Why I Am A Christian: A Story of Faith.

When I was eleven years old, I was baptized into Christ at my home church in Mahomet, Illinois.

The formal cause for this occasion came about after I had a lengthy conversation with a non-Christian friend about the important connection between baptism and salvation, only to remember that I, myself, had not even been baptized.
 
Being raised in the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ (and being convinced by Scripture), I believed that baptism is the final step in accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, so this was no small issue for me.

However, the real or material cause for my baptism was much deeper.

I was adopted at a young age by Christian parents and ever since then, I have been surrounded by all things "Christian".

However, going to Christian "things" and having Christian parents does not a Christian make.

I have always believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that the Bible was the Word of God, but even the demons believe (and they tremble; James 2:19).

I remember confessing my sins to God and "asking Jesus into my heart" after an "Unshackled" radio drama, but I was plagued with worry about the effectiveness of my prayer because I didn't feel like a weight had been taken off my back, which was how the experience had always been described on the program.
 
 I have long since moved past that bad theology; praise God!

 So, knowing my need for a Savior and the truth of Jesus' divinity, I trusted in Him for my salvation, confessed Him as Lord, repented of my sins, and was baptized.

My testimony is hardly cool or exciting, but it is very special to me. 

As a person who has long struggled with not measuring up, I am thankful to know that I don't need to try to "be something" in order to approach the cross and have a relationship with God.
 
To sum things up, if I could cite three reasons for why I am a Christian, they would be the following:
 
            Observational Confirmation

Seeing the absolute coherence, rationality, and sincerity of Christian faith has been an enduring testimony of its truth to me.

I love what C. S. Lewis said about his faith in the faith:
 
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. 

By seeing godly men and women live out the biblical faith in their daily lives, I cannot doubt that the Spirit of God is truly working in them and through them.

                   Internal Confirmation

The witness of the Holy Spirit to my heart has been a testimony to me of God's existence and activity in our world.

(I believe that God has hardwired us all for belief, but that man  suppresses this innate knowledge through sinfulness [Romans 1:18]).

There's not much I can say about this, except that for me the witness is more than a "burning in the bosom", is closer to what philosophers a "properly basic belief", and even closer to an eternal truth, whispered in your ear by the most trustworthy person in the whole universe
   
   Evidential Confirmation

While too lengthy and outside of the scope of this blog post to explain fully here, I believe that the proposition "God exists" best explains the origin of contingent beings, the existence of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, the reality of objective moral values and duties, and the very idea of God, as well as the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and more.

The explanatory power of Christian theism is, I believe, unparalleled in scope and power.
 
You can see more about that here.
 
 In closing, I am very aware of the fact that I am still young and it seems everyday my faith is changing and growing as I learn more and try to better conform my life and doctrine to the Truth. 
 It gives me supreme joy to call myself a follower of Jesus and I consider it a privelge to share my faith with others.   

                  One More Thing

A Restoration Movement initiative

In addition to being a proud Christian, I am also proud to belong to a movement of churches which I believe best exemplify the biblical model for how the local church is supposed to look and act.

 You can read more about this fellowship of churches here.

Also feel free to leave a short testimony of how you came to Christ in the comment box below.    

Why I Thank God for President Obama.

                                            
 It's been almost a week since the United States re-elected President Barack Obama for a second term as president of our country.

And, like all conservatives, I was initially left reeling and dejected knowing that I had another four years of one of the most radical, anti-business, anti-life, anti-free market presidents our country has ever seen.

I mean how much worse could things get?

Planned Parenthood (the nation's largest abortion chain) is receiving millions of tax-payer dollars each year, the bloated and job crushing "Obamacare" legislation seems to be a forgone conclusion, religious business leaders all across the country are being forced to violate their consciences with respect to their views on life (via the HHS mandate) and marriage (via gay activism and legislation thereof), and religious apathy seems endemic both in and outside the Church.

Christians see America (and the world) slowly going downhill in more ways than we can keep track of and are asking ourselves, 'what's a believer to do?'

Well, the Bible answers that question in First Thessalonians:

"Rejoice always,  pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus".

Yes, you read that right. 

It says we are to rejoice (always), give thanks (in all circumstances), and pray (continually). 

So, that's exactly what I'm going to. 

While there may not be many reasons to be thankful for our Commander-in-Chief's re-election, there are at least few

For one, I'm thankful that those of us who were acting under the delusion that we could recreate the United States in the image of some great Christian democratic-republic must now be faced with the reality that even a country as great as America is secular and under the temporary control of the "prince of this world" (John 12:31).

Sometimes we get so caught up in trying to cultivate Christ in our culture and government, we forget that the first rule of defending the faith is to "sanctify Christ as Lord in [our] hearts" (1 Peter 3:15).

This is not at all to say that we shouldn't vote our consciences whenever able, but we must understand that real change comes by way of the transforming work of the Holy Spirit and not by governmental legislation.

In addition, the President's win has personally encouraged me to make active pro-life vigil and sidewalk counselling outside my town's local Planned Parenthood clinic a more regular activity.

While Planned Parenthood and abortion providers all across the country won big in this election, the pro-life movement has too been rejuvenated and we are ready to fight the pro-abortion forces for the next four years and beyond, defending the right-to-life of pre-born humans until the bitter end.

Another thing this election has brought about that I'm thankful for is the spotlight now being shone on the glaring unwillingness of many Christians to even attempt to bring their political views and actions under the Lordship of Jesus.

Many of the President's deeply held social and economic views are anti-Christian and whether it be due to racism (voting based on race) or a low view/ignorance of Scriptural principles, too many Christians cast their votes for Barack Obama and supported his rise to power.

However, sunlight is the best disinfectant and you cannot deal with a problem until you identify it.

We've identified a big problem, now it's time to deal with it.

  

In keeping with the passage from first Thessalonians, I'm also praying for our leaders (as we're commanded to do in 1 Timothy 2:1-2), including our president, and I'm praying that Christians would be renewed with evangelistic zeal for the lost and a mighty love for God, so "that by doing good [we] should silence the evil talk of foolish men" (1 Peter 2:15).

And lastly, I'm rejoicing always because I have the awesome, wonderful, indescribable privilege of knowing that no matter how bad the world gets, Jesus is coming!

And (if I'm reading my Bible correctly) things are going to get worse before they get better. 

Regardless of what happens in life, what leader is in power, or what heartache may befall our world, this thing is certain: God is still working in the lives of men and women to bring about his most glorious and holy purposes and He will see his children through to ultimate victory.

This knowledge gives us the freedom to be bold and courageous, loving and compassionate, prayerful and expectant all day, every day. 

There's still lots of work to be done, fields to harvests, love to share, and justice to champion; are you ready?

Just remember to pray, give thanks, and in all things rejoice!

Failed Attacks and False Gospels: A Response to Kluwe, Vines, and Mclaren.

In the seemingly relentless campaign to marginalize and stigmatize those of us who hold to a biblical view of sexual ethics, the militants on the opposing side are more than happy to utilize morally and doctrinally wayward "Christians" to advance their cause and to silence religious opposition to anti-biblical values with respect to human sexuality.

One such person is "gay rights" advocate, football star, and professing Roman Catholic Chris Kluwe. 

The Vikings football star (well known for his support for homosexual causes) landed himself in the blogosphere once again when he wrote an open letter to a Minnesota Catholic bishop, responding to what he called the bishop's position of  "oppression, intolerance, and fear".

What did Archbishop John Nienstedt do that warranted such a strong condemnation?

In a letter written two years ago, Nienstedt addressed a Catholic parishioner of his who expressed dissent concerning her Church's teaching about human sexuality as it pertained to her gay son. 

The clergyman implored the concerned woman to accept the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality, going as far to say "your eternal salvation may well depend upon a conversation of heart on this topic".

*gasp*

A Catholic bishop urging a Catholic to accept Catholic teaching!

I have my problems with the Church of Rome, but this isn't one of them.

It would seem to me that any rationally minded person who is not emotionally wrapped up in this issue would see this exchange as a mundane and normal expression of governance and spiritual admonishment by a religious authority.

And yet to the fawning praise of gay blogs and websites, Mr. Kluwe wrote a poetic and mind numbingly over-dramatic response to the bishop in which he referenced the "Crusades" and the "Taliban", accused the bishop of "denying the humanity of gay people", and even implicated him in the not-so-hypothetical suicide of gay teens.

All this because a professing Catholic was told to accept the following from the Catholic catechism:

  Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.  (Catechism of the Catholic church, paragraph 2357)

 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (Catechism of the Catholic church, paragraph 2358. emphasis mine)

 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (Catechism of the Catholic church, paragraph 2359)

Whether one agrees with this teaching or not, these passages say nothing about the intrinsic value of the person with SSA, except to imply that he or she is so valuable as to be respected and protected from unjust discrimination.

I suppose these "finer details" must have gone over Mr. Kluwe's head.

But we all know that divergence from Scripture in this area is in no way relegated exclusively to the Roman Catholic realm, by any means.

Recently, a young man named Matthew Vines has been making his rounds in Evangelical circles boldly spreading the not-so-old heresy that homosexual behavior is not sin and should be accepted by Bible believing Christians.

Vines, who spent two years researching the issue of homosexuality and the Bible, recycled and repackaged the same old "gay theology" arguments we've all already heard (albeit, with a few new twists) and put them in a sermon that is being lauded as monumental and groundbreaking by both secular and religious talking heads alike.   

Of course, neither Vines nor his promoters pay even the slightest attention to the numerous and comprehensive refutations of all of Vine's points, widely available for years--decades even.

And even more recently, news that "Emergent Church" preacher Brian Mclaren officiated his son's bizarre same-sex "wedding" commitment ceremony hit the fan, further discrediting the minister who was already suspect due to his frustratingly vague views on many critical points of Christian orthodoxy.

Thankfully, the positions of Matt Vines, Brian Mclaren, and Chris Kluwe, mean very little in terms of signaling some grand "evolution" in the thinking of the church, except to show the increased boldness of those who have fallen prey to this modern day rotten theology.

We hope and pray that, in time, they will come (back) to the true biblical faith.

My point is not to give these men undue fame, but to respond to a common theme that seems to serve as the foundation for these men's shared heterodoxy and rejection of the biblical teaching on sexuality.

Note the next three quotes by the men themselves:

Over time, I could not square their stories and experiences with the theology I had inherited. So I re-opened the issue, read a lot of books, re-studied the Scriptures, and eventually came to believe that just as the Western church had been wrong on slavery, wrong on colonialism, wrong on environmental plunder, wrong on subordinating women, wrong on segregation and apartheid (all of which is justified biblically) ... we had been wrong on [the issue of homosexuality]. --Brian Mclaren

How can we reconcile our version of the Catholic Church as salvation to the sick, the needy, the poor, when we must also bear witness to the Catholic Church as oppressor, tormentor, and executioner? Where, in all of Jesus’ teachings, did he ever say to deny the humanity of other human beings; where did the Son of God proclaim that mortal Man knew God’s will; where, pray tell, did Jesus ever say to harden your heart against those who may not be exactly the same as you? -- Chris Kluwe

Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If we’re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct. -- Matthew Vines

Whether they believe what they are saying or not, the argument being used by "gay theology" proponents is this: the biblical teaching that homosexuality is a deviation from God's creative purpose for human sexuality and that sexual expression thereof is sinful is inherently destructive towards people with SSA and is an attack upon their very self-worth and value.

 This, of course, is nothing short of a pernicious lie. 

Human sexuality is a beautiful aspect of our person and is to be expressed within the the creative framework that God has decreed.

In the beginning of the world, God made Adam, whose name means simply "man", and Eve, whose name means simply "life", and brought them together that they might love and care for each other as life-long partners.

Jesus expounded on this theme where he made the case for life-long, faithful, natural, marriage in Matthew Chapter 19 saying:

  

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ ⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

It was God's purpose in making two sexes that two would become one.

This is the good and proper paradigm that we as Christians should hold to, support, and defend over and against any other paradigm, whatever it may be.

However, we are told about the genuinely difficult plight of our brothers and sisters in Christ who have felt the sting of the Fall with respect to their sexuality, as we all have felt the sting of the Fall in so many areas of our own lives.

Does that mean that we reject the man-woman paradigm for relationships that God has put in place and instead craft one to our liking?

Certainly not!

The appropriate path is to come along side our brothers and sisters and help them bear their burdens as they begin to understand their desires within the bounds that God has so lovingly ordained and seek to find who they are in Christ, irrespective of who they are attracted to.

Whether they, like many heterosexual Christians, will stay single, or perhaps, by the grace and power of God, find a spouse, we hold that is not only possible, but crucial that to live as a disciple of Jesus Christ we all must submit our sexual desires to Christ as God has commanded in Scripture.

When Paul spoke to the Corinthian Church about sin and salvation, he had this to say in chapter 6 of First Corinthians: 

 ⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men ¹⁰ nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

And one invitation to enter into this new state of being is given by Jesus in Matthew 11:   

“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰ For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Jesus doesn't say that following him will be easy, he says that he will bear the burden with us as one who has "overcome the world" (John 16:33).

This, I believe, is truly a message of truth, hope, and love that all people, regardless of sexuality, can cling to.

For the Love of God: Why Christians Should Not Vote for President Obama in November

Among those Christians who tend toward either liberalism or non-traditionalism, and especially black Christians, the "progressive" Barack Obama seems like a viable candidate for president.

I am going to do my hardest to dispel that myth

I hold that President Obama has exhibited a pattern of implementing policies that inhibit, stigmatize, or otherwise go against Christian values and thus should not get a single vote from anyone who considers himself a follower of Jesus Christ.

Let me be crystal clear that this is not a pro-Romney, pro-Ron Paul, or pro-any-one-person post.

My focus is on the president and his actions.

I believe that the issues facing our country are far too grave to simply cast a thoughtless vote for any candidate who seems good enough or has a certain letter in front of his name.

I agree with the theologian Dr. Jack Cottrell when he writes:

"The only real issue between Obama and Romney is this: which one wants government to do what God wants it to do, according to Romans 13:1ff. and 1 Tim. 4:1-4? I.e., which one wants government to protect the rights of every citizen, to defend us from those who want to violate those rights, to enable us to lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity?" (emphasis mine)

And nowhere does the president more clearly fail this test than with respect to the issue of the right-to-life.

Not only are his pro-choice views outside the mainstream of American culture, but that of biblical orthodoxy, as well.

 Scripture clearly affirms the dignity of every human person, so it is verboten for a Christian to support widespread violations of that dignity.

Here are some verses that illustrate this point:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them"-- Genesis 1:27 ( mankind is made in the very image of God)

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets"-- Matthew 7:12 (we are to treat people in kind with how we wish to be treated)

 "But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"-- 1 John 3:17  (God's love compels is to help our brother in need)

 "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward"-- Psalm 127:3 (children are a gift from God, as opposed to a burden)

  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous"-- Matthew 5:43-45 (hating another human is not a viable option for a believer)

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"-- James 1:27 (true religion cares for those in need)

 "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God"-- Micah 6:8 (God has charged us to be just and merciful)

With this in mind, how does President Obama's record on life square with the biblical exhortations to love, care for, and be merciful toward our fellow man?

 (1.) According to the Washington Post fact checker, then Senator Obama voted "present" twice on a vote to ban partial birth abortion 1997, during his time in the Illnois senate.

The partial birth or D&E method is described as such:

This procedure is used to abort women who are 20 to 32 weeks pregnant -- or even later into pregnancy. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grabs the unborn baby’s leg with forceps, and pulls the baby into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. (At this point in a partial-birth abortion, the baby is alive).

A partial-birth abortion portrayal.

  Then the abortionist jams scissors into the back of the baby’s skull and spreads the tips of the scissors apart to enlarge the wound. After removing the scissors, a suction catheter is inserted into the skull and the baby’s brains are sucked out. The collapsed head is then removed from the uterus.

Does it sound caring, loving, or merciful to suck out the brains of a baby who could at that moment be delivered and survive outside the womb?

Certainly not.

Understandably, such a procedure is illegal in many states.

(2.) In 2001 Senator Obama voted "present" twice on bills that would require parental notification before a minor could receive an abortion.

Is it too much to ask that a parent be informed about a major medical procedure that could fundamentally change or even ruin the life of their under-age child and kill their grandchild?

(3.)  Even more horrifying is that twice as a senator, Obama voted "present" on a bill that would give proper medical attention to babies born alive due to an abortion procedure gone wrong.

This is simply beyond the pale.

We're not talking about a baby in the womb, but a baby that has survived a botched abortion procedure and, like any newborn, is in need of basic care.

In my state of Illinois such children were left to die, and the President, then a senator, didn't care enough about those babies to vote a simple "yes" on the bill.

 You may think that President Obama should get a pass because he voted "present" on those bills rather than "no".

However, it is common knowledge that voting "present" (especially in Illinios) was/is an admitted  political tactic to keep politicians from being marginalized and stigmatized come further elections, not a moral decision.

Will believers cast their vote for man who puts party and politics before the lives of newborn children?

God forbid it!

(4.) As Commander-in-Chief, President Obama opposed a bill that would ban abortions being conducted on the basis of sex, as we often see in China.

(5.) The Patient Affordable Care and Protection Act or Obamacare has in it provisions for tax-payer funded abortions.

(6.) In addition the Obama administration's Health and Human Services mandate would force religious institutions, such as Christian hospitals and schools, to cover the cost of abortion inducing drugs.

To recap:  The president opposed bills that would...

  -Allow infants born alive after a botched abortion procedure to   receive medical attention.

  - Ban the grisly partial birth abortion procedure 

  - Grant parents the right to be informed of and give consent for their minor's abortion.

  - Ban sex-selective abortions.

And instituted legislation that would...

-Force tax-payers to fund abortions and embryonic stem cell research.

 - Force religious institutions to cover the cost of abortion causing drugs.

This abject disregard for human life cannot be reconciled with the God's high view of human dignity.

The two are totally contradictory.

I thought long and hard about other issues that I could write about that show President Obama's disregard for Christian faith and values, but if believers cannot be persuaded to not vote for a man who's moral compass would not compel him to speak or vote against infanticide then nothing will.

Whether it be his irresponsible use of drones in the Middle East, his derision of traditional marriage, his restricting of religious freedom in the military, or open mockery and misrepresentation of the Word of of God, this President has shown himself to be an enemy of those who seek to better know and follow God and who wish to see themselves fairly represented at the highest level of the U.S government.

And so armed with this knowledge, we have a choice before us this election: to support life and liberty or President Obama.

Our Christian belief extends to all areas of our life, including politics, which means even our vote must be brought under the lordship of Jesus Christ.

So if you love the Lord and His commands,  I pray you will abstain from casting your vote for President Obama this November and encourage other believers to do the same.

For God's sake and for the sake of all of us, who will reap the repercussions of for more years of President Barack Hussein Obama.

Now I Lay Me Down: In Defense of the Afterlife

"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"

 The surest fact about our existence is that it will end.

Sooner or later everyone will die.

You and I will die.

This is our shared terminal diagnosis.

The only question left is whether death serves as the end of human existence or an entrance into the "afterlife"?

As a Christian, I am firm believer in life after death and I hold that we have good reasons to believe in this central theistic doctrine.

The theme of this post was inspired by a Youtube video I watched by Youtuber Mr. Repzion (Daniel Sulzbach?)

Mr. Repzion is a former professing believer and is contemplating issues of death, the soul, and the hereafter.

I pray this post will challenge seekers and encourage my Christian brothers and sisters who eagerly await the resurrection promised us by the grace and power of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Dualism as Evidence for the Afterlife

 The philosophy of substance dualism states that humans have a mind (or soul) independent of and non-identical to our body/brain, which forms one part of our dual human nature (ie: body and soul) .

Dualism stands in direct contrast to physicalism which asserts that only physical entities exist (ie: those things that can be described by the language of physics and chemistry) as well as property-event dualism which holds that the human brain contains and causes all mental properties.

If substance dualism is true then it lends itself nicely to hope of life after death because if the mind exists apart from the body then the mind can "go on" after the body is dead.

So why should we prefer substance dualism over physicalism?

I've "tampered" with 4 reasons to reject physicalism that were given (among others) in the book "Philosphical Foundations for a Christian Worldview" in order to make them more accessible for the reader.

 

REASON 1.  While an outsider may have access to all of our physical properties, at least some of our mental properties are only privately accessible.

A doctor can ravage a human body, probe its brain, and come away knowing all about it's physical properties, but at least some of it's mental properties (ie:  experience of sensations, propositional attitudes etc.) must be divulged.

REASON 2: In addition, while one may always be mistaken about the physical, one cannot always be mistaken about the mental.

For example, if I see a white sheet flapping in the wind and I think it's a ghost, while I am most certainly mistaken about the nature of the sheet (physical object), I could not be mistaken that I, at least, thought I saw a ghost (mental state).

Therefore, It may be said that I can know at least some of my thoughts incorrigibly or without error.

REASON 3: While being of or about something means nothing to physical properties, it does mean something to mental properties.

While my thoughts can be about or of Glee's Naya Rivera, such as 'Naya is simply stunning!', this relationship means nothing to my brain or any of my other physical properties.

 

So we can say that ofness or aboutness is unique to mental properties.

REASON 4: While our minds do stand in a causal relationships with our bodies (imagine your mental state after being roundhoused by Chuck Norris!) not all of our mental properties are conditioned by the physical.

I am typing this blog, not because of any physical property, but because I exercised a will or purposing to do so.

For these reasons we can conclude that the mind is not indentical to the brain. 

 Now why should we reject property-event dualism?

Well, If mental properties are produced by the brain (much like fire produces smoke) and controlled by physical properties, as is the case on PED, then human beings have no free-will, moral responsibility, ability, or accountability.  

We are simply bodies responding to stimuli.

This idea is, of course, false.

Not only because (1.) moral intuition and general experience give strong testimony to the reality of free-will, moral responsibility, ability, and accountability, but (2.) PED implies universal causal determinism which cannot be rationally affirmed and is thus self-refuting. 

So much more could be said about all of this, but I think we can rightly conclude that substance dualism is indeed a true representation of the human composition.

 Given this fact, it is perfectly acceptable to hold that the human mind need not to die with the body, but can live on after the body is dead.

The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

As a believer, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is absolutely central to my faith and my belief in the afterlife.

For if Jesus was indeed who said he was and was raised from the dead as he said he would be, then certainly we may have the hope of such a resurrection too.

I don't care who you are; that is an exciting prospect!  

 The argument is as follows:

1. There are four established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazereth: his honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and
the origin of his disciples’ belief in the resurrection.

2. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.

3. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” entails that God exists.

4. Therefore God exists.

 While this is an argument for the existence of God it is clear that, if true, the argument proves the reality of life after death.

  Now many natural explanations have been invoked to try to explain the facts surrounding Jesus' death:

"The disciples stole the body"

"Jesus wasn't really dead"

"The disciples made it all up"

"Jesus never really existed"

  
 But all of these reasons fail in explanatory scope and power.

If the disciples made the resurrection up, why did they go to gruesome tortuous deaths for this belief.

Not to mention, the concept of a risen Messiah was completely foreign to the Jews at the time (and still is to many today!).

In addition, it is highly improbable that Jesus survived Roman crucifixion, but even if he did, a half-dead "Messiah" in desperate need of doctor would not engender lifelong support from hundreds of Jews who were expecting a conquering hero that would defeat the Romans.

The belief that Jesus never existed is not to be taken seriously.

And on and on it goes.

If we look at the facts honestly and in view of the arguments for God's existence, I think we can see that the best explanation of the facts concerning Jesus' death was that he was indeed raised by God from dead, which entails the existence of life after death.


              Closing thoughts


I will reiterate that there is much more that could be said about all of this.

I welcome and invite on-point comments and please feel free to send me an e-mail about any pertinent questions you have or leave them in the comment box below.

If Mr. Repizon or anyone else who may be struggling with idea of the hereafter is reading this, I pray the you will continue your search for truth.

Don't give up, for I believe that resurrection which Jesus underwent is available to you on behalf of a loving God!

Bill Nye the Confused Guy: A Response to Bill Nye on Darwinism.

While this post may be "a day late and a dollar short", I finally got around to watch the "controversial" Bill Nye the Science Guy video by "Big Think" on "evolution deniers" and decided to offer some thoughts on the video.

Bill makes writing a response to the video difficult because he refuses to define his terms and let the listener know just what exactly he's talking about.

When he says evolution does he mean simple change over time (which all sides agree is indicative of life) or the idea that life on earth originated from a primordial common ancestor and has progressed by way of billions of years of random mutation dictated by natural selection (an idea of which there is debate).

Here's the video: 

At one point in the video, Nye says that "your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution" and then precedes to put forth a line of evidence that has nothing to do with proving Darwinian evolution, but is best suited showing that the earth is not young.

He references things like "deep time", "ancient dinosaur bones", "radioactivity", and "distant stars" and then says "[these things] explain so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview just becomes crazy".

Certainly Nye does not equate disbelief in Darwinian evolution with a belief in a young earth, for such an assumption would be hopelessly false.

What Nye fails to grasp is that all of those things mentioned above only imply an old earth and can be rationally affirmed apart from belief in Darwinian evolution.

Nye also suggests that adults who "deny evolution" are living "in a world that is completely inconsistent with everything we see in the universe."

I beg to differ.

In his ground breaking new book "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly Wrong" Dr. Thomas Nagel (B.A. Cornell 1958; B.Phil. Oxford 1960; Ph.D. Harvard 1963) lays out the case for why  Darwinian evolution cannot adequately explain the most integral parts of human experience.

The book description is as follows:

  

 The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.

Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such.

Nagel's skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative...

(emphasis mine)

And in Nagel's own words, taken from chapter one of his book:

In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. 

Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair. (emphasis mine)

I'm sure that Nye would not dare condescend to a man who has a far more impressive educational background than himself.

In addition, Nye makes this claim about doing biology without believing in Darwnian evolution: 

"It's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates: you're just not gonna get the right answer; you're whole world is just gonna be a mystery instead of an exciting place". (emphasis mine)

Can a person not believe in Darwinism and still do science or, more specifically, biology?

 Dr. Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe", who rejects Darwinism and believes in progressive creationism says yes!

 In an article titled "Origin-of-Life Predictions Face Off: Evolution vs Biblical Creation" Dr. Ross compares biblical creation and Darwinian evolution to see which paradigm’s predictions hold up to recent scientific discoveries concerning the origin of life and he shows conclusively that the "biblical creation" model comes out on top.

I highly recommenced the article!

 

Furthermore, Nye tells us that "evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science".

During the past 200 years uniformitarianism (the belief that the earth is shaped by slow, gradual processes, as opposed to catastrophic events) was the reigning paradigm in geology. 

However, a new paradigm was introduced in 1980's that suggested catastrophic events can generate significant alter the earth, on occasion (ie: catastrophism)

Scientific paradigms are dynamic and not static because they change, adapt, and grow over time as we learn more about our universe.

The eminent archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe spent the majority of his career working under a specific paradigm used to develop a time history of prehistoric Europe and then killed himself during the advent of radiocarbon dating because of the threat it posed to his life's work.

We love the romantic idea of men in white lab coats searching for the truth wherever it may be, but sadly this idea is a fantasy and when we reflect upon the example of Mr. Childe we can better understand why some people will fight tooth and nail to see that any and every challenge to their scientific paradigm is demonized and dismissed as nonsense despite any evidence to the contrary.

At the end of the video Nye comforts listeners by saying that "in another couple centuries" the worldview that denies Darwinism "will not exist".

Maybe Nye is right and a hundreds of years from now no one will deny Darwinism, but I think he understands that current trends in microbiology and philosophy are spinning a different weave.

When scientific paradigms can no longer be challenged and are held up as the "be all end all" of a particular scientific discipline, you can be sure that we've stopped doing science and stared doing theology.

I believe that Nye is speaking out because he knows that a certain life science paradigm will disappear in the decades to come.

The only question is whose paradigm will it be?