Does Existence Precede Essence?

French atheist, humanist philosopher and Marxist, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) asserted within his writings that a proof of God's nonexistence is wrapped up in the existential theory that human beings do not have essence (aka: core property or ultimate purpose) prior to their existence. Due to this "blank slate" of being at existence, we are therefore "condemned to be free" acting separately or independently from the past with the ability to make ourselves or our lives whatever we wish it to be, to espouse whatever moral values we individually choose, and to suffer the consequences and full weight of such decisions. eg: Each individual can self direct their own purpose as there is no purposeful intent of our existence except that which we assign to it.

Now, think of this for a minute. If there is no creator, and we have not been given any purpose other than a self-assigned temporary purpose which we have chosen for ourselves, which is only as relevant as as a speck of dust in the wind, then the universe itself, ultimately has no essence (purpose) and the existence of all things, no matter how wonderful or majestic they may be only lead to a cold uncelebrated death and meaninglessness. This is the world of existence preceding essence and the logical conclusion to the theory itself. In its end, it will lead to nihilism or the meaninglessness of life.

The Fight For Essence (Purpose): Thank God for TRUTH!

I suppose that we could give what Sartre had to say some real credence and credibility "if" it were true and "if" God had not already addressed this same issue through his word thousands of years prior to Sartre's existence and the existence of others who think like him. Although Sartre has claimed that all men are prophets, incidentally enough it was the calling of a prophet that settled the issue a long time ago:

Jer. 1:5 ~ “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

As God spoke to Jeremiah calling him to be a prophet to the nation of Israel, HE reveals that God's purpose for Jeremiah extended to a time BEFORE Jeremiah's existence. God, not being a respector of "any man's person" reveals to us, by that statement and calling alone, that each person that he has allowed to enter this realm has an "essence" or purpose, prior to their existence. There is no such thing as a purposeless existence.

According to the truth of the word of God, our essence or purpose clearly precedes our existence. God has a purpose and he further has a plan for every human being and for every individual and that plan doesn't just prop up when we show up in the womb. God therefore moves and directs HIS actions with intention and by virtue of that, has created and filled a universe with intention or purpose as well. 

To drive the point home, let's look further:

Ps. 139: 16 ~Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

The Psalmist also reveals that prior to our formation as individuals, God has already number the days appointed for us here on earth. Before any days or times existed, eg: before existence as a person, God saw and created essence (purpose) by giving each individual a place and space within this time continuum called life. That is purpose.

Is There A "Blank Slate" Of Humanity:

Crossexamined.org recently produced at article entitled "What The Fighting Over Gender Issues Is Really About", pointing out the flawed Sartreian philosophy as mentioned above that further suggests that because existence precedes essence that we have a moral "blank slate" which will allow everyone to create his or her own purpose in life to the fullest degree.

Read more!

The World, READY To Hate Believers!

In an interview conducted by NFL writer, Ira Kaufman of the Tampa Tribune, with former Indianapolis Colts Head Coach and NBC sports commentator, Tony Dungy, Tony said the following regarding openly homosexual NFL player Michael Sam:

“I wouldn’t have taken him,’’...“Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it. “It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.’’

Now, I watched and listened as this firestorm took wings. As the new U.S. Socialist, Secular Humanistically inspired, politically correct, talking head police moved in like vultures to devour fresh roadkill on an Arizona highway....I have never heard more blatantly ignorant commentary in my life regarding a subject that was blown so far out of proportion. 

I heard people blaming Tony's Christianity and belief in the bible for his so called "small" views and that he was a secret "homophobe" (whatever that is) because he stated some rather obvious points from a coaching and team management perspective. There were so many people ready to bash Christianity, the bible and the biblical teachings against homosexuality when Dungy made his comments that it was sickening. Local news personalities claimed to be upset that Dungy would invoke his "Christian beliefs" and others were ready to bash the bible as an old irrelevant book, further demonstrating their ignorance that the WORD of God IS a LIVING document. 

Then further, not only did we hear that because Coach Dungy stood with Michael Vick and Plaxico Burriss through their life's struggles that he was somehow less than a Christian by making statements that were "against" Homo-Sam... I heard the continued ignorant ramblings of a comparison of being Black or a minority, and the struggle for civil rights based on color with homosexuality and the struggle for their acceptance in society and homosexual marriage....Look...ANYONE can have sex and stop having sex...every one is free to have sex with whomever they wish, within the bounds of law, however RACE is something that NONE of us can stop, turn off or turn on...There is NO COMPARISON between being Black, and the struggle for civil rights based on color and being a homosexual and struggling for recognition within society based on who you "love" and how you like to have sex...STOP THE MADNESS!

Although homosexual advocates are piggybacking on civil rights advances by Blacks and minorities within society, homosexuality is STILL a choice of sex and sexual activity that DOES NOT deserve to be favored or protected in law as we see happening within America's courts. Certainly, all people deserve dignity and respect. That is NOT the question. But stop the PRETENSE that Black parallels are gay parallels. They ARE NOT!   

Stephen To The Rescue?

Until Stephen A Smith (ESPN Sports Analyst) undertook the topic, I thought to myself, what happened to the "tolerance" of the so called tolerant? And why are these folk bashing the bible and Christianity when the man did not invoke ONE bible scripture, nor was he preaching a message? 

Stephen may be challenged on many issues, and is certainly not one that fights for Christian conservatism, but his comments were much better than almost any that I heard within the media:

Tony's subsequent statement on the issue:

On Monday afternoon while on vacation with my family, I was quite surprised to read excerpts from an interview I gave several weeks ago related to this year's NFL Draft, and I feel compelled to clarify those remarks.

I was asked whether I would have drafted Michael Sam and I answered that would not have drafted him. I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team. At the time of my interview, the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael's first season had been announced.

I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.

I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.

I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.

I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way—by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit.

The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they're good enough to play. That's my opinion as a coach. But those were not the questions I was asked.

What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.

I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.

I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.

I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field.

My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation.

Conclusion:

Sorry, if I were a football coach, I would not have drafted Sam either. Not because of his homosexuality, or ability/inability to play the game, but because of his desire to have all attention on him and to maximize and play his sexuality into the shame of others...

Yes, SHAME...Michael Sam strategically came out as gay BEFORE the NFL draft in order to make his being gay a human and humanistic issue in exchange for a NFL chance. He focused on his sexual orientation when noone cared although it was speculated. Certainly he may have suffered in the draft by obtaining a lower place, the fact is that all eyes were not on Michael Sam and the NFL would have taken a hit in the socialist media by not drafting him or giving him an opportunity. It was a "PR hot potato" from the day that he was compelled to open up and say that he was gay. All the liberals in the world were calling him "courageous" and claiming that it was "great to have an openly gay NFL football player". One way or another, Sam was getting an NFL chance. Of that there was no doubt. 

Further, for an new athlete to have a reality show deal at a time when a coach and team are building and learning one another(and he is not even officially on the team yet)  is more NARCISSISM. I could not in good conscience draft a man who not only poses a disruption in the locker room but a disruption in the way of doing business. There is certainly more to it than who is taking showers with whom and where...(and THAT is a consideration...I wouldn't want any gay gawkers looking at me in the locker room!) There is the continuity of a TEAM and common goal that must be considered, and like any coach Dungy spoke from that place of concern. 

Sorry you Christian and bible haters! If you think that Christians hate gays and that the bible endorses gay hate, you are critically deceived and need some sort of lifeline to come back to reality. Our love for God does not diminish the love for humanity, it only orders it placing it in full perspective.

Tony did not mention the bible, he only tries to live out its virtues, and it may be surprising to you to know that there are many more considerations in life than the considerations of those who embrace the sin of homosexuality. We love you, but please don't be upset because we don't encourage, embrace or endorse your lifestyle and we won't be shamed into doing so. Thank you very merch!

Blessed! 

Read more!

Babies & Morality...What Are The Real Implications Of Current Findings?

Anderson Cooper's 360 on CNN has recently taken off on this presentation that 60 Minutes did a couple of years ago when they examined studies on the foundation of human morality at Yale University's Baby Lab. This reintroduction of this material has gotten all kinds of attention and commentary and thoughts are all over the board on this one. 

Question: 

This is somewhat of a trick question, but, is it even possible to be moral or to distinguish good form evil without God?

Enter the Baby Lab of Yale University

The Baby Lab sets forth scientific information, not spiritual information nor information that is designed to support one dogma or another. The scientists clearly believe in evolution and the evolutionary path, but their findings can be interpreted in a different sense as well. Here's the vid:

As I stated, this is a trick because we can never be or have never been truly "without God". God is present even in the life of an atheist to the extent that the presence of God cannot be removed from his creation or the earth as we know it. At the root of the question however, is does one need God, in the sense of saving faith, to be moral or to distinguish good from evil? 

My answer to this complex question has always been NO. One can be good, moral and distinguish evil from good ONLY because God has built the ability to distinguish good and evil in us as people, so that we are without an excuse for the path that we have chosen at the end of the day. 

Now, there is a perversion of this called "human morality". This is the type of morality that humans establish to prove that they are "better" than God and have higher values. While these attempts arguably fail miserably (because it's like a child crawling in the lap of his mother to slap her in her face and tell how how to take care of babies) We can say that men without God have established their own twisted and perverted sense of what is right and wrong, supposedly rooting that in what they call "rational thought". 

In the world of so called "rational thought" the concept of God and the boundaries that come with religion in general, restrict truth and make discovering truth more difficult. See, according to them, in this world, we should allow everything to go...live and let let...do as thou wilt...y'u-know, all those satanistic values that Anthon LaVey perpetuated...no restrictions, no boundaries, but whatever one's will is, that's what one should do....ie hedonism...Well that's well and good until someone does what they wish that isn't in accord with your wishes...

Bottom Line

Whether God is acknowledged or not God has communicated certain attributes to man and mankind. Moral and freewill choice being a couple of them, that we can exercise whether we accept HIS reign in our lives or not. In other words, the gift of life and choice between right and wrong does not simply go away because we choose evil. Although we are powerless to "save ourselves" we are able to make a choice freely based on how we are created. 

The Materialist Conundrum: 

If God does not exist and we are merely material or products of natural processes it is impossible to know or distinguish good from evil. Why? It is really rather simple...It goes something like this: 

If we are truly and only products of the material realm, by what process can we ever arrive at morality? Material, rocks, dirt, trees and anything else known as material matter makes no moral assumptions and has no moral values other than the values ascribed to them by human agency for whatever reason that might be. There is no moral position of a rock or material even if acted upon by chemicals and water over time...Morals are not what is called inherent in material mater. So the whole process of evolution, if one believes in evolution, cannot get out of the gate...on top of this, the moral question of materialism becomes a futile effort. 

Morals exist in humans and unlike that of apes and rats (atheists go so low on the chain of life to make comparisons when they hear things like this) Human values do not only promote the species, they fulfill life and cause life to be and become what it is. Interestingly, humans, undertake moral values and questions, on the shoulders of God, not in spite of God. God is the principle that provides the distinguishing factors of truth and the ability to distinguish between good and evil. There is no materialistic mechanism for this in any sense.

Ultimately Speaking... 

Under a truly materialistic paradigm, good and evil receive the same reward. They are merely built in premises that a person is bound and destined to follow fatalistically. Like the Matrix, all individuals are simply acting out their program. Atheist Alex Krauss says, "all physics are deterministic". This means that nothing acts randomly, not even thoughts. In the deepest sense, there is no choice or freewill under materialism. The mind is set from birth. This, by design, excludes any intervention of God to any degree in life's equation. However, it also strips one of any ultimate culpability for their actions in any sense. Duties are only to self or a close group or community, never to any ultimate authority. 

If there is no God, in the most deep sense, all actions are justifiably equal. The raper and robber are as good as the hero and the law abiding citizen.

Thank God that materialism is FALSE! 

The Sin Nature:

Having worked with children in a child daycare for 16 years as a profession, I can readily and easily see the sin nature at work in children at a very young age. What we find the doctors revealing is that a "sin nature" exists. They call it being selfish. The "us vs. them" mentality that these researchers reveal by the behaviors of certain children are the byproduct of sin in our hearts. Any bigotry and racism as outlined are as a result of the fall and our human values after the fall.

This is why man need a savior. Babies can't distinguish these things. However just as God distinguishes them, and men observe the actions, God knows what exists. Form a very early age, we can see that children identify what is right and what is wrong. What they do with that is their freewill even at that age. Interesting. 

Certainly these things will continue to be talked about for generations, and rightfully so.

Blessed!

Read more!

New Babylon Arising ~ "The Knowledge Economy"

Genesis 11:6-9 ~ 6- And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7- Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8- So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9- Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Jew, and self proclaimed atheist, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook and one of the wealthiest men on earth, announced his "rough plan" to partnership with nearly every internet provider on the planet to provide internet access to the worlds over 7 billion people.

 "I think that connecting the world will be one of the most important things we all do in our lifetimes, and I’m thankful every day to have the opportunity to work with all of you to make this a reality" ~ Zuckerberg Pg. 10 

According to most statistics, only 1/3rd of the world has internet access. The other 2/3rds, approximately 5 billion people, are without access or at the least very limited access. It is Zuckerberg's purpose to change all of that by claiming that internet access for all humans is a "human right". In a post on his Facebook page entitled "Is connectivity a human right?" Zuckerberg delivered the following:

"Before the internet and the knowledge economy, our economy was primarily industrial and resource-based. Many dynamics of resource-based economies are zero sum. For example, if you own an oil field, then I can’t also own that same oil field. This incentivizes those with resources to hoard rather than share them. But a knowledge economy is different and encourages worldwide prosperity. It’s not zero sum. If you know something, that doesn’t stop me from knowing it too. In fact, the more things we all know, the better ideas, products and services we can all offer and the better all of our lives will be. ~ Zuckerberg Pg. 2 

Now, the first thing that jumps out is the baseline description of communism as it pertains to how this "knowledge based economy" should be. As a reminder Dictionary.com defines communism as follows: ~ a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. It is imminently clear that Zuckerberg ascribes to the communist model to his "knowledge economy" suggesting that knowledge should belong to "all of us" and further stating that the more all of us know the better off all of us will be. The problem here is does any of his statement or aspirations in this hold true? 

Does Knowledge Equate To "Doing Better"?

Read more!

The Anomaly Of The Black Conservative...How Should We Vote?

New Audio Radio-Casts For This Article

The Anomaly Of The Black Conservative Pt. 1

The Anomaly Of The Black Conservative Pt. 2

This election season there has not been more of a heatedly debated topic. "How should the Christian vote?" "should religion and faith have any impact on the voting process? "and if so, who should the Christian vote for especially considering the liberal, if not non-bible believing President, and a Mormon (Non -Christian) Presidential candidate. Within the Black community the argument has been ramped up to include that the thought that "You're Not Black If You Don't Vote For Obama" Which I discussed in a previous post entitled The New Civil Rights.

This conflict has been sadly revealed and heightened to epic proportions as people criticize others for their political choices in the most vile ways and manner. While individuals such as former NBA star and

Read more!

New Atheism...Same Old Confusion

According to the Huffington Post Black Voices, not only have the Harrisburg, PA. American Atheists taken the time to spread utter lack of biblical understanding, but they did it in the most racially offensive manner possible.

This billboard which has since been torn down, was hoisted in PA's most racially diverse neighborhood, by them who believe in Charles Darwin's "Origin Of The Species by Means Of Natural Selection: The Preservation Of Favored Races In The struggle For Life." (Hear atheist Richard Dawkins invoke the name of God as he struggles to remember the title of what he calls the most import book ever written) 

Correction Of A Horrible Social Appeal

Supposedly this was done in protest to the PA, House's declaration that 2012 be the "Year Of The Bible". However it turned into a victimization of the neighborhood in a sense. American Atheist Harrisburg director, Ernest Perce V, said that he feels that if there are any victims, that he is one as well because he has received multiple death threats as a result of the billboard's short debut. (Ya Think Ernest???)

Read more!

The "Good Book" The Bible Of Humanism

Shortly after beginning this blog, I referenced the problems that our nation has experienced and the congruent rise of Secular Humanist agenda in The Legacy Of Atheism's Queen. Well, I must reference that agenda again as what I was warning of then is being promoted and  appearing before our very eyes. Remember, the agenda of secualr humanism? Let me remind you: 

Dr. Paul Kurtz

"That is why a negative atheism that seeks simply to destroy religion, without providing a positive agenda, will not in my judgment get very far. The wider platform for human progress as part of a New Enlightenment needs, I submit, to advocate secularism in the above three senses: (1) the separation of religion from the state; (2) the humanization of values that satisfy the deeper interests and needs of human beings; and (3) the decline of religious practice, entailing the growth of the Human City in place of the City of God."

 Remember this is what Paul Kurtz, the the director of the Council For Secular Humanism says. He maintains that his group is NOT an atheist group, even though most of the leadership, including himself, are atheists...The objective of the group is to spread the message of materialism aka naturalism. Now they have a new tool to spread their message.

The New Bible & Gospel According To Humanism

Anthony Graylings book called "The Good Book" is currently being promoted to support the efforts and the agenda of materialism and materialists everywhere. In a book styled after the Bible, which is known as the best selling book in history, the "Godo Book" as it is called comes replete with chapter, verse and language similar to the King James Version of the Bible. Simply put, it is a Bible without God and one that is centered on man and naturalism. 

Genesis 1:1 ~ "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

The Good Book ~ “All things take their origin from earlier kinds: Ancestors of most creatures rose from the sea, some inhabitants of the sea evolved from land-dwelling forefathers.”

According to the Christian Post the Good Book, contains several books (including Genesis, Wisdom, Parables, Lamentations, Consolations, Proverbs, and Acts) which are edited to have numerical chapters and verses and the text has been printed in two columns with a white dividing line down the middle. Instead of man being a product of God, man is a product of his own self awareness. There is no original sin, as everyone is good without God and the work is geard toward pluralism: 

Dr. Anthony Grayling

"There's no command there to believe, to accept, to obey. There's no promises of rewards or threats of punishment,"...

According to Grayland the motivation for the "Good Book" came together in part because because of the success that he attributes to the Bible on the way it was put together, even while admitting that the Bible seems to be more of patchwork than anything else. Here's what he said:

[The Bible parts seems to be] "woven into one another, modified, arranged [and] organized" ..."clumsily edited."..."The patchwork of the Bible becomes apparent when you step aside from its religious message and just look at it as a historical work which emerged over a long period of time by many hands,"

So in response to all that clumsy and patchwork success that the Bible represents, Grayling has promoted the words and expressions of people like Aristotle, Confucius, Darwin, and Lord Chesterfield even stating that if the writers of the Bible, the prophets and holy men of scripture had gone to and known these men before writing  that "they would have made a different book and maybe there would have a different history as a result."

The plan is to create a children's version and even a pocket sized version so that the message of humanism can be learned, taken and shared with everyone of all ages.

Blessed Apostle Peter, do you think the church realizes what is really going on???

2 Peter 1:16- 21 ~ "16-For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17-For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18-And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19-We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20-Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21-For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Thank you Apostle, for allowing the Lord to use you just so that we can be blessed today!

Blessed!

Read more!

Not So Wild About Harry & The New Humanism

Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) Religion & Faith Program Director, Harry Knox, was appointed as a member to the President's Office Of Faith Based And Neighborhood Partnerships Advisory Committee. He joins an exclusive list of individuals from around the country as referenced in our blog "What Do They Have Planned For You?"

Mr. Knox is not the chairman of the committee, so ultimately will have as much ability to provide input as other members. According to BCNN1.com Other members added to the Faith Based Advisory Council include:

Anju Bhargava, founder of the Asian Indian Women of America
Bishop Charles Blake, presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ
The Rev. Peg Chemberlin, president-elect of the National Council of Churches
Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies
Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Nancy Ratzan, president of the National Council of Jewish Women
The Rev. Sharon Watkins, general minister and president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Whether a person is gay or straight any individual having an opportunity to serve our country should be proud, however the problem is, that not only is Mr. Knox a HETEROPHOBIC, self proclaimed gay Christian minister, who doesn't view homosexuality as SIN. He also directs certain activities of his employer (HRC) that not only promotes gay rights, but holds that the right to marry between gays is a human right. We've seen those concepts promoted regularly within the gay rights movement as noted by me HERE and HERE. This, once again, is solid confirmation that those who promote gay rights agenda also hold fast that the right of marriage between gays is a human right.

Mr. Knox's appointment is a remarkably radical move for at least 2 reasons. 1- His appointment falls in line with President Obama's statements regarding faith based organization's hiring policies as it relates to qualifying for funds. The President has an opinion that in order for the church to participate in federal funding opportunities that it cannot "discriminate" ie: the church must employ homosexuals, in ministry positions even if that is against their doctrine.

As if that weren't bad enough the second problem is that Mr. Knox wholesale reinterprets the bible to accommodate his views on homosexuality. Certainly this is not new to the homosexual right. We have other apostates, such as Harvard's Dr. Peter Gomes, who proudly professes his gayness and twists scripture in effort to back his interpretations also. That dangerous combination may be what President Obama was looking for to create and promote a strong, militant, voice in favor of the homosexual right in order to help change the nature and context of the argument and by course change the methodology of the church in dealing with community service issues.

Scripture Twisters & Gender Benders

Mr. Knox, like many liberal homosexual scholars, seems to be proud of his biblical illiteracy and heretical teachings. His interpretations of scripture are so radical and to such an extreme, that he mangles both scripture's meaning and intent regarding the issue of sexual sins. In fact there is no practical way that he can believe in the inspiration of scripture to any extent while maintaining and espousing his views. Specifically speaking of Romans 1:22-28, which clearly speaks against the practice of homosexuality:

"22-Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23-And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24-Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25-Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26-For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27-And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28-And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

Mr. Knox's gives this interpretation of the preceding verses as follows:

• “Paul did not have any idea of the kind of love that I feel for a partner when I am partnered. He didn’t know what that was about,” ...“The straight man, the heterosexual man who got the privilege of writing the book, the educated, rich, heterosexual man, Paul, who got to write the book, didn’t think it was natural because for him it must not have been.” ~ Debate with the Rev. Gino Jennings recorded Nov. 28, 2004 at the First Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Philadelphia.

As noted, Mr. Knox not only destroys the doctrine of scriptural inspiration, he also makes a cardinal error of improper biblical interpretation by decontextualizing the text all together. Once he does this he reverts to an interpretive based on relativism and a postmodern understanding of scripture when referring to homosexual issues. The anatomy of what he does is this: He confines the scripture to what he presupposes is its Sitz im Leben (life setting), therefore not allowing the scripture to speak eternally. As stated he presupposes the condition of the scripture based on his control belief that homosexuality is not condemned by God or within scripture. That's why he can look right at it and not see it.

For anyone serious about biblical studies, you should know that finding the Sitz im Leben is not wrong. That is the correct technique used to explore the context of what is being said and why, however imposing a prepositional bias upon scripture coupled with failure to accept scripture as being eternal or relevant through time, confines the scripture to a specific time frame and ultimately relegates the message, which includes morality and righteousness, to a culturally commensurate model. Jesus said however that his words are spirit and life:

John 6:63 ~ "63-It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

That "life" indicates at least two things. 1- That HIS words provide life spiritually to the soul that was dead in trespasses and sins (Jn.1:4, Eph. 2:1-5) and 2- That HIS words are applicable to our current existence and are not restricted to the time in which certain truths were revealed. Mr. Knox is blinded to this because he has regarded his sin as authentic, undefiled and a diversity of human nature. His example is one displaying how we are NOT to approach the understanding of scripture in general.

Prov. 14:12 ~ "12-There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

Birds Of A Feather

In his defense, Mr. Knox's type of approach, (although there is none) we can honestly say that his approach is not exclusive to him. In other words, he is not the inventor of such apostate interpretations of scripture. As stated there are other homosexual heretics that promote a similar message, but in an even greater sense this is the approach of what I call the New Humanism. If you'll be careful to note, this approach is also espoused by President Obama who appointed Mr. Knox. When our President invokes the thought that we must "rethink" America and what we do or have done historically (as he often does), New Humanism this is underlying context of his statements. It's about more than going green and changing a light bulb or becoming less dependent upon foreign oil, it's about a complete moral paradigm and cultural realignment, based on modern standards and social norms.

Listen to our President as he explains these concepts were developed in his mind. Be careful to note the basis for his own sense of morality or values:

The President's Thoughts On His Mother And Values:

• "My mother, who I think had as much influence on my values as anybody, was not someone who wore her religion on her sleeve, We'd go to church for Easter. She wasn't a 'church lady." ~ Senator Barack Obama, Sunday March 14th 2004 at Salem Baptist Church


• In his 1993 memoir, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Now President Obama, describes his mother as "a lonely witness for secular humanism." and also said "My mother's confidence in needlepoint virtues depended on a faith I didn't possess, a faith that she would refuse to describe as religious; that, in fact, her experience told her was sacrilegious: a faith that rational, thoughtful people could shape their own destiny,"

In other words his mother's concepts on faith, which were as influential as anyone else's influence in his life, and were transferred to him, weren't actually a model of biblical faith and were based on a view of self or individualism. His concepts were based on an inner direction, self actualization and self control. eg; The thought that one can "shape your own destiny" no need for God to do that. Sounds a lot like modern WOFers(Word Of Faith'ers) doesn't it? In fact, more specifically, it sounds like teachings of the New Enlightenment that I previously set forth on this blog. Oprah and Eckhardt are feelin' fine and fabulous...

In the Obama and Knox world, faith is only a pseudonym used to gain access to a greater audience. When they use the word, it sounds like it belongs within the community of them that espouse biblical faith, but it doesn't. Look at a few of the President's conclusions on faith

• "So, I have a deep faith, I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived." ~ Senator Barack Obama, Sunday March 14th 2004 at Salem Baptist Church

The New Humanist approach offers shades of spirituality and sounds all but too convincing, but quickly reduces everything to social relativism and subjective interpretations. The New Humanism promotes the recreation of morality and moral standards in every age leading to the "rethinking" of moral values and the ultimate redefinition of everything that was formerly held sacred. In other words, using these new interpretive methods, there can be no universal truth and no enduring or efficacious truth that is truly sustainable from generation to generation.

Another feature of this methodology is the belief that scripture is culturally commensurate eg: in line with current culturally accepted standards of morality, values and norms. I hate to be repetitive, but please remember, what we said about the direction of humanism under the Humanist Manifesto...the ultimate goal was and is complete replacement of the "City Of God" with the "human city":

"…The wider platform for human progress as part of a New Enlightenment needs, I submit, to advocate secularism in the above three senses:

(1) the separation of religion from the state;(2) the humanization of values that satisfy the deeper interests and needs of human beings; and (3) the decline of religious practice, entailing the growth of the Human City in place of the City of God." ~ Dr. Paul Kurtz's Council For Secular Humanism's Humanist Manifesto of 2000.

How Is This Happening Within The Church?

Through a weak, flesh centered, people powered leadership.The new humanism/apostasy isn't rising outside of the church, it is coming directly to the church, talking the language of the church and it's taking no captives and holding no hostages that it does not plan to kill. This type of apostasy is rising through leaders who worry more about the clothes that they put on than the substance that they put in (their hearts). Who care more about what they drive, than what drives them. Through leaders who have turned from God and became "scoffers" walking after their own lusts and have catered to what seems and appears to be the right path after the flesh.

2 Peter 3:3-4 ~ "3-Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4-And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

Jude 3:18 ~ "18-How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts."

These are the atheistic teachers of the bible who do not believe in the miracle working power of God and if they do, they only use such as a display and pretense to open church doors so that they can promote their filth. They are the ones who are dumbed down by the world's political leaders in the name of advancing the gospel. Ultimately they serve themselves and not God because their light has been dimmed if not even put all the way out.

Example Of A Weak Church & Weak Church Leaders:

On May 4th and 5th 2009 Mr. Knox's HRC will be holding their Clergy Call For Justice & Equality 2009 You Tube video HERE. Previous efforts have netted up to 200 + pastors from across the nation. Yes, this is a relatively small group but it's influence and voice is being heard in almost every aspect of Christianity. The call is made to all clergy in efforts of galvanizing pastors and ministers from every region and religious faith to support and promote equality (aka: THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA) and to ask churches to be inclusive "like the bible says that it should" This is from the HRC's site:

• "This year our mission is to ignite religious leaders to be agents of change for lesbian, gay, bisexual and, most particularly, transgender people across the country! You have been prophetic in your insistence that we affirm the worth and dignity of LGBT people not just in our congregations but in our laws, our workplaces and our families. Religious voices stand at the vanguard of our movement for equality."

A Final Note:

As one should understand, we are in a full faced frontal attack of the enemy and we must engage. Although I believe that the church's battle in America against homosexuality is a far gone cultural conclusion, I also believe that God is still in the saving business, and the attack of the enemy shall not prevail against HIS church (Mt. 16:18) I believe that he is yet moving by HIS Spirit and that a homosexual or any person in sin, whether they want to be in that sin or not, is just right to be saved.(Mt. 18:11, Lk. 19:10)

I received an email from an individual battling with thoughts of homosexuality. He wanted to know what he needed to do to be free. The first stop is to not buy into the lie that you are destined to be a homosexual. If you were born a homosexual, thank God that the scripture records that you "MUST be born again" (Jn. 3:3) and that Christ can make you free.(Jn. 8:35) This freedom however, does not come without responsibility. Just as the sexually immoral heterosexual involved in extramarital sexual activity has a responsibility to personal purity, the sexually immoral and abominable act of homosexuality must be avoided, and individuals tempted must find respite both in God's word, prayer and fasting, fellowship with believers and breakthroughs in schematic thinking.(1 John 3:2-3, Rom. 8:7-9)

Beyond that, active living and true biblical faith must be applied knowing that God can and will change the mind, (Rom. 8:2, 2 Cor. 10:4) That God is a deliverer of the heart and heart issues (Ps. 51:10) That God has a way to provide the relief from the burden and guilt of sin (Jn. 10:10, Rom. 8:10-11) that is required for you to live above and beyond the grip of the nature of sin. (Mt. 11:28, Rom. 6:1-2, Gal. 5:1) Your deliverance is IN Christ and in noone else. (Ephes. 2:1-5, Rom. 8:15)

We don't need the excuses and allowances for sin of the Harry Knox's of the world. We need an intervention of epic spiritual proportions with the God of our salvation.

Jude 20-25 ~ "20-But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21-Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22-And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23-And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24-Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25-To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen"

Blessed!

Read more!

What Do They Have Planned For You?

ACT I

I would like to begin this post by stating that part of it initially affects those churches who have been deceived into following governmental dollars to fund humanitarian programs within their communities. Formerly known as the faith based initiatives under, President Barack Obama this department will be known as the Office Of Faith Based & Neighborhood Partnerships.

Yes, there is a vast difference between the two.

Under former President Bush, the law didn't bring into question the employment practices of a religious organization using money to promote their mission to the community. Under President Obama however, it is at best obscured as to how organizations that do not hire from ALL GROUPS of individuals will actually be looked upon when it comes to competing for federally funded grants within their communities.

Part I: Enter The Courts

According to a CNN report, "...Obama does not rescind Bush's provision to allow faith-based groups to discriminate in their hiring practices, but does provide a legal process for organizations to go through in order to that ensure hiring is legal and non-discriminatory."

A Legal Process??? IE: A court structured remedy...Does anyone else see this as alarming?

As I stated I am not and have not been a promoter of any faith based government money, but the greater point to make in this post is how religious organizations will now be treated when it comes to what is now deemed as "discriminatory practices" in hiring. By the way, those "discriminatory practices" are said to be instances in which a religious organization doesn't hire individuals outside of their faith or when they don't hire individuals that meet their moral standards. The problem here is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives religious organizations the right to remain true to its essential makeup and teachings.

What is tricky here is that the new provisions apply more specifically to religious organizations that preach and teach against homosexuality. If the trend proceeds in the path that it is going, not hiring homosexuals to carry out the work of the ministry or not hiring individuals who even believe in the shared goals of the ministry could be a criminal offence at worst or an offence by which a religious organization is disqualified from participating in community service oriented grants.

Part II: Enter The Dragon

Notice how the language has changed and simply been adopted casually even by religious individuals...Point is that ministries that hold fast to the biblical message of godliness and holiness and against homosexuality more specifically, and live out their faith within the community are said to be "discriminatory" and have "discriminatory practices" and this is said rather casually as if it's true

In fact, look at the matter of fact words from one of the 25 new President's Faith Advisory Council members:

"We're going to have to work that out, because on the one hand, you don't want to use federal funds to discriminate. But on the other hand, we can't have religious organizations taking money on the condition that they will hire people who live a lifestyle contrary to what they teach," ~ Dr. Joel Hunter Senior Pastor at Northland Church in Longwood, Florida member Council Of Religious Leaders Office Of Faith Based & Neighborhood Partnerships.

This Pastor, hand picked by the President, to represent the "leaders and scholars" that "will foster a more productive and peaceful dialogue on faith", swallows hook, line and sinker, and validates a completely new paradigm of biblical teaching and doctrine...The new paradigm is that setting forth TRUTH and a biblically centered message is now considered DISCRIMINATION. This is the affirmation that was desired from the beginning. The affirmation that religion is merely another form of discrimination.

So the devastating part of this argument is the unchallenged acknowledgement that the church IS a discriminatory vehicle. This should also be alarming because now we are not talking about biblical truth, but we are talking about religious pluralism and social ecumenism and creating and holding standards of human morality ABOVE the standards of God and his word.

ACT II

Part I: Joshua Dubois and the introduction of the social gospel as normative.

What is a social gospel?

A "social gospel" simply says that Christians should take care of the poor and the disenfranchised, and be a conduit for social causes as opposed to being standards for community morality and bearers of moral causes such as the sanctity of marriage as being between one man and one woman and defenders of the unborn's right to life. In other words, because society is so deep in various inculturations, religion should not seek to promote it's values but just live them out individually as individuals see fit to do so.

Appointed by the President as the Director of the Office Of Faith Based & Neighborhood Partnerships, 26 year old Joshua Dubois is no stranger to pitching religion to make political sales. He was candidate Obama's campaign "religious director" and was instrumental in allowing Donnie McClurkin to travel with the campaign. He was also responsible for offsetting Pastor McClurkin's testimony and teaching against homosexuality by hiring openly gay minister Rev. Andy Sidden, pastor of Garden of Grace United Church of Christ in Columbia, SC. to play down Donnie's teaching that homosexuals can be delivered from their homosexuality. Speculation is that he (Rev. Dubois) was probably the one responsible for Pastor Rick warren getting an opportunity to do the opening prayer at the 44th inauguration of the President Of The United States.

Needless to say, there is no rhyme or reason to his methods other than political. If this trend continues churches and ministers will continue to only be used in that capacity to gain support on certain issues that solidify the President's popularity.

Part II: What Does Rev. Dubois Believe?

Joshua Dubois has his roots within in the AME Church and inspirations within United Pentecostal Assemblies Of God Church Of God, Cambridge, MS. Going from a trinitarian belief to a oneness pentecostal belief will have it's challenges because they are two vastly different concepts.

Although Rev. Dubois initially refused to make his statement of position on abortion known to WORLD Magazine, according to Chicago Free Press in a Feb. 4th report he decided to let the cat out of the bag by saying that abortion was simply an issue equivalent to health care and putting food on the table.

In a Wall Street Journal report 8/16/2008 Rev. Dubois said, "Abortion is certainly a deeply moral issue, but so is struggling to afford decent health care for your family, or straining to put food on your table,"

Yes we agree that each of these are great moral issues, but the point here was not simply to point out multiple similar moral issues, but to minimize abortion and simultaneously exalt other social issues so that all exist on same level. Also calculating as he spoke those words to a group of Catholic workers.

President Obama is certainly excited about Rev. Dubois and the opportunity to "CHANGE" Christian minds regarding religious and social issues. He speaks this regarding Rev. Dubois's efforts, "The grassroots conversations we've held across the country, our landmark evangelical meetings...are helping to change our nation, person by person."

I believe that as time goes on, it will be further confirmed that this President's idea of change is not and was not only for social, or economic change, but was for religious, ideological and even moral change.

ACT III: The Big Picture

"Some folks on the left are uncomfortable with these topics," DuBois said. "There is a constitutional and clear separation between church and state embedded in the fabric of our country. And some folks think that means we have to be separate not only in our legal approach to policy but also who we talk to, who we engage with, whose concerns we can listen to." Faith In Public Life from article in WORLD Magazine 1/22/2007 Mark Bergin

"The big picture is that President Obama believes faith-based and smaller secular neighborhood organizations can play a role in American renewal. They can work with the federal government to address big problems,"..."We're also going to make sure we have a keener eye toward the separation of church and state." Rev. Joshua Dubois Director Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships 2/5/2009

In the mind of President Obama and his new appointee the separation of "church and state" means the secularization of the state. Any religious impact upon the gov't from the church is not supposed to exist outside of dealing with issues that come from the proliferation of the "social gospel". This leads us directly back to the goals and aims of Dr. Paul Kurtz's Council For Secular Humanism's Humanist Manifesto of 2000. There were 3 primary objectives:

"…The wider platform for human progress as part of a New Enlightenment needs, I submit, to advocate secularism in the above three senses:(1) the separation of religion from the state;(2) the humanization of values that satisfy the deeper interests and needs of human beings; and (3) the decline of religious practice, entailing the growth of the Human City in place of the City of God."

You may say this is conjecture or theory, but I challenge you to read and research both the President's and rev. Dubois's statements in light of the sense in which they are intended instead of the sense that both you and I hoped they were intended when they were made.

ACT IV: Directives & A New Cast Of Characters

In addition to watering down the gospel, Rev. Dubois's office will have the following 4 directives:

* The Office's top priority will be making community groups an integral part of our economic recovery and poverty a burden fewer have to bear when recovery is complete.

* The office will be one voice among several in the administration that will look at how we support women and children, address teenage pregnancy, and reduce the need for abortion.

* The Office will strive to support fathers who stand by their families, which involves working to get young men off the streets and into well-paying jobs, and encouraging responsible fatherhood.

* Finally, beyond American shores this Office will work with the National Security Council to foster interfaith dialogue with leaders and scholars around the world.

These are all noble causes that the President has picked. The objectives is not what is in question. The means or how we arrive to an end is.

Finally, according to Streetprophets.com and U.S. News God & Country, the newest entity along with The Office Of Faith Based And Neighborhood Partnerships is the President's 25 member Faith Advisory Council. Who's current members where chosen because , "These are folks who are at the top of their fields — both religious and secular that really represent diverse backgrounds and a range of political perspective." Rev. Joshua Dubois 2/5/2009 Christianity Today, Sarah Pulliam.

15 of the council members have been listed as follows:

1. Judith N. Vredenburgh, President and Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America Philadelphia, PA
2. Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Director & Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and noted church/state expert Washington, DC (Hated Bush's faith based initiatives but promises to work with President Obama's version and stated, "(this is an opportunity to) enhance the Reform Movement’s ability to speak out publicly and robustly, both when we agree and disagree with the White House’s policies.")
3. Dr. Frank S. Page, President emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention Taylors, SC
4. Father Larry J. Snyder, President, Catholic Charities USA Alexandria, VA
5. Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church Cleveland, OH
6. Eboo S. Patel, Founder & Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Corps Chicago, IL
7. Fred Davie, President, Public / Private Ventures, a secular non-profit intermediary New York, NY
8. Dr. William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA Philadelphia, PA
9. Melissa Rogers, Director, Wake Forest School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs and expert on church/state issues Winston-Salem, NC (This professor has written a book encouraging tighter restrictions on religious organizations receiving federal funds ie: seperation of church and state)
10. Pastor Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, a Church Distributed Lakeland, FL
11. Dr. Arturo Chavez, Ph.D., President & CEO, Mexican American Cultural Center San Antonio, TX
12. Rev. Jim Wallis, President & Executive Director, Sojourners Washington, DC
13. Bishop Vashti M. McKenzie, Presiding Bishop, 13th Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church Knoxville, TN
14. Diane Baillargeon, President & CEO, Seedco, a secular national operating intermediary New York, NY
15. Richard Stearns, President, World Vision Bellevue, WA (This group promises to back out IF President Obama changes the current regulations regarding faith organization and hiring practices)

We often rightfully say, "Pray for our President" that's good, but I believe everyday we are learning just a little more about what to actually pray for.

Blessed!

Read more!

The Morality Campaign Against God Pt. 1

In the good ole USA religious freedom and tolerance is never more celebrated than when we are confronted with messages against religion and against Christianity in particular. Freedom of religious expression is a good thing even when that expression is against God. However, on the underside of this "freedom" it would seem that almost all messages of some sort of religion are tolerated except the message of Christianity. Christianity has been the target of hate and dissension in the religious and anti-religious world for decades and it would seem that such efforts are only increasing in scope and fervor. Enter atheism and it's bigger brother humanism. (almost a rose by any other name...) At either rate, both terms are descriptive of what I consider to be metaphysically natural religions and world views suited for those who do not wish to believe in a non-materialistic or supernatural God. I have discussed this antisupernaturalism stance on my article Antisupernaturalism, Miracles and Historical Critical Method. In the comments section of that article, you will find a mini-debate with a leading atheist regarding the assertion of the "atheist bus campaign". That assertion is that belief in God can be dismissed based on "probability". Thus the deception and flaw of historical critical method is revealed, as it is not given to true empirical science in the evaluation of religious and supernatural matters.

Both atheism and humanism come with it's complete set of codes, affirmations and a primary objectives...In short, those objectives are simply aimed at discarding all religions and Christianity in particular. The manipulation and reinvention of Christianity is the atheist/humanist greatest goal as exemplified through the efforts of Dan Brown in his NY Times Bestselling book and eventual movie "The Da Vinci Code" In that book, conspiracy and secrecy and not actual history became the birth and impetus of modern Christianity. Others such as the late comedian George Carlin, who was an avowed atheist, feel that they must fight the good fight of naturalism at every opportunity. Then there are academicians who undertake the cause, such as leading scientific microbiologist, and what has been described as a staunch evangelical atheist, and author of the book "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins. Dr. Dawkins has been said to "preach atheism" with the same fervor that a revivalistic evangelist preaches Christianity. He is also know as the "Rottweiler of Darwinism" for his adherence to the Origin of the species with common descent. It should be noted that Darwinian Evolution is one of the most flawed and unscientific theories ever presented as such in human history. Then there are flat out idiots producing unresearched and fallacious movies hailed as "common sense" such as Bill Maher's "Religulous" where Christianity is especially marked as being out of touch with modern society and unnecessary for personal growth.

Just as the CROSS is a symbol of Christianity, atheism also bears it's own symbol. For the American Atheists, a group formed by American Atheism's missing Queen Madalyn Murray O'Hair in 1963, the symbol is said to be "a contemporary scientific symbol" which "acknowledges that only through the use of scientific analysis and free, open inquiry can humankind reach out for a better life."

In essence the atheist god is a god of science, intellect and what can be empirically experienced through the 5 senses. Therefore, there can be no consideration of additional information that is not quantifiable by material or naturalistic means.

You can even check the Celebrity Atheist List to see if your favorite actor or actress is an atheist, agnostic, or a so-called freethinker. Similar to religions there are degrees or denominations of atheism and Pantheistic Atheists who hold that the universe and all creation should be viewed with a "religious reverence" and should be viewed apart from any religious construct or experience, are every bit if not more dogmatic about their beliefs as the Christians and other religious folk they criticize. I have to admit, I kinda always knew what the creator of "Star Trek" really felt about the future...Too bad for all the "Trekies"

This holiday season the American Humanist Association has launched an aggressive campaign as a part of an ongoing strategy to address the Moral Argument for God's Existence. The Association, offering "Humanist Communities" that operate "much like a congregation" simply asks"Why Believe In God? Be good for goodness sake." One of the popular questions they pose to Christians and other religious folk is "Who said you and your religion had a corner on morality?" Also saying that humans can be "morally good" without religion and or God in particular.


Now, to those who have never thought critical toward their faith, these questions and assertions may pose some significant challenges to your understanding of God, morality and the bible. However, for those who have observed "good people" who never given their lives to Christ and subsequently lost their souls, we are reminded that the real object of Christianity was not to create a morally good person, but to redeem man from his defunct position of total depravity and the unrighteous condition of the heart, by providing salvation through means that man could not provide or attain on his own. The ability to be moral happens to be one of those communicable traits of God given to man at man's creation. It is one of those ways in which man has received the "image" or "likeness" of God.

• Gen. 1:26- 27 ~ "26-And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27-So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
• Gen. 2:7 ~ "7- And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

God is a moral being and communicates that morality to mankind. What is noteworthy here is that morality IS NOT salvation. Scripture acknowledges that a person can do good things but yet not have a heart right with God.

• Luke 18:18-23 ~ "18-And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19-And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20-Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21-And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22-Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23-And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich."

In Luke's account of the "Rich Young Ruler" we find a person who is living a "morally good" life. This is a testimony which goes unchallenged by Jesus throughout the discourse. Although it is an argument from silence it is interesting to note that Jesus shifted his focus toward the spiritual deficiency of the young man instead of what he claimed was his moral good. His ineptitude was solidified in his confidence and adherence to materialism which was revealed in the form of money. The rich young ruler could not enter into fellowship and relationship with God because he was materialistically focused, self centered and unable to trust a non materially centered future. His problems were not a result of immorality but a result of his sin nature and miscondition of the heart.


In 1 Cor.13:3 ~ "3- And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."


Apostle Paul acknowledges and reverberates the sentiments and teachings of Jesus when he points out that moral goodness without "love" as to indicate the love of God [which is an attribute of right relationship with God] does not provide that which is necessary to fulfill the non material aspects of one's existence In other words, one can give until they hurt themselves giving or doing good and it is a mere futile effort as it pertains to absolving or rectifying their sin problem. Paul later states that there is "no good thing" within the "flesh" (Rom. 7:18) indicating the human agency that is not in accordance to or subject to the Spirit of God and HIS standards is defunct. The Prophet Isaiah also states that human righteous (IE: common morality) is as a "filthy rags" (Is. 64:6).

So the Christian world view already acknowledges that one can be good for goodness sake, but that one cannot be saved or acceptable with God no matter how much good one does or performs.


Who Holds The Standard For Morality?


As Moses dedicated the altar to the Lord calling it Jehovah-Nissi in Exodus 17:15, as to indicate that the Lord was the rallying place or standard whereby the people of God have their victory, there can be no true morality without a moral standard bearer. In other words the morality of men, which is acknowledged by God, is only a weak representation of the morality and standards of God Himself. The morality of men offers no objective standard other than man's own subjective experience and cultural commemoratives.


With that said, it is interesting to note is that the atheist/humanist even acknowledges this standard, by declaring that there is a "good" to begin with. For one to simply be "good" indicates that one is aware of a certain thing called and acknowledged as "good". If all behaviors were equally as good then the atheist/humanist would be calling for hate as well as calling for love...for violence as well as calling for unrest, for war as well as calling for peace. Since we know that the atheist/humanist is only calling for higher standards of behaviours, we can simply deduce that the atheist/humanist within those statements also makes a sterling acknowledgement that there is an objective good, and that good is not merely a subjective construct. Therefore the humanist argument opens the door wide for a declaration of God as the Moral Law Giver and standard holder of all morality because we readily observe that man's standards of "good" are only based on his subjective understanding of what he calls "morally good" which is a derivative of the objective moral standards of God the Moral Law Giver.


This becomes a dilemma for the anti-God crew from the standpoint that we can all acknowledge that objective moral values exist, and murder, crime, infidelity etc. cannot be called "good". Therefore, morality is NOT based on subjective standards, but based on objective standards. A second dilemma is that neither Dr. Dawkins nor any of his anti-God, scientific friends have been able to locate a "moral gene" within a naturalistic scope of science. Dawkins comes close when he speaks of finding a "Meme", which he admits has NEVER been observed and cannot be located within the human body with current science. (My question is how did he find it to begin with?, ooh, maybe it was a revelation!)


Let's go back to the rich young ruler in Luke again. Notice v.18 when the young man acknowledges Jesus as "Good Master" therefore acknowledging a certain level "good" which according to the culture was a term reserved for God just as Jesus indicated in his response in v.19. But later he is disappointed because his standard, while being previously based on himself and self efforts, was short sided and unacceptable with God.

Summary Of The Moral Argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values DO exist.
3. Therefore God exists.

From Dr. William Lane Craig, "Why I Believe God Exists" as found in Geisler & Hoffman, "Why I Am A Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe" (Grand Rapids Baker Books, 1999)p.75.

In Part 2 we'll go deeper into this and demonstrate the results of atheism and humanism's flawed philosophies and its impact on education, criminal justice, homosexuality and societal ills in general.

Blessed!

Read more!