Ahh...please just indulge me for 8 minutes by watching this Youtube clip. The Indian guy on the left has a good book that I read years ago called 'Can Man live without God'. If you can get your hands on it, give it a read.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPFi8k5IMK0
They probably indulge themselves a little as well but it's always nice to watch faithful and educated Christian blokes coherently and confidently have something to say.
They don't prove that God created the world but just highlight things that I for one need to hear from time to time. Why didn't Q&A get one of these guys on the panel on Monday? Now that would have been interesting.
By the way, there is an Atheist convention in Melbourne this weekend. Tickets are sold out...and only 9% of Australians go to church.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Senator Fielding v's Richard Dawkins on Q&A.
I never usually watch Q&A on the ABC because it has politicians on it. Politicians are invariably incompetent at answering the question. The episode of Q&A on 8 March was discussing the compatibility between 'science' and 'religion'. It made for frustrating and slightly traumatic viewing. The cast was Richard Dawkins (a highly educated atheist), Senator Fielding (a professing Christians, leader of the Family First party and Senator), Julie Bishop, Tony Burke and a couple of others.
This was the ideal opportunity for public figures such as Steven Fielding to give an account of their Christianity on national T.V. He ran away from that opportunity and looked like a fool. It was a shame the ABC put a dittering Senator in the ring with an accomplished scientist.
Fielding condoned the compatibility between 'creationism' and 'evolution'. I assume the term 'evolution' means that humanity evolved from a simple life form, through to the ape stage into the breed of humanity we have today. Christians can not accept evolution. Sure they can accept that the world is billions of years old and God may have used some sort of 'big bang' to get things moving in the universe. But evolution is a dangerous heresy to introduce into our doctrine to appease the scientific community. Why? Because if you remove Genesis from the Bible you have no understanding of the origin of 'sin' in creation. You also have no understanding just how valuable humanity is. God made us in 'his' image. We didn't crawl out of a cess pool. He breathed life into us directly. We were appointed to reign over creation. We were created perfectly. There was a perfect relationship between humanity, creation and God. The Bible does not promote humanity evolving from the animal kingdom.
Humanity fell into sin in Genesis 3 because it rejected and disobeyed God. Humanity and creation was cursed resulting from this rebellion. If Christians remove Genesis, there is no understanding the origins of a cursed world. Our relationship with God was irrevocably broken and the whole point of Jesus' existence on earth was to rectify this. The promise of Jesus was first mentioned in Genesis 3:15. God promised that an offspring of Eve would crush the head of Satan. Genesis is fundamental to an understanding of Jesus Christ. There is no compatibility between Christians and evolution. Genesis does not allow it.
The convenor of Q&A asked Senator Fielding 'where did humans come from'? Fielding replied 'I believe in being created'. Where's God Senator? Be bold Senator! Why didn't you put a name to your creator?
It was confirmed that Pope Benedict stated that evolution and faith can co-exist. If the Pope does not believe that man was created in the image of God, he has fallen into Apostasy. Without the biblical account of Genesis, the concept of sin and redemption is not understood. I might do some research on you Pope in the hope I have to recant my sentiment.
Is Julie Bishop a professing Christian? If she is, all she can muster regarding the Bible is 'it is an all time best seller'.
Steve Fielding went to great lengths to say that his faith is personal. Christ did not call you to have a personal faith Senator! He didn't call you to light your candle and put it under the bed. You are in a position of leadership in this country. You are Christ's ambassador. But all you can come up with to justify your timidity was to say your faith is personal. Whatever you do in your bedroom is personal Senator, not your Christian faith.
Is Tony Burke a Christian? All he could muster was to say 'there was a bloke from a couple of thousand years ago who said to love one another'. How hard is it to say 'Jesus' Tony? Julie Bishop didn't do much better, she said he was a 'great man who tried to do good things'. I hope you're not a professing Christian Julie!
Senator Fielding was asked directly, 'do you believe the Bible as the word of God'? He didn't answer the question.
Ironically, my applause goes to the atheist Richard Dawkins. He summed up the Gospel of Jesus Christ better than any of the Christians on the panel. The first mention of Jesus in the entire 55 minute debacle was at the 30 minute mark...and it came from the Atheist. He said two things of truth:
1. 'All religions are not compatible. They all can't be right.' That's right Mr Dawkins. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No one gets to the Father but through him. I got the impression that Steve Fielding wants them to be all compatible.
2. 'Don't you think God could have found a better way to atone for man's sins rather than allowing himself to be brutally punished and put to death on a cross? Is that admirable?' Well done Richard, you gave a better account of Christianity than everyone else. You're closer to the Kingdom than you think. If you take away the account of Genesis, well then it is not 'admirable'. It would be absurd. Jesus was promised in Genesis 3. He came to re-instate mans perfect relationship with God.
This was the ideal opportunity for public figures such as Steven Fielding to give an account of their Christianity on national T.V. He ran away from that opportunity and looked like a fool. It was a shame the ABC put a dittering Senator in the ring with an accomplished scientist.
Fielding condoned the compatibility between 'creationism' and 'evolution'. I assume the term 'evolution' means that humanity evolved from a simple life form, through to the ape stage into the breed of humanity we have today. Christians can not accept evolution. Sure they can accept that the world is billions of years old and God may have used some sort of 'big bang' to get things moving in the universe. But evolution is a dangerous heresy to introduce into our doctrine to appease the scientific community. Why? Because if you remove Genesis from the Bible you have no understanding of the origin of 'sin' in creation. You also have no understanding just how valuable humanity is. God made us in 'his' image. We didn't crawl out of a cess pool. He breathed life into us directly. We were appointed to reign over creation. We were created perfectly. There was a perfect relationship between humanity, creation and God. The Bible does not promote humanity evolving from the animal kingdom.
Humanity fell into sin in Genesis 3 because it rejected and disobeyed God. Humanity and creation was cursed resulting from this rebellion. If Christians remove Genesis, there is no understanding the origins of a cursed world. Our relationship with God was irrevocably broken and the whole point of Jesus' existence on earth was to rectify this. The promise of Jesus was first mentioned in Genesis 3:15. God promised that an offspring of Eve would crush the head of Satan. Genesis is fundamental to an understanding of Jesus Christ. There is no compatibility between Christians and evolution. Genesis does not allow it.
The convenor of Q&A asked Senator Fielding 'where did humans come from'? Fielding replied 'I believe in being created'. Where's God Senator? Be bold Senator! Why didn't you put a name to your creator?
It was confirmed that Pope Benedict stated that evolution and faith can co-exist. If the Pope does not believe that man was created in the image of God, he has fallen into Apostasy. Without the biblical account of Genesis, the concept of sin and redemption is not understood. I might do some research on you Pope in the hope I have to recant my sentiment.
Is Julie Bishop a professing Christian? If she is, all she can muster regarding the Bible is 'it is an all time best seller'.
Steve Fielding went to great lengths to say that his faith is personal. Christ did not call you to have a personal faith Senator! He didn't call you to light your candle and put it under the bed. You are in a position of leadership in this country. You are Christ's ambassador. But all you can come up with to justify your timidity was to say your faith is personal. Whatever you do in your bedroom is personal Senator, not your Christian faith.
Is Tony Burke a Christian? All he could muster was to say 'there was a bloke from a couple of thousand years ago who said to love one another'. How hard is it to say 'Jesus' Tony? Julie Bishop didn't do much better, she said he was a 'great man who tried to do good things'. I hope you're not a professing Christian Julie!
Senator Fielding was asked directly, 'do you believe the Bible as the word of God'? He didn't answer the question.
Ironically, my applause goes to the atheist Richard Dawkins. He summed up the Gospel of Jesus Christ better than any of the Christians on the panel. The first mention of Jesus in the entire 55 minute debacle was at the 30 minute mark...and it came from the Atheist. He said two things of truth:
1. 'All religions are not compatible. They all can't be right.' That's right Mr Dawkins. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No one gets to the Father but through him. I got the impression that Steve Fielding wants them to be all compatible.
2. 'Don't you think God could have found a better way to atone for man's sins rather than allowing himself to be brutally punished and put to death on a cross? Is that admirable?' Well done Richard, you gave a better account of Christianity than everyone else. You're closer to the Kingdom than you think. If you take away the account of Genesis, well then it is not 'admirable'. It would be absurd. Jesus was promised in Genesis 3. He came to re-instate mans perfect relationship with God.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Rediscovering Genesis
I have only read Genesis once in my life and even then, I probably did it quickly. I don't think many Christians read Genesis because they are ashamed of it. People have looked at me like I am crazy when I say I believe Genesis is real. The book is made out to be a fairy tale and ridiculed by scientists the world over. Anyway, I still believe it. Besides, the Psalmist in Chapter 14 says 'the fool says in his heart, "There is no God". I believe that too.
Anyway, within half an hour into Genesis, I came across two possibilities that I never considered before. These possibilities (in the whole scheme of sin, repentance, salvation and judgement) aren't important. But it's good to think about unimportant things from time to time:
Did God create more than Adam and Eve?
When Abel got himself perished at the hands of Cain, God drove Cain from the land. Cain was to wander the wilderness, separated from his family line. Cain protested by saying in chapter 4:14 '...I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me'. God responded by saying 'not so' and put a 'mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.'
That reads like that there are more family lines out there that don't belong of Adam and Eve. Some commentators say that Cain was thinking about the exponential growth of Adam's line and he was worried about running into these future people. But Cain's worry sounds like it was of an immediate nature. Cain went East. Could it be possible that God created people in the region of Asia after he created Adam and Eve? Adam and his descendents would have had to breed like rabbits to fill the world as quick as they did. Granted, Adam was still having kids at 130 and lived to 930, but surely he was running out of lead in his pencil by then!
Further, who would interpret the 'mark'. Already existing intelligent beings would be the obvious answer to me.
Was everyone before Noah a vegetarian?
I hope not. If Adam was still dishing out his seed well into his hundreds, surely he needed to do so with the power of meat. But after the flood, God made a covenant with Noah and said in Genesis 9:2:
'The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the grounds'...you get the point.'
'Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything'.
Was everyone prior to Noah a vegetarian? Abel had flocks and gave the first born to God as an offering. Please, please tell me Adam, Abel and his family were chewing the fat? It would be tough to acknowledge the existence of vegetarians in the Bible.
Anyway, within half an hour into Genesis, I came across two possibilities that I never considered before. These possibilities (in the whole scheme of sin, repentance, salvation and judgement) aren't important. But it's good to think about unimportant things from time to time:
Did God create more than Adam and Eve?
When Abel got himself perished at the hands of Cain, God drove Cain from the land. Cain was to wander the wilderness, separated from his family line. Cain protested by saying in chapter 4:14 '...I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me'. God responded by saying 'not so' and put a 'mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.'
That reads like that there are more family lines out there that don't belong of Adam and Eve. Some commentators say that Cain was thinking about the exponential growth of Adam's line and he was worried about running into these future people. But Cain's worry sounds like it was of an immediate nature. Cain went East. Could it be possible that God created people in the region of Asia after he created Adam and Eve? Adam and his descendents would have had to breed like rabbits to fill the world as quick as they did. Granted, Adam was still having kids at 130 and lived to 930, but surely he was running out of lead in his pencil by then!
Further, who would interpret the 'mark'. Already existing intelligent beings would be the obvious answer to me.
Was everyone before Noah a vegetarian?
I hope not. If Adam was still dishing out his seed well into his hundreds, surely he needed to do so with the power of meat. But after the flood, God made a covenant with Noah and said in Genesis 9:2:
'The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the grounds'...you get the point.'
'Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything'.
Was everyone prior to Noah a vegetarian? Abel had flocks and gave the first born to God as an offering. Please, please tell me Adam, Abel and his family were chewing the fat? It would be tough to acknowledge the existence of vegetarians in the Bible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)