin to seek it.
For Christians it is not only for the purpose of evangelism that we should know the truth and know it well, it is a matter of self defense! Paul warns the Galatian Christians and sums it up best.
Okay, I imagine that sounds a bit silly, but its not far from the claims of quite a few new and old religions (cults?) alike. It seems that there is no end to the number of people who have taken it upon themselves to recreate Christianity with their own improvements.
This weekend marked the opening of a new Mormon temple in San Antonio. While the Mormons were offering an open house, many Christians attended with the intent of sharing the truth. You can imagine that this was characterized as one "version" of the truth, though. Many are offended by the lack of "tolerance" but this brings us right to the heart of the issue - is there more than one version of the truth?
Modern western sentiments often suggest that "all roads lead to the top" and "what is true for you may not be true for me." But that denies first the nature of truth. "All roads lead to the top" is a faulty analogy because it contradicts what many religions believe. Christ said He was "THE way" and that "NO man" (emphasis mine) gets to the Father except by Him (John 14:6). So, sorry, but the "Budda" road along with all other roads is washed out. Sadly, though, many who can see the problem with an "alternative" religion like Buddism get completely lost when the Truth is added to.
Groups like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and even Muslims offer a new twist on the truth. The uniting factor between these and many others is that while they start with the truth, they then add to it - Christianity new and improved. The perfect truth of God is mixed with the nature of man. While God desires to save us through Christ's perfect sacrifice, these religions add "good works" to the mix and diminish the uniqueness, necessity and even deity of Christ.
Sadly, because they use the name of Christ, some like the Mormans even calling themself "Christian", many are led astray. Truth is always going to draw the human heart to itself - we are geared for it. We instinctively desire truth. But many will see the seed of truth in these false religions and be led astray just at the point that they begin to seek it.
For Christians it is not only for the purpose of evangelism that we should know the truth and know it well, it is a matter of self defense! Paul warns the Galatian Christians and sums it up best.
Galatians 1:6
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—
1:7
not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!
Keep the faith.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Why The New Pope is Dizzy
The Roman Catholic Church has elected a new Pope and I bet he's getting dizzy by now! Dizzy from getting 'spun' by all the different media! There is something out of place when the modern secular press covers something like the election of a new Pope. It's a bit like bringing in John Elway to do color commentary on Olymic Iceskating. He's a great athlete and iceskating is certainly athletic, but he's from a different world of athletics all together. As the world's pundit's all dive in to create their own 'delving and insightful' pronouncements their outsider perspectives not only show that they don't know the game, but even more menacingly, that they are still going to influence it.
Upon Cardinal Ratzinger's selection as Pope the talking heads immediately went into action! Quickly, he was pegged a 'conservative.' His life's history was almost instantaneously digested into its principal (read: 'newsworthy') events and a shortlist of his most significant (read: 'controversial') events. We learned immediately that this 78 year old Pontiff was know for his conservative stance on several key (...to westerners...) issues such as homosexuality, gays and women in the ministry, moral relativism, etc. But, all of this served to tell us less about the Pope and more about where the individual reporters felt Catholicism should be headed.
"What do you mean? Aren't the reporters just giving an unbiased, objective account of the situation?" (For the record a full 5 minutes of laughter have just passed since I typed that last bit.) NO! Of course they are not unbiased any more than 'Christianity Today' would be unbiased in its coverage of a gay rights parade. We're human. Bias is part of who we are. "Prove it! Where's the bias?"
Let's start with the selection of issues. Of all the activities and theological distinctions that could describe Pope Benedict XVI, what is getting the most print? An MSNBC story on April 20 summed it all up under the heading of "Relativism." No judgements were made in the article but the point was clear that the Pope's most controversial characteristic was that he believed that relativism was dangerous.
The language used in coverage is especially telling. The same story noted that he had "upheld church policy against attempts by liberals for reforms." Isn't reform a good thing? Why would he oppose that? Did the Roman Catholic Church characterize these attempts as "reforms" to church doctrine or as "attacks" on it. Language reveals how we see the relationships involved and what we value. Coverage has often sent the clear message that the Catholic Church's moral positions just needed to "progress" or be "reformed."
The worldview is clearly that of an outsider who does not believe in absolute truth. Without going into any defense of the Roman Catholic Church (or attack), it should suffice to say they stand closer to Biblical Truth than the secular realm does. Their moral positions are ostensibly based on Truth which never changes. This doesn't leave room for change unless the belief is found to be untrue. But the worldview found in most media sources is one of relativism where truth is whatever a situation calls for. In this worldview faith and religion are merely phycological constructs that help us to feel good and therefore can be manipulated and 'reformed' as needed to maintain our good feelings.
The danger in all of this is that while they speak from the outside, many on the inside begin to follow their lead. Churches and people of faith far beyond the realm of Roman Catholicism begin to use the secular language and this shapes our thoughts. We've been led to believe that what Christians need is good dialogue with Muslims and Jews. We just need to be more "tolerant" of other faiths. This makes perfect sense if our faith is nothing more than psychic insulation from the fear of a big, impersonal, God-less universe. But if we are standing on the Rock of Salvation that doesn't move, then it is they that must move and abandon deceit, lies, and false religion. Paul says to do it with gentleness and respect, but we're supposed to "correct those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25).
Keep the faith
Upon Cardinal Ratzinger's selection as Pope the talking heads immediately went into action! Quickly, he was pegged a 'conservative.' His life's history was almost instantaneously digested into its principal (read: 'newsworthy') events and a shortlist of his most significant (read: 'controversial') events. We learned immediately that this 78 year old Pontiff was know for his conservative stance on several key (...to westerners...) issues such as homosexuality, gays and women in the ministry, moral relativism, etc. But, all of this served to tell us less about the Pope and more about where the individual reporters felt Catholicism should be headed.
"What do you mean? Aren't the reporters just giving an unbiased, objective account of the situation?" (For the record a full 5 minutes of laughter have just passed since I typed that last bit.) NO! Of course they are not unbiased any more than 'Christianity Today' would be unbiased in its coverage of a gay rights parade. We're human. Bias is part of who we are. "Prove it! Where's the bias?"
Let's start with the selection of issues. Of all the activities and theological distinctions that could describe Pope Benedict XVI, what is getting the most print? An MSNBC story on April 20 summed it all up under the heading of "Relativism." No judgements were made in the article but the point was clear that the Pope's most controversial characteristic was that he believed that relativism was dangerous.
The language used in coverage is especially telling. The same story noted that he had "upheld church policy against attempts by liberals for reforms." Isn't reform a good thing? Why would he oppose that? Did the Roman Catholic Church characterize these attempts as "reforms" to church doctrine or as "attacks" on it. Language reveals how we see the relationships involved and what we value. Coverage has often sent the clear message that the Catholic Church's moral positions just needed to "progress" or be "reformed."
The worldview is clearly that of an outsider who does not believe in absolute truth. Without going into any defense of the Roman Catholic Church (or attack), it should suffice to say they stand closer to Biblical Truth than the secular realm does. Their moral positions are ostensibly based on Truth which never changes. This doesn't leave room for change unless the belief is found to be untrue. But the worldview found in most media sources is one of relativism where truth is whatever a situation calls for. In this worldview faith and religion are merely phycological constructs that help us to feel good and therefore can be manipulated and 'reformed' as needed to maintain our good feelings.
The danger in all of this is that while they speak from the outside, many on the inside begin to follow their lead. Churches and people of faith far beyond the realm of Roman Catholicism begin to use the secular language and this shapes our thoughts. We've been led to believe that what Christians need is good dialogue with Muslims and Jews. We just need to be more "tolerant" of other faiths. This makes perfect sense if our faith is nothing more than psychic insulation from the fear of a big, impersonal, God-less universe. But if we are standing on the Rock of Salvation that doesn't move, then it is they that must move and abandon deceit, lies, and false religion. Paul says to do it with gentleness and respect, but we're supposed to "correct those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25).
Keep the faith
Friday, February 25, 2005
Prayer in School Part 3: "What we should do"
Simply put, the answer to how Christians can "put prayer back in school" is to just do it! There are no laws barring prayer in school. There'd be no way to enforce them if there were. No one can stop a person, Christian or otherwise, from praying. The only beef the law has with prayer is whether the state can mandate it ... and that answer is NO!
So, why aren't Christians satisfied with this? Because, the fight over prayer in school is a comfortable alternative to true spirituality. How many times has a passel of parents shown up at the school board meeting demanding a prayer before the football game. How many times have they shown up early to the game and pray in the parking lot instead? They don't. If you want to join other believers in prayer before the game, it's not illegal. The laws only have a problem with it when those who do not choose to pray are obligated to.
So, why aren't Christians satisfied with this? Because, the fight over prayer in school is a comfortable alternative to true spirituality. How many times has a passel of parents shown up at the school board meeting demanding a prayer before the football game. How many times have they shown up early to the game and pray in the parking lot instead? They don't. If you want to join other believers in prayer before the game, it's not illegal. The laws only have a problem with it when those who do not choose to pray are obligated to.
Why do we cling so dearly to this prayer at the beginning of the game or school-day anyway? Is it sacred or called for scripturally? No. Is it honestly our belief that somehow we might convert someone to a truthful, saving knowledge of our Creator by exposing them to our prayers? I certainly hope not. Prayer is a communication between the believer and God, not an evangelistic tool. If we were serious about leading people to God, we'd spend a lot less time trying to coerce them into praying and a lot more in private prayer for them.
Let me be clear here about my beliefs. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior. His sacrifice on the cross served my penalty for falling short in the eyes of God, and His resurrection was the proof that He had the power to do that. My belief compels me to be a witness of this truth to the world around me. I see mandating prayer in school as an abdication of this responsibility and on those grounds I must oppose it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)