Hello M!
The principal behind all that follows (and if you forget everything else, here's the key) is in these two points:
1. There is a universal Truth about the universe: That the God of the Bible is the creator of everything and the only way to restore our eternal relationship with Him is through faith in Jesus (belief that He is God, that He died to pay for our sins, and trusting Him to take care of them).
2. All beliefs that deny #1 are purposeful lies: Satan (the Devil) is the father of lies. His mission on earth is to keep as many as possible from salvation. He uses any means necessary to do this, which includes atheism, belief in other gods, and even belief in the Biblical God without faith in Jesus (that last one is worth a whole email sometime).
Yoga
Yoga has two masks. One is simply stretching and relaxation exercises. The other is rooted in Buddhism (a branch of Hinduisim).
Behind both masks (exercise and religion) is the truth that a false religion is controlled and propogated by Satan to distract people from God and His mission (to either keep them from being saved, or keep them from being effective Christians allowing others to be saved). I found a link to the "origin of yoga", which sounds friendly and historical enough, but if you read carefully, you can see some dangers:
-Classical yoga tries "to quiet the mind and merge with the infinite" Quieting the mind is good, but diving into spiritual things is dangerous, without God's protection, Satan rules here and all who are not God's are his. The lie here comes from the root belief that the "infinite" or the "universe" is god, that we are all god. This denies the sovereignty of the true God, and makes us out to be the most important beings ourselves.
-Modern yoga changes terms, saying that "embracing perfection of the body as the only path to enlightenment". This is a less overtly anti-Christian or even religious face, but it's still the same beast. It's still all about our perfection, "self-actualization" and personal sovereignty. It doesn't take long before it's drawing us into the unprotected spiritual side through "mind-body-spirit connections". You can see the true intentions based simply on how it became part of American culture, through hippies who were "embracing many aspects of Eastern teaching and philosophy as they sought to distance themselves from the "establishment" and the traditional American values they so actively rejected".
Relativism
New Age, Yoga, Buddhism and Hinduism (even Agnostic culture) is all really one concept, and the label they like to use for it is "tolerance", but it's an incorrect use of the word. It's really "relativism" or "subjectivism" which means "whatever you believe is true for you, but what I believe is true for me." Aside from the obvious, that a thing can't be true and not true at the same time (either I'm sitting at my computer or I'm not), this idea is what philosophers call "self defeating". If they are right, then what I believe is true. But, what I believe is that they are not right, so if they are right, then they are wrong. Get it?
Application
What does all this mean practically? Does it mean you should never do relaxation or meditation? Not necessarily. While you are a young Christian, I'd avoid it because even innocently, it can be a gateway into deeper stuff. But, some of those ideas have a foundation in the Bible (1 Kings19:11-13; Psalm 46:10; Joshua 1:8). The point is that you're meditating on God and the Scriptures, which brings out the big principal that Anything that does not acknowledge God eventually becomes corrupted by Satan. This can be true of TV, romance, eating and even the love of a mother. All sin stems from breaking the 1st commandment ("no other gods before me"), so anything that becomes more important than God becomes an idol or "false god". If your eyes are fixed on Jesus as #1 priority, then all your other priorities will line up (Matthew 22:36-37; Matthew 14:30-32; Hebrews 12:2).
I know that was a lot to read (and probably more than you wanted to think about), but I hope you found at least some of it helpful. Feel free to follow up with questions or reactions.
Check out This Present Darkness. It's a fiction novel, and actually a fun and exciting read, but it does a good job of giving a picture (imaginary, but not unbiblical) of how angels and demons relate to us, and how things like yoga can be used by the devil to seriously ensnare people.
your friend and brother in Christ,
Jeff
Monday, October 20, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Student at Georgian Court becomes a Christian!
In July, we talked about the potential of a new CCC ministry at Georgian Ct University. We are thrilled to announce that we are now up and running, with awesome women as our president and faculty advisor (thanks Katy & Carol!).
We were blessed to host a table at the club fair a few weeks ago, and were overwhelmed by the response: over 90 people filled out surveys, 67 indicating a desire to attend a Bible study, and one young woman prayed to ask Jesus to be her savior and lord!** When people heard we were with Campus Crusade, we got responses like “It’s been a long time coming!” and “Thank goodness you guys are here.” We are so excited that God has blessed this ministry and gotten things off to an amazing start!
**Please pray for Monique, who put her faith in Christ after Karen shared the gospel with her. She has been attending our Bible study and already seems passionate about reaching others for Christ. Pray that she will grow in her faith and be a strong witness for Jesus!
For more news about our ministry, visit http://grantministry.wikidot.com/.
We were blessed to host a table at the club fair a few weeks ago, and were overwhelmed by the response: over 90 people filled out surveys, 67 indicating a desire to attend a Bible study, and one young woman prayed to ask Jesus to be her savior and lord!** When people heard we were with Campus Crusade, we got responses like “It’s been a long time coming!” and “Thank goodness you guys are here.” We are so excited that God has blessed this ministry and gotten things off to an amazing start!
**Please pray for Monique, who put her faith in Christ after Karen shared the gospel with her. She has been attending our Bible study and already seems passionate about reaching others for Christ. Pray that she will grow in her faith and be a strong witness for Jesus!
For more news about our ministry, visit http://grantministry.wikidot.com/.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
"Arguments for God's Existence?" ~Voltaire
I have great respect for religion and the morality it can inspire, but I also do not accept things blindly. Do you have any well-reasoned arguments for the existence of God?
a. Anselm’s Ontological argument for the existence of God says that God must exist by His own definition. Anselm defines God as “that of which nothing greater can be conceived” and so would possess all the best qualities including true existence over being simply imagined.
b. Kant’s Transcendental argument says that “every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian God”. The clearest demonstration of this is found in morality. I have yet to see a satisfactory source for morality apart from a moral God.
c. Plato’s Cosmological argument follows this line of reasoning, “Every finite/contingent being has a cause + Nothing contingent can cause itself + A causal chain cannot be of infinite length = There must be a first cause (or necessary being).” Anselm would say it is greater to be a “necessary” being than a “contingent” one, so God must be a necessary being by definition. The infinite recurrence theory obviously takes issue with the 3rd statement and I believe the string theory takes issue with the 2nd.
d. Aquinas’s Teleological argument comes from Romans 1:20, which Paul says, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse”. This is the primary basis for the Intelligent Design movement, which follows an “inference to the best explanation” that an information rich system necessitates design. William Dembski’s Design Inference explains how science approaches the question of whether or not a thing was designed. He cites “improbability” and “specificity” as the two major variables. This is how they avoid the tendency to read design into something.
e. Lee Strobel wrote his book The Case for Christ based on the legal evidence that Jesus Christ existed, claimed to be God, and demonstrated His claims to be true. John 1:18 says that we can see God through His son Jesus. Believers and non-believers alike reported His miracles, He fulfilled almost 200 prophecies and was witnessed by over 500 people as risen from the dead, many of whom died rather than recant this testimony. Strobel puts it well when he says, “people may be willing to die for something they mistakenly believe to be true, but no one would die for something they know to be UNtrue.” For more on that, I suggest reading his book or at least viewing the website.
f. My theory of “Emotional Denial” is based partially on Paul, who states in Romans 1:18-19 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” I believe that all humans inherently know that God exists (somewhat similar to Jung’s archetypes). However, before this truth can truly reach our consciousness, it passes through our emotions (which battle between honesty, selfishness, etc). Jesus said that anyone who truly wants to find God will (Matthew 7:7). I believe that atheism and all false religions are a result of human reasoning seeking to find a way to deny God without feeling guilty. I am, however, open to criticism J
g. Though I think each of these has validity, I don’t believe that any of them truly change a person’s mind. The Bible says that it is only God who can truly change a heart, and it is personal experience of God’s presence in my life that convinces me more than anything. There’s a camp song that says “don’t try to tell me that God is dead, I spoke with Him this morning.” Though no one has seen God any more than they can see gravity or honesty, we can see how He affects things, and we can understand His qualities. I will gladly share more on this if you ask, but this email is long enough already.
You say “I have great respect for religion and the morality it can inspire”, and I appreciate that, but I want to point out that the helpfulness of religion is not the point, but only a side-effect. There was a time when the best defense for Christianity we could present to hard evolutionists was “the Bible makes promises that I have experienced to be fulfilled in my life.” However, these days the helpfulness of religion can be a major distraction from the central point of whether or not it is true. CS Lewis said that if Christianity is true, then we all need to follow it whether it is helpful or not, and if it is false then we need to know that as well and stop living a lie even if it’s a nice one. That being said, I can’t see a basis for morality apart from God, and I can’t see a purpose to life apart from the mission of God on this earth, but I’d cherish your perspective on this.
I hope you find this helpful, or at least somewhat coherent. I don’t claim to have all the answers, and I’m nowhere near as well read on these issues as some others, but I hope you have seen that I have not accepted this blindly. It’s a big deal to commit your life to something you can only believe to be true. Hebrews 11:1 calls faith “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”. Ultimately, I believe there will never be irrefutable proof either way while we are on this earth. Evidence can only get you to the point where it is reasonable. The Bible is God saying “I’ll catch you,” but we can’t be sure until we jump.
Please feel free to respond (positively or negatively) and if you need someone closer to the research or to the article you mentioned, I will try to connect you that way.
Your cojourner in the quest for truth,
Jeff Grant
a. Anselm’s Ontological argument for the existence of God says that God must exist by His own definition. Anselm defines God as “that of which nothing greater can be conceived” and so would possess all the best qualities including true existence over being simply imagined.
b. Kant’s Transcendental argument says that “every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian God”. The clearest demonstration of this is found in morality. I have yet to see a satisfactory source for morality apart from a moral God.
c. Plato’s Cosmological argument follows this line of reasoning, “Every finite/contingent being has a cause + Nothing contingent can cause itself + A causal chain cannot be of infinite length = There must be a first cause (or necessary being).” Anselm would say it is greater to be a “necessary” being than a “contingent” one, so God must be a necessary being by definition. The infinite recurrence theory obviously takes issue with the 3rd statement and I believe the string theory takes issue with the 2nd.
d. Aquinas’s Teleological argument comes from Romans 1:20, which Paul says, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse”. This is the primary basis for the Intelligent Design movement, which follows an “inference to the best explanation” that an information rich system necessitates design. William Dembski’s Design Inference explains how science approaches the question of whether or not a thing was designed. He cites “improbability” and “specificity” as the two major variables. This is how they avoid the tendency to read design into something.
e. Lee Strobel wrote his book The Case for Christ based on the legal evidence that Jesus Christ existed, claimed to be God, and demonstrated His claims to be true. John 1:18 says that we can see God through His son Jesus. Believers and non-believers alike reported His miracles, He fulfilled almost 200 prophecies and was witnessed by over 500 people as risen from the dead, many of whom died rather than recant this testimony. Strobel puts it well when he says, “people may be willing to die for something they mistakenly believe to be true, but no one would die for something they know to be UNtrue.” For more on that, I suggest reading his book or at least viewing the website.
f. My theory of “Emotional Denial” is based partially on Paul, who states in Romans 1:18-19 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” I believe that all humans inherently know that God exists (somewhat similar to Jung’s archetypes). However, before this truth can truly reach our consciousness, it passes through our emotions (which battle between honesty, selfishness, etc). Jesus said that anyone who truly wants to find God will (Matthew 7:7). I believe that atheism and all false religions are a result of human reasoning seeking to find a way to deny God without feeling guilty. I am, however, open to criticism J
g. Though I think each of these has validity, I don’t believe that any of them truly change a person’s mind. The Bible says that it is only God who can truly change a heart, and it is personal experience of God’s presence in my life that convinces me more than anything. There’s a camp song that says “don’t try to tell me that God is dead, I spoke with Him this morning.” Though no one has seen God any more than they can see gravity or honesty, we can see how He affects things, and we can understand His qualities. I will gladly share more on this if you ask, but this email is long enough already.
You say “I have great respect for religion and the morality it can inspire”, and I appreciate that, but I want to point out that the helpfulness of religion is not the point, but only a side-effect. There was a time when the best defense for Christianity we could present to hard evolutionists was “the Bible makes promises that I have experienced to be fulfilled in my life.” However, these days the helpfulness of religion can be a major distraction from the central point of whether or not it is true. CS Lewis said that if Christianity is true, then we all need to follow it whether it is helpful or not, and if it is false then we need to know that as well and stop living a lie even if it’s a nice one. That being said, I can’t see a basis for morality apart from God, and I can’t see a purpose to life apart from the mission of God on this earth, but I’d cherish your perspective on this.
I hope you find this helpful, or at least somewhat coherent. I don’t claim to have all the answers, and I’m nowhere near as well read on these issues as some others, but I hope you have seen that I have not accepted this blindly. It’s a big deal to commit your life to something you can only believe to be true. Hebrews 11:1 calls faith “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”. Ultimately, I believe there will never be irrefutable proof either way while we are on this earth. Evidence can only get you to the point where it is reasonable. The Bible is God saying “I’ll catch you,” but we can’t be sure until we jump.
Please feel free to respond (positively or negatively) and if you need someone closer to the research or to the article you mentioned, I will try to connect you that way.
Your cojourner in the quest for truth,
Jeff Grant
"Evolution vs. Design" ~Voltaire
In response to the EveryStudent essay,
The theory of evolution has been developed over the centuries and is currently supported by millions of examples both from artificial experiments and in the natural world. Analogizing the human eye to a bag of screws is ridiculous. You write that evolution proposes that "the human eye just came about from elements in the atmosphere". Evolution is not a random process that just takes a really long time. It is not at all like shaking a bag of screws in the hope of getting a watch. Evolution selects the best adaptations for an environment, gradually producing greater and greater complexity. The eye, for instance, did not just appear in a puff of smoke; rather, it originated as a small patch of photoreceptors in a primitive invertebrate, eventually developing an optic nerve, rods and cones, and so on. This process took billions of years and was completely non-random.
However, the larger argument--how the universe itself originated without the help of an intelligent designer--has not yet been resolved as intuitively as Darwin's. Scientists have come up with a number of possible solutions, from string theory to multiverse, but all are supported more by discrete mathematics than by intuition. The deepest questions, I find, rarely have easy answers. The problem with your deceptively easy solution is this: The universe may be miraculous and improbable--but whoever designed it must be even more miraculous and thus more improbable! Who designed the Designer? Religion is no solution to the paradox of infinite regress.
The theory of evolution is often oversimplified, but true or not it fails to replace theism as an explanation for the origin of life:
a. I agree that there are plenty of examples of MICRO-evolution (adaptation), but I am completely unconvinced by any evidence of MACRO or cross-species evolution that I've seen so far. If you have any such evidence, please direct me to it.
b. If natural selection breeds out the less helpful qualities, why do species that are many levels “less evolved” still exist?
c. Evolution cannot handle systems that irreducibly complex (“a single system… wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”). The eye may be a poor example of this, but there have been plenty of better ones (ex. Bacterial flagellum). In order for evolution to work, it must make tiny steps that can be common mutations, but even the eye requires huge leaps to get from a patch of photoreceptors to an optic nerve.
d. Even if macro-evolution could be proven, it fails to explain how life began or how circumstances could be lined up to allow life to begin. You do talk about solutions that they are developing (string theory to a multiverse) and I’d be very interested in hearing more about these along with the “discrete mathematics” that support them.
e. You state that “the deepest questions rarely have easy answers”, but the commonly accepted theory of Ockham’s Razor (“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one”) leans against you there. I did not accept Christianity as true simply based on proof, but I have been continually convinced that the ad hoc responses from Atheists require more faith than an intelligent designer. I also disagree about the increased complexity of a designer. An infinite regress is unarguably more complicated and unimaginable than an unmoved mover. In these days of Quantum physics, we’re seeing how thought and immaterial truth has more grounding in reality than the physical world itself. These ideas reach popular expression in films like “The Matrix” that illustrate how our senses can no longer be trusted completely, sending us down the path of Descartes which lead to certainty of God’s existence as well.
The theory of evolution has been developed over the centuries and is currently supported by millions of examples both from artificial experiments and in the natural world. Analogizing the human eye to a bag of screws is ridiculous. You write that evolution proposes that "the human eye just came about from elements in the atmosphere". Evolution is not a random process that just takes a really long time. It is not at all like shaking a bag of screws in the hope of getting a watch. Evolution selects the best adaptations for an environment, gradually producing greater and greater complexity. The eye, for instance, did not just appear in a puff of smoke; rather, it originated as a small patch of photoreceptors in a primitive invertebrate, eventually developing an optic nerve, rods and cones, and so on. This process took billions of years and was completely non-random.
However, the larger argument--how the universe itself originated without the help of an intelligent designer--has not yet been resolved as intuitively as Darwin's. Scientists have come up with a number of possible solutions, from string theory to multiverse, but all are supported more by discrete mathematics than by intuition. The deepest questions, I find, rarely have easy answers. The problem with your deceptively easy solution is this: The universe may be miraculous and improbable--but whoever designed it must be even more miraculous and thus more improbable! Who designed the Designer? Religion is no solution to the paradox of infinite regress.
The theory of evolution is often oversimplified, but true or not it fails to replace theism as an explanation for the origin of life:
a. I agree that there are plenty of examples of MICRO-evolution (adaptation), but I am completely unconvinced by any evidence of MACRO or cross-species evolution that I've seen so far. If you have any such evidence, please direct me to it.
b. If natural selection breeds out the less helpful qualities, why do species that are many levels “less evolved” still exist?
c. Evolution cannot handle systems that irreducibly complex (“a single system… wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”). The eye may be a poor example of this, but there have been plenty of better ones (ex. Bacterial flagellum). In order for evolution to work, it must make tiny steps that can be common mutations, but even the eye requires huge leaps to get from a patch of photoreceptors to an optic nerve.
d. Even if macro-evolution could be proven, it fails to explain how life began or how circumstances could be lined up to allow life to begin. You do talk about solutions that they are developing (string theory to a multiverse) and I’d be very interested in hearing more about these along with the “discrete mathematics” that support them.
e. You state that “the deepest questions rarely have easy answers”, but the commonly accepted theory of Ockham’s Razor (“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one”) leans against you there. I did not accept Christianity as true simply based on proof, but I have been continually convinced that the ad hoc responses from Atheists require more faith than an intelligent designer. I also disagree about the increased complexity of a designer. An infinite regress is unarguably more complicated and unimaginable than an unmoved mover. In these days of Quantum physics, we’re seeing how thought and immaterial truth has more grounding in reality than the physical world itself. These ideas reach popular expression in films like “The Matrix” that illustrate how our senses can no longer be trusted completely, sending us down the path of Descartes which lead to certainty of God’s existence as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)