The New Fundamentalism

 I just watched a video on YouTube...

https://youtu.be/-79H-gvfU6o

Does anyone else see how stupid this is? The level of credence this Humphreys guy is given for all this conspiracy theory conjecture is ridiculous. Rational people can't accept the biblical narrative?

Humphreys gives scholarship a bad name. And I thought Higher Criticism was off the mark! This is the same line of thinking that dismisses the book of Daniel because it has prophecies that are so accurate, "they just can't be true. They have to be interpolations, or written after the fact." 

I guess in this age where being skeptical is the new fundamentalism, it's easy to make a claim and draw a crowd and never have to back up your notions with actual facts and nobody ever questions the rhetoric. Talk about holy men and charlatans! Humphreys is like a shaman to the skeptic. He shows up and bugs his eyes and rattles his bones and all the gullible skeptics just nod their heads. Is this what passes for rationality these days?

Jesus Myths?

The view that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but rather was a composition of earlier pagan gods, is not new at all. It started in the 1700's and has persisted to this day, being perpetuated by YouTube atheists like Matt Dillahunty and debaters in the comments section of posted videos.

I was recently challenged to abandon my antiquated notions and research three ancient persons: Horus, Mithras, and Apollonius of Tyana. I decided to stay away from Christian sources for my research. If I stuck to non-partisan historical sites, I felt my findings would be more readily received by the skeptics I'm trying to reach.

I'll just lay out my findings so far on this. My sources are...

https://www.ancient.eu/Horus/
https://www.ancient.eu/Mithra/
https://www.livius.org/sources/about/philostratus-life-of-apollonius/

Horus was an Egyptian deity with a falcon's head, or in some references just looks like a falcon. Horus was born to Isis and Osirus, circa 6000 to 3150 BCE.

Tom Harpur wrote The Pagan Chist, where he drew from 18th 19th and 20th century authors to draw parallels which do not hold up under scrutiny...

"To cite only a few examples, Harpur asserts that both Horus and Jesus were born in a cave - this is false, Horus was born in the Delta swamps and Jesus in a stable; both births were announced by an angel - also false, as the concept of the angel, a messenger of God, is absent from Egyptian beliefs; Horus and Jesus were both baptized - false, baptism was not practiced by Egyptians; both Horus and Jesus were tempted in the wilderness - false, Horus battled Set in many different regions, including the arid desert while the gospel stories make clear that Jesus was tempted in the desert or the wilderness; Horus and Jesus were both visited by Three Wise Men - false, Horus is never visited by wise men and, even more damaging to Harpur's 'scholarship', there are not 'three wise men' mentioned in the Bible which only references `wise men' who bring three kinds of gifts; Horus and Jesus both raised the dead back to life - false, Horus had nothing to do with raising Osiris or anyone else from the dead."

"Horus was a redeemer of health and humans in their earthly form; not of souls needing salvation from sin and eternal punishment."

Ok, so when you look at Horus' story objectively, the similarities are desperate concoctions.

Mithras gets a lot of attention these days, especially since Zeitgeist the Movie came out. I have to admit, this movie originally threw me for a loop. Maybe Christianity really did repurpose this ANE deity. Until I did some digging.

"Mithra's name was invoked in inscriptions during the Achaemenid Empire (c. 550-330 BCE), notably during the reign of Artaxerxes II (404-358 BCE) and he was still acknowledged during the Sassanian Empire (224-651 CE). After the Sassanian Empire fell to the invading Muslim Arabs in 651 CE, Zoroastrianism – including worship of Mithra – was suppressed..."
"He is linked to the Vedic god Mitra and is often associated with the Roman Mystery Cult of the god Mithras which flourished c. 100-400 CE throughout the Roman Empire, but these are two different deities, although Mithras is loosely derived from Mithra. Although the Roman Mithras and his cult have often been claimed as the precursor and model for Jesus Christ and Christianity, there is absolutely no historical evidence to support the assertion."
"There is no evidence that Mithras – nor even Jesus for that matter – was born on 25 December. Mithras is depicted as emerging from a rock and never as an infant nor in any way associated with a virgin birth or a visitation by any magi. Mithras is never represented with any disciples at all, celebrated no “Last Supper”, and did not die on a cross – in fact, there are no depictions of Mithras dying at all.

The fact that the claims of Dupuis and de Volney are outright lies, however, has not stopped them from being repeated by anti-Christian writers and pundits from the time of the 1872 CE publication to the present day."

I first heard of Apollonius of Tyana in a debate where Bart Ehrman drew all sorts of parallels between Apollonius and Jesus, which only works if you twist everything to make it fit
To begin, Apollonius and Jesus were alive at the same time. Well, sort of. They both were born roughly the same time, but Jesus died around 33CE, rose from the dead, and His disciples immediately continued His spiritual movement to this day. Apollonius died some time around 100CE, way too late. By that time the Christian community had grown throughout the Mediterranean. Rather than being an influence on Christianity, the teachings of Apollonius were in direct conflict with those of Christ. Apollonius was more of a Greek philosopher and mystic, more like Pythagoras. Actually, when the apostle Paul was debating the Greeks in the book of Acts, I wouldn't be surprised if he was dealing with the teachings of Apollonius. But that's just my opinion. But it does pique my curiosity. I'll have to do some more digging in that direction.

Agnostic Bart Ehrman, while being antagonistic of Christianity, and admits to attempting to crush the faith of every Christian who enrolls in his class, concedes on the historicity of Jesus. I plan on reading his book Did Jesus Exist? I hear it does a great job of dispelling the arguments of mythicists.

The Problem of Evil and Suffering

 If God is all powerful but does nothing to fix the senseless pain of the world then he is not good. And if he cares about the plight of creation but does nothing then he is impotent. 

I just can't believe that atheists still trot out this argument. It is almost on the level of asking "if God is all powerful can He make a rock so big He can't lift it?" The problem of evil and suffering is only incrementally more sound.
It sounds logical but it's not. God is all powerful and all good, but that's not all God is. He is also righteous, just, wise, and omnicient among other qualities, and for humans to deny God's existence and then denigrate His choices without having His mind is illogical. It is an incomplete view of the nature of God and ignores thousands of years of thought on this issue. And because it is incomplete it is a caricature, a straw man.

The truth is that God does care and has set in place the means by which all the world's evil and suffering will be corrected. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." 

The Passion Translation

 It's been a few years since I last posted. What can I say? Life has been intetesting.

It's funny. I thought that the New Apostolic Reformation would just fade away. But given that it's been around essentially since the North Battleford Revival, why would it just go away because I quit the movement. And I admittedly was not that deep into it. I played bass on the worship team of one of the Victory churches in Calgary AB until early 2007. But I left when I and my family could not stand the psychological control and false doctrine. The last straw was watching my pastor pull into the church parking lot in a gold cadillac and I'm struggling to put food on the table as a faithful tither. But that's a topic for another day.

I digress. When I heard of the Passion Translation, it was quoted in a sermon on the Holy Spirit...

Here's the verse in the ESV... John 14:15-17

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Here's the TPT... John 14:15-17

“Loving me empowers you to obey my commands. And I will ask the Father and he will give you another Savior, the Holy Spirit of Truth, who will be to you a friend just like me—and he will never leave you. The world won’t receive him because they can’t see him or know him. But you know him intimately because he remains with you and will live inside you.

What??!! Another savior??!!

Does this really need to be explained?

Brian Simmons got this translation by "revelation", not because he was qualified to translate the Bible. Let's face it, this bible is so far from the authorial intent that red flags seem to pop up every time i read it.

Folks, give you head a shake. It's one thing to read this at home and shrug your shoulders. It's another thing to hear it preached from behind the pulpit. 

Koo of Willowdale.tv Says we are "g"ods...

I was watching Christian TV (which I rarely do... now I know why) and I felt compelled to respond to what Pastor Paul Koo was saying. I got snubbed before I could make my full point, and the pastor invited us to email him, which I'm copying here for posterity...


Pastor Koo -
I hope you read this whole email, and I hope to hear back from you. 

I heard your message on “It’s Your Call” on TV about Psalm 82 where God says to humans that they are gods. I had a chance to mention over the air that when God says that He is using the word “elohim” to describe these humans, but the context of what he is saying shows that God does not recognize any particular advantage in these humans. You read verse 6 but you are ignoring verse 7, “but you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.” He is talking about people who are in a place of worldly power, and He says that they act powerful but they have no real power since they will die a mortal death. Only God has real power. The word elohim is used for false gods as well . And it is used when referring to God in general terms. So it’s not true what you said, that elohim refers to beings with above average power, because the Bible says in Isaiah and in 1Corinthians that false gods have no power. It's so important that verses like this one are treated properly because of the huge potential for them to be misunderstood and supposedly teaching something that is the exact opposite of what they actually say.

You mentioned that faith is important to you. I have to ask you, do you have faith in God or do you have faith in faith? I would rather have faith in God. Faith is not a substance, like Hagin or Copeland might say, faith is putting your trust in someTHING or someONE. My faith is in Jesus, the finished work that He did on the cross. You mentioned that you’ve learned to throw out all the doctrines and dogmas and just read the Word. But please do not allow yourself to throw out sound biblical teaching. I used to believe the same way you do, but it was reading the Word that got me out of the kind of things that you were hinting at on TV. I hope that since you are a pastor you want to shepherd the flock that God has placed under your care. I hope that the truth of God’s Word is important to you and not just repeating what you have learned from pentecostal or charismatic or faith-prosperity teachers. You may think that they teach the truth, but I challenge you to find what they teach actually in the context of the verses that they use. For example, if Paul was such a powerful apostle, then why did he have a thorn in the flesh that God would not relieve him of, but the Lord said to him, “My grace is sufficient for you for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” Why did Jesus say, “In this world you shall have tribulations, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” According to faith preachers, having weakness and experiencing hardships is supposed to be the sign of having weak faith, but the Bible describes this as the norm for people who place their trust in Him alone. God has given us all a measure of faith. Remember that Jesus is not as much interested in how much faith you have, but who are you putting your mustard seed sized faith in? 

I hope that God in His Word will persuade you to rest in Him. And I hope that this Sunday, instead of telling people that they are gods, that you will tell them that God is more than able to sustain us and protect us and lead us into victorious living. Grace is God’s power, not ours. I look forward to continuing this discussion with you.

Your Brother in Christ,

Don Boone

Calgary AB

Letter Sent to Unbelievable Radio

Here's the radio show: Stephen Law's 'Evil God' Hypothesis...

28887817-6078-4565-8dd5-483f7dacef04.mp3

Here's my letter in response:

I love your show, and I listen to it as often as I have time, but sometimes I find it quite a frustrating exercise, because I wonder why the Christian apologist is taking a particular angle in the discussion. I found myself in this precise situation listening to Glen Peoples. I must say that I might never have the courage to go on a radio debate, so I certainly applaud Glen in his efforts. And I do think that the Moral Argument does weight in against the Evil God Hypothesis quite well, and he did a great job of making this argument clear.

But I wonder why he didn't use what I feel is the ultimate trump card: Jesus as the Revelation of God. Let's accept the fact that moral evil exists. The Bible doesn't question this at all. In fact, the Bible makes it quite clear that God, being holy and just, will ultimately judge the moral evil that we not only see in the world, but do contrary to His expressed will. And here's the real kicker in the revelation of both Jesus Christ and the Biblical God: God took the form of a man in Christ to be the Lamb of God and pay the penalty for our sin. The Bible says that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." And he did this as the expressed will of God to show his love and mercy. This is the classic verse that almost the whole world knows, John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." It's a huge trump card to me. I don't see any way that an evil god would be merciful and forgiving, adopting sinners as members of His own family who put their faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross. And so, since there is this great evidence for the goodness of God, the whole premise of Stephen Law's hypothesis fails ingloriously. Yes, there is evil. But God has dealt with the issue personally. This shows irrefutably that God is good without appealing to any scales whatsoever.

God in the end will not use any type of "good v. evil" scale to judge sin. He will use Himself as the holy standard to which we must all be compared. Now let's talk about the pebble weighing in against the boulder! And in this regard we all fall short, and we need a Savior, and God in His goodness has provided that Savior in Jesus Christ.

Justin, may God bless you for running this show.

OCHEA Presentation Sept 19 2011

Here are a few things to consider if you decide to switch tracks:

1. Homeschooling honours the Biblical model of education.

a. Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it."

b. Deuteronomy 4:9, "Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren."

c. Ephesians 6:4, "And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord."

d. Also, non-christians should not be teaching your children, “Can the blind lead the blind and will they both not fall into a ditch?”

2. The Home becomes the filter for all other social influences.

a. Parents cognitively remain as allies not antagonists.

b. Media and Peer Pressure are effectively deconstructed.

c. When it is time for our kids to enter another educational environment such as Public High School, College, or University, they already have the personal resources they need to maintain their integrity as Christian thinkers.

d. From article The Challenge Of Cultural Filters by Cindy King, 2008: “The problem with cultural filters is that they often inadvertently lead to cultural prejudice. And cultural prejudice creates two problems; You cannot develop an effective cross-cultural communication; It is not easy to educate someone with strong cultural prejudice.”

3. Homeschooled kids don’t fall into cliques as easily as those who are divided by age/grade/class, and so the older kids are natural mentors for the younger.

Implication: It matters whom your kids hang out with

a. 1 Cor. 15:33, "...Bad company corrupts good character."

b. Prov. 27:17, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

c. A Thomas Jefferson Education, pg. 38-39, "It's not a great stretch of the imagination to see how the grouping of children according to birth year can breed envy of those older, contempt for those younger, and alienation from siblings."

4. Personal life goals are formed without undue influence.

a. John Dewey, founder of Public Education, A signer of the Humanist Manifesto, Antagonistic to Christian philosophy of education

b. Phil Fernandes from the Institute of Biblical Defense has this to say about John Dewey: "When you really read Dewey's views of education, he basically wanted to graduate high school students at the point where they could barely read and write so they'd be very easy to manipulate by the government leaders. At the same time they would learn a good trade so they would be productive members of a socialistic society."

5. Self-education is encouraged as a life-long habit. If your kids see you learning they will embrace a continual habit of self-education.

a. From A Thomas Jefferson Education: "Teaching, not education, should be our focus, because great teaching inspires students to educate themselves. Great teaching will solve our educational problems – in public, private, and home schools. Find a great teacher, in any setting, and you will find a group of students diligently, enthusiastically, and effectively educating themselves. Teachers teach and students educate. Students are the only true educators. Historically, every other method of education fails. Education occurs when students get excited about learning and follow through; students do this when they experience great teachers."

6. Homeschooled kids naturally set their own pace by learning things when they are personally ready. This avoids unnecessarily imposed standards.

a. This may be an important factor if your child is:

- cognitively or developmentally delayed

- advanced or "gifted"

7. Homeschooled kids get one-on-one attention, so they don’t fall through the cracks of the System.

a. Lawrence Rudner Interview, 1999: "Homeschooling is one-on-one. There’s the utmost level of parent involvement."

b. Richard Hardy, Learning Without School, “It’s hard to argue with the advantages of one-on-one instruction, of extensive parent involvement, and of a curriculum tailored to every child’s needs. Home schooled children are winning spelling and geography bees and going on to top-notch colleges.”

c. Maralee Mayberry 1989: “Children are individuals and parents should know what their child is capable of....Schools should try harder to teach the children individually and not expect Home schooling everyone to be the same. I wanted my child to have more one-on-one training.”

8. There are more opportunities for life lessons and skills to be developed by everyday life rather than by citing references in a more sterile environment.

a. Math skills learned by cooking, finances

b. Science learned by field trips, activities

c. History by documentaries, museums

d. Geography, Logic learned by games

9. Homeschooled kids excel beyond public school standards.

a. Dr. Jay L. Wile, Homeschooling: The Solution to Our Education Problem, Why Do Homeschoolers Excel?

a. The Love of Learning is not socialized out of them.

b. Learning is generally more interesting for students when the curriculum is tailored directly to them.

c. You can’t beat the teacher/student ratio!

d. Homeschooling teaches independent learning.

e. Homeschooling parents impart by example that education is important.

I hope you found this presentation encouraging. There’s a lot at stake for our kids growing up in this generation. Biblical faith and practice are continually marginalized by our increasingly humanistic, pluralistic, and secularized culture. We can’t expect our churches to undo a week’s worth of ungodly influence in one hour of Sunday School. It’s up to Christian parents to point their kids in the right direction. Homeschooling is a great way to do that.

- Don Boone, OCHEA, 09/19/2011

PS: This was a bit of a break from the norm, but I wasn't sure where else to put this piece.

on Kierkegaardian Faith

I hear this all the time from atheists who are debating the Christian faith, saying that faith is defined as "believing something regardless of the facts."

Here's the thing that bothers me: A lot of Christians seem to live as if faith is just that; a leap in the dark, a Kierkegaardian/PeterPan disconnect between faith and reason.

It sickens me to see well-meaning Christians live this way, because in fact they simply don't have to.

The Christian faith is based on evidence. Jesus is the revelation of God to man. His life, ministry, death, and resurrection are a matter of public record. It's called the Bible. The Bible tells us that God showed us mercy in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

We are putting our trust in a God who has actually done something within history to reconcile us to Him.

This trust IS the biblical view of faith.

It has nothing to do with believing something so hard that it becomes real to us. It has everything to do with trusting the promises of a God who has already shown Himself trustworthy.

When Christians give in to the elusive game of make-believe, then they have already lost the battle. Because at that point it really doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe it hard enough. And this position relativizes ALL beliefs. Then we can no longer weigh any system of belief according to how realistic or all-encompassing it is. We must simply play the game of Tolerance and say "That's nice for you."

Thoughts on Limitless the Movie

First of all, I loved it. It was a thrill ride, and the movie was very well made. I especially liked the cinematography: how the "picture" changes when the "hero" is on the "genius drug"; the "cosmic zoom" where the camera (representing the hero) travels at high speed thru streets, crowds, and scenarios. Also, if I remember right, I like the fact that the character seemed to make his best decisions when he was NOT on the "genius drug."

Secondly, I hated the implications of the movie.

Look at what "being a genius" meant for the "hero": monopolizing discussions at parties, taking advantage of women who thought smart was sexy, capitalizing on stock market trends to rake in loads of cash, etc. To me it seemed like this movie simply reinforced the adage, "educated a sinner and you get an educated sinner." The "genius drug" did absolutely nothing to actually make him a better person. Do we all want to become as megalomaniacal as the "hero" in this film?

Also, if anyone thought this movie was in any way inspirational, I'd like to know on what level. Are we going to fall for some new form of LSD? Remember, Timothy Leary was boasting about LSD the same way this movie was about NZT. Or maybe some folks will decide to take up Trancendental Meditation or go back to college or practice the Law of Attraction, or various other means to an end. Here's the real problem: we don't even use the 20% of our brains well enough, why burn out the full 100%? Our personal computers are a great example in this case: how well do they work and for how long when we jam pack them with data and programs?

I'll preface my next point with the concession that I feel we are all meant to strive for excellence in life. And I do personally feel that we will one day experience using our brains at full potential, and this belief is consistent with my faith as a Christian. Read the biblical passages on the next phase of humanity under the rule of Christ and the restoration of all things, and you will find in this the true expression of which this movie is simply a grasping at the wind. But while we strive to accomplish the premise of this movie outside of the will and purposes of God, we simply set ourselves up as the next Tower of Babel or statue with a head of gold and feet of clay.

The issue of human potentiality MUST be a subset of a society fully surrendered to the biblical God, or else it will simply become the next fad in a long history of mankind's sinfulness and rebellion against its Creator.

And if anyone thinks this idea has never been entertained before, read Flowers For Algernon or watch the movie Charly (1968).

The Shaping of Things to Come?

I'm reading this book by Frost and Hirsch, and they want me to embrace the roots of events like the Burning Man and the movie Fight Club. They want Christianity to be able to offer a greater adventure to people who have this kind of life and expression as a frame of mind.

Sorry. I'm just not buying it. Here's what these people need to do: they need to repent.

The Church's job is not to cater to the whims of an indulgent generation. The Church's job is to be the pillar and grounding of truth. Jesus said "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Rob Bell says that the Church has always been a reflection of the culture, and uses this as a justification to shift the Church into a post-modern paradigm. If we start "getting with the program" of the post-modern paradigm, then we would simply be falling into another kind of supply-and-demand consumerism. That's been the problem all along. The Church is too busy following the dictates of the current perceived culture rather than just obeying Jesus and doing what He said.

Here's a tid-bit for the Post-modern Emergent: The heady mucky-mucks in college campuses around the world have moved beyond Post-modernity. It's passe. It's already a dead philosophy. And once again, the Church is 10 years behind the times and still thinks its being hip and trendy by jumping on a band-wagon with no wheels.

The Church must be the influence for the World. Not Vice Versa.

Rational Response Debate

I was just listening to an excerpt from Brian Sapient's argument in his tv debate with Ray/Kirk. It's kinda funny actually, and if I am misrepresenting his line of logic, please someone correct me and I'll remove this post...

He starts off by saying that Christians have a bad habit of citing the Law of Cause and Effect to deduce that creation proves the existence of a Creator, but that Christians are unwilling to consider the possibility that maybe the Creator was also created. And then in the very next breath Brian claims exactly the same line of logic, but his "ultimate cause" is that all the matter in the universe has existed in eternity past and has led us by natural processes to this point in time.

He seems to be grasping for an explanation how this planet is teeming with life in a solar system/galaxy/universe that has thus far yielded little if any redundancy of observable biological phenomenon, but his argument is self refuting on 2 levels, briefly:

1) The laws of physics defy an infinite past. Observation reveals a universe in decay. So if we trace the timeline back infinitely then the amount of energy in the past would be infinite, which is a logical absurdity since you can't add to a group and eventually end with an infinite set. And if you start with only a potentially infinite amount of energy in an eternal past then the universe would have run out of steam a long time ago. Also an eternal universe would contain an infinite amount of time which is also a logical absurdity for reasons mentioned above.

2) Brian is replacing one Ultimate Stopping Point for another. He is not willing to believe in an All-powerful God as the source of the universe, but he is willing to ascribe to the physical universe the same qualities of deity necessary to bring about an amazing "big bang" with the endgame being an increasingly ordered and complex universe. Well we know that observation reveals a universe in decay, but besides the point, Brian is willing to put a lot of faith in the idea of an infinite all-powerful and purposeful singularity but he's unwilling to call it God*. Just like in the Epistle to the Romans, he is worshiping the creature rather than the Creator.

These and other arguments have been dealt with a long time ago. But somehow every generation seems to think they've discovered the ultimate trump cards against the claims of the Biblical worldview. It's funny... and sad... God say that if you seek Him you will find Him.

*please don't misunderstand: I am not a pantheist nor a panentheist.

The Mormon God Is So Small...

I propose that the Mormon concept of God, and hence the person they call Elohim, is a very small person.

In LDS theology, all of us - humans, angels, and gods - all come from the same place: a primordial pool of intelligences. We all emerge from this pool by being birthed in the spirit and then later we are incarnated on earth or some similar planet. On the LDS view, every one of us comes into this physical universe in the same way, so every one of us has the same potential for godhood. The only difference between us and Elohim is that he was exalted before us and so he has a head start.

Well, that's not the whole story. Since this eternal progression of gods must be only a potentially infinite regression, given that every god is contingent on time space matter and energy, there must logically be a god which was the first to emerge from the pool of intelligences. LDS devotees are unable to answer how this first god had the power to emerge, and for the moment we can give them this stopping point for the sake of argument. But it is admitted by LDS that this first god sired every god that emerged after him. But how did this god sire his first wife to emerge from the pool in order to sire the next god child...?

But anyway, this is the point:

IF: Elohim had to be sired,

THEN: the god who first emerged without being sired was more powerful than Elohim,

THEN: Elohim is less powerful,

THEN: Elohim cannot be called all-powerful as he describes himself in the Bible,

THEN: Elohim is a liar.

Why would anyone could buy into this system of thinking? Having a testimony without answering this logical fallacy will not suffice to arrive at an understanding of truth. Truth deals with facts not opinions and assertions. Perhaps someone who follows LDS teaching can explain their belief in something as unreasonable as the eternal progression of gods? Is it only because Smith and Young said so?

Why does any of this matter? Because as Jesus said, "... those who worship Him [God] must worship in spirit and truth." If we follow any doctrine which is not true, it behooves us as worshipers of the God to worship Him in truth by shunning every falsehood.

What is your foundation of truth? I would recommend that you read the Gospel of John in the Bible to see what God says in His word about truth and how it can be known.

Time Existed Before God?

from http://www.promormon.blogspot.com/ ...

"If we stick to the strict language applied to the verses like Isaiah 43:10 invoked by LDS critics stretching for proof of this being a statement against the existence of other real gods, then we must concede that God notes that there was also a time before his own creation."

Here's the verse, Isaiah 43:10 (I love the YouVersion website)...

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

So what the LDS would say is, "See? Time existed before God!"

Ok, slow down for a moment. Let's think about this logically:

IF: Time existed before God,

THEN: God did not create everything,

THEN: God is a finite being,

THEN: By definition God is not really God as He defines Himself in the Bible, ie: the Creator of absolutely everything,

THEN: God would be a liar;

ALSO: God would be contingent on Time existing before Him,

THEN: Time would be more powerful than God,

THEN: Time would be God instead,

THEN: God would be a liar;

I could go on. The logical implications of the ProMormon statement are far reaching.

Regardless, just because God says that there was no god formed neither before nor after Him, this does not logically imply that anything existed before God. It is possible for God the be the ultimate Source of all things and to logically say that nothing existed before Him, even other gods.

IF: God is God,

THEN: He would by necessity be the ultimate Source,

THEN: Time, space, matter... everything would be created by Him and would be contingent on Him for their existence, as it says in Acts 17:28, "for in Him we live and move and have our being..."

and in Colossians 1:15-18, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence."

Hugh Nibley Defends Book Of Abraham

From Mormonism Exposed website:

“Did he [Joseph Smith, Jr.} really think he was translating? If so he was acting in good faith. But was he really translating? If so, it was by a process which quite escapes the understanding of the specialists and lies in the realm of the imponderable....
“Today nobody claims that Joseph Smith got his information through ordinary scholarly channels. In that case one wonders how any amount of checking along ordinary scholarly channels is going to get us very far.”
(Dr. Hugh Nibley, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, page 101)

So here we have Nibley explaining as best he can the means by which Joseph Smith gleaned the revelation of the Book of Abraham from an egyptian burial scroll. He basically says that Smith didn't really translate the scroll as much as he used the scroll as a "point of contact" for whatever revelation God might have for him. God could've revealed to him the plans to build a 747 passenger jet just as well as the history of the origins of the earth and man's pre-existence. So really the scroll was just a means of revelation, not the content of the revelation itself.

Fair enough, but this simply leads to more questions...

What is this called in the Bible? Divination, sorcery, spiritism. (See Deuteronomy)

Why would a prophet of God resort to a pagan practice such as divination?

Why does God contradict Himself in what He revealed to Moses and what He revealed to Joseph Smith?

Under such circumstances, which prophet do you favor? The one who came first? The one whose prophecies have been documented as coming true? Biblically this is the standard approach.

But where does that leave Joseph Smith?

High and dry.

His prophecies had about the same chance of fulfillment as MY prophecies, and Deuteronomy tells us that if he tanks on just one prophecy then he qualifies as a FALSE PROPHET.

Something to think about, all you Latter Rain - Dominionist - Word of Faith-ers.

Do you really want to be in the same camp as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

Some very cool music...

Seawind

These guys are so awesome! I have this album on vinyl and it's still great to listen to. My favorite track is "We've Got A Way."

Enjoy

The Moral Dilemma For Atheists and Agnostics

Hi, it's been a while. I just thought I would jot something down before I forget it.

I have to admit I'm confused by the youth of today for having the honesty to live how they really feel... y'know having sex - sorry... "hooking up" with whoever they want whenever they want. They must feel so free being unfettered from the morals of their parents. They don't believe in God, so why should they act as if they do believe in God. They are the most honest atheists I've ever met. The atheists that believe that such things as "objective morals" exist have no grounds for their belief. They say it's based on some sort of social system which advances the species, as if morality is a survival mechanism. I think that if the survival of the species was the key, there would be plenty of reason not to subscribe to a moral code.

It's like that song: "You and me baby be nothing but mammals, let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel..." This is the most honest Naturalistic Atheism I have found. Except for one thing... Honesty involves a sense of morality, caring enough to be honest, and we've already seen that for the Atheist morality is inconsistent with his/her worldview. If you're going to be consistent with your Atheism then you would feel no qualms in lying about your sin. After all there is no Higher Power to Whom you are accountable. BUT then you would be acting all goody-two-shoes when you're really not.

It's a LOSE-LOSE situation, because either way you are being a hypocrite: 1) by supposing you can be honest about your sin without recognizing why honesty is important (ie you care to be honest because you were created by an honest God), or 2) by acting religious as a front for sinful behavior. The only real honest solution is to admit that you are borrowing the Christian morality in order to be honest about your sinful lifestyle.

So you might argue, "But you assume that my sexuality is sinful. Who are you to say what's right and what's wrong?" Careful now, are you sure you want to go there? Would you also be so bold as to condemn Christians for behavior of which you don't approve? Maybe even accuse the God of the Bible of horrendous atrocities? And on what basis, morality? But we've identified morality as the commodity of a Christian economy. And some would say that it's the Christian who suffers from circular reasoning?

So it seems evident to me that choosing to live your life regardless of who might approve or disapprove is the only option the Atheist has. But in the back of their mind they still must come to terms with such notions as honesty, convictions, courage, minds, or rationality to name a few, none of which can exist in a purely naturalistic world.

from http://www.ministrytodaymag.com/blog/2006/09/guest-commentary-goodbye-theologians.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email

Wagner's line of logic very disturbing. First, every Christian is a theologian, while some may have degrees. Also, to dismiss some theologians is merely Wagner's way of saying "We few illuminated Apostolic-Teachers are the only ones qualified to dispense truth in the new church age." This is an attempt to reduce accountability to others in the Body of Christ on matters of sound doctrine, of which Wagner and others in the New Apostolic Reformation are severely lacking. Even with all his education, Wagner makes hermenuetical errors which are unacceptable. Get back to reading the Bible, not reading INTO it.

# posted by  Don Boone : 3:32 AM

most true "theologians' would fit the description of a 5 fold teacher. They establish doctrine for the church. Through history many did this. Athenasus, the 3 cappadocians etc,Most have a gift of revelation from the Holy Spirit to form doctrines correctly.

# posted by  Anonymous : 2:48 PM

Doctrine in plain terms is the Bible. The Teachers mentioned in Ephesians do not invent doctrines. They dispense them from the Bible, reinforce them, and draw out of them implications and applications by careful study. 
There is no need for a supernatural "gift of revelation" other than that which is given to every believer in Jesus, being born again and led by the Spirit of God. And the Holy Spirit does not violate the historical and grammatical intent of the scriptures, so that the scriptures cannot have a new meaning which was not there in the first place. 
So much "new revelation" has been responsible for the abandon of Biblical truth, and often the "new revelation" is a result of trying to bring extra-Biblical notions and practices into a Christian worldview which is doing just fine without it. 
All Christians are called to use discernment, which is to compare a teaching with the Bible to see if it is true or false. There is no need for a special gift to do this, just rightly divide the Word of God.

# posted by  Don Boone : 10:18 AM

On Brian McLaren

This is an excerpt from an interview posted at http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000133.html

Q: One blogger who refers to you as the godfather – not sure how you feel about that – offered another metaphor. You’re telling people there’s this great new restaurant across town, and they go there with you, only to hear on arrival that the menu won’t be printed for another twenty years

A: I can see how that’s frustrating. I think the metaphor makes the point very well. But I wonder if I could put a spin on it. Maybe that story should continue by the people saying, “Hey, let’s go in the kitchen and see if we can help create some new recipes.” If we get more people involved in the creative process, maybe it will only be ten years, not twenty. I think people need to feel empowered, like they’re contributors, not consumers buying the latest “postmodern ministry in a box” program. We’re all in this thing together.

Q: That’s exactly what was discouraging. Here I am, trying, doing my best, and you call what I’m doing ridiculous.

A: I’m so sorry. That’s not what I intended.

Q: You should be more careful.

A: Yes, I should. But I think you’ll agree, as I said in the article or whatever it was: having postmodern churches isn’t the point.

Q: I think you’re wrong about that. It is the point. You made the analogy to languages. If Spaniards move into the area, having Spanish churches is the point. It’s exactly the point.

A: I see what you mean. I’m afraid my analogy again creates confusion along with adding some clarity. Here’s the problem. We can translate our modern version of the gospel into postmodern idioms … candles, coffee, community, digital imagery, etc. But it’s still a modern version of the gospel.

Q: Hold on. That bothered me too. You wrote, “Which reminds us that none of us has a complete grasp of the gospel…. It's very dangerous to assume you've perfectly contained the gospel in your little formula.” I think with all the other change going on, one thing we’ve got to hold firm on is the gospel.

A: What do you mean when you say “the gospel?"

Q: You know, justification by grace through faith in the finished atoning work of Christ on the cross.

A: Are you sure that’s the gospel?

Q: Of course. Aren’t you?

A: I’m sure that’s a facet of the gospel, and it’s the facet that modern evangelical protestants have assumed is the whole gospel, the heart of the gospel. But what’s the point of that gospel?

Q: What do you mean? I guess it’s so that people can spend eternity with God in heaven in an intimate personal relationship as opposed to … the alternative. You don’t seem to agree.

A: Well, for Jesus, the gospel seemed to have something to do with the kingdom of God.

Q: Which is the kingdom of heaven, which is going to heaven after you die.

A: Are you sure about that?

Q: Aren’t you?

A: This is exactly the point I was trying to make in the article. Many of us are sure we’re “postmodern” now with our candles and hipness and so on, but we haven’t asked some important and hard questions – not about postmodernity, but about modernity and the degree to which our theology and understanding of the gospel have been distorted or narrowed or made “gospel lite” by modernity.

Q: If you were intending to make me feel better, you’re not succeeding.

A: Well, I hope you’ll at least think about this. And search the Scriptures, you know, to see if there’s any validity to the question I’m raising.

I appreciate McLaren's honesty in this interview, and I can understand how the interview might help to offer clarity to his view on the Emergent Church Movement. And while I may have had questions about his theology, his quoted statements have helped to clarify his position. I hope that I am being faithful to his position by paraphrasing thus:

"The Modern Gospel is incomplete; it only tells part of the Good News."

If I'm wrong, someone please tell me, but I get the impression from McLaren that he thinks there's something Christians are leaving out when they say this:

"We are sinners saved by the Grace of God. We have no ability to change this situation, and so we are on a collision course with the wrath of God, Who is holy and in His love for creation does not tolerate sin. And since we are incapable of escaping wrath, God who is rich in mercy came to Earth in the Person of Jesus Christ, the sinless Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, Who died in our place on the Cross, to receive the just punishment for our iniquity. When we repent and put our faith in the finished work of Jesus, we are spared the wrath of God and empowered to live for God, exchanging our sin for the righteousness of Christ, being daily conformed to the image of Christ. Heaven is our home, and we are adopted into the family of God, to live on this Earth and in this time in order to express this in word and deed to others, exalting Jesus, to Whom the Father draws all men by His Spirit."

Or maybe the short form:

"We are saved by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone, in accordance with His Word alone."

The other guy in the quote gets it right, and McLaren totally slams him for it! That's a real eye-opener for me, folks.

If we start trying to add to this we are really taking something away from it. God has made this as simple as it needs to be. It's not about what we have done, it's about what God has done.

Everything else comes out of our faith in God and our relationship with Him: any works whether personal or communal, must flow from a changed heart into a set of values which lead to action. This is integrity.

The Scriptures are so clear about this. To deny this or try to re-imagine or re-constitute this is to oppose the Grace of God. You have to abandon rationality in order to...

Oh right... that's where it starts.

Unfortunately, the Church by and large is not speaking up about this. So "Pied Pipers" like McLaren are drawing away many into heresy.