Archive for December, 2007

h1

More on Atheism…

December 30, 2007

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. — Heywood Broun

A while back I did a post on atheism and gave my three most used “arguments” against the view. Again I am not out to “change” anyone nor am I wanting to get into heavy debate. Yet, the one that most either thought was not strong or was not the best seemed to be the idea that all men are born with the idea of a god that exists and must suppress this view in order to be an atheist. To me this is actually the strongest view as I see that most atheists once did believe in “god” but rejected the idea. I know of not one that started out stating there is no god and then tried to prove their position… which is still at least to me a rather strange thing to do if a god does not exist. Why argue about a god that does not exist if one does not exist? It seems like one arguing that one cannot fly as they are falling from an airplane… trying to convince the other person that they also cannot fly as they hit the ground. If god did not exist then to me at least there need not be any reason to discuss it or to try to convince others that one does not exist.

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. –Mohandas Gandhi

Now, I found this idea is not new (at least not original with me) This is called theistic innatism, in fact the idea that there is no god is only recorded back as far as the 5th century bce so it seems that the view that one is born with the view that there is a god has more historical basis. Of course one might argue that superstitions and such also were more prevalent, yet that still does not prove that man is not born with the innate view that there is a god.

Still, as one person stated that he saw this view as not strong… it seems that if I was to ask this person, I bet he would reply his view that god does not exist came out of studying and science, both to me are not anti-god but if one can, would prove god more. I do not see science and faith as incompatible, in fact most of the greatest scientist professed a faith in God. I am not going to go through them now, yet Isaac Newton was one that even wrote a biblical commentary.

Now, I took the view out of Romans chapter one…
In Romans, Paul lays out that man has no excuse, “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” And that “men who suppress the truth by their wickedness”. Now, I am not stating that all atheists are “wicked” so please do not take that as what I am stating… What Paul is referring to is those who worshiped creation in place of the True God…

Now Paul does go on to state, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

If one just looks at creation, then one must realize that there is a design. If there is a design there need be a designer. So, the one thing an atheist needs prove to me is that design can happen without a designer then I will take real look atheism as a valid view.

But, if there is a design, then there need be a designer… even in the natural world, such as the Grand Canyon, in its design, water became the designer of the erosion. Yet, still one must go back to ask how water was designed. Keep working back to the Big Bang and find that somehow something must come out of nothing… which then leads us to Genesis in which God creates all out of nothing.

Now recently a few scientists created matter from light. They have known that this can be done for many years, yet no one has taken the time to do it until recently. Interestingly the very first thing God spoke into existence out of nothing was… light… and from light all matter came.

If there were no God, there would be no atheists. –G.K. Chesterton

Now, to state that one “knows for certain there is no god” then places one into the category of being all knowing… and if that be so, then has make oneself a “god” in and of themselves. Now, I know of no atheists that claim to know all things. Though some are not willing to admit that they are really agnostic, to not know is to state still the possibility of the existence of a god.

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge” –Ravi Zacharias

Now, I find this to be true, that one who truly is searching will find their way to a philosophy, and as they dig deeper they will find themselves involved in “religion”… the issue is that a little philosophy will bring us to the idea that man is truly the highest of being… yet, a little more thought will make one realize that this is not the truth. There has to be something or someone higher… the deeper one digs in philosophy they will realize that one can become lost in the faith of man and in all the ideas of man’s philosophy. I see it can shake one to the core, yet in the end if one truly seeking truth, truth reveals itself and pushes on deeper and deeper into the realm of faith. Can a man live as an atheist without faith… no, one must place all faith in one’s own understanding though… and I for one do not think I have that much faith!

A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. –Francis Bacon

Again, I see that the idea that one must suppress belief in a god has more validity than to not believe. Yet, to believe in a god is not enough to find Truth. One must have faith. Faith is a gift from God it depends totally on what one places this faith in… yet if one cannot beleive in God, to admit that one lacks faith to do so, is the beginning of gaining enough faith for one’s path to find Truth.

Be blessed,
iggy

Advertisements
h1

More on Atheism…

December 30, 2007

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. — Heywood Broun

A while back I did a post on atheism and gave my three most used “arguments” against the view. Again I am not out to “change” anyone nor am I wanting to get into heavy debate. Yet, the one that most either thought was not strong or was not the best seemed to be the idea that all men are born with the idea of a god that exists and must suppress this view in order to be an atheist. To me this is actually the strongest view as I see that most atheists once did believe in “god” but rejected the idea. I know of not one that started out stating there is no god and then tried to prove their position… which is still at least to me a rather strange thing to do if a god does not exist. Why argue about a god that does not exist if one does not exist? It seems like one arguing that one cannot fly as they are falling from an airplane… trying to convince the other person that they also cannot fly as they hit the ground. If god did not exist then to me at least there need not be any reason to discuss it or to try to convince others that one does not exist.

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. –Mohandas Gandhi

Now, I found this idea is not new (at least not original with me) This is called theistic innatism, in fact the idea that there is no god is only recorded back as far as the 5th century bce so it seems that the view that one is born with the view that there is a god has more historical basis. Of course one might argue that superstitions and such also were more prevalent, yet that still does not prove that man is not born with the innate view that there is a god.

Still, as one person stated that he saw this view as not strong… it seems that if I was to ask this person, I bet he would reply his view that god does not exist came out of studying and science, both to me are not anti-god but if one can, would prove god more. I do not see science and faith as incompatible, in fact most of the greatest scientist professed a faith in God. I am not going to go through them now, yet Isaac Newton was one that even wrote a biblical commentary.

Now, I took the view out of Romans chapter one…
In Romans, Paul lays out that man has no excuse, “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” And that “men who suppress the truth by their wickedness”. Now, I am not stating that all atheists are “wicked” so please do not take that as what I am stating… What Paul is referring to is those who worshiped creation in place of the True God…

Now Paul does go on to state, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

If one just looks at creation, then one must realize that there is a design. If there is a design there need be a designer. So, the one thing an atheist needs prove to me is that design can happen without a designer then I will take real look atheism as a valid view.

But, if there is a design, then there need be a designer… even in the natural world, such as the Grand Canyon, in its design, water became the designer of the erosion. Yet, still one must go back to ask how water was designed. Keep working back to the Big Bang and find that somehow something must come out of nothing… which then leads us to Genesis in which God creates all out of nothing.

Now recently a few scientists created matter from light. They have known that this can be done for many years, yet no one has taken the time to do it until recently. Interestingly the very first thing God spoke into existence out of nothing was… light… and from light all matter came.

If there were no God, there would be no atheists. –G.K. Chesterton

Now, to state that one “knows for certain there is no god” then places one into the category of being all knowing… and if that be so, then has make oneself a “god” in and of themselves. Now, I know of no atheists that claim to know all things. Though some are not willing to admit that they are really agnostic, to not know is to state still the possibility of the existence of a god.

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge” –Ravi Zacharias

Now, I find this to be true, that one who truly is searching will find their way to a philosophy, and as they dig deeper they will find themselves involved in “religion”… the issue is that a little philosophy will bring us to the idea that man is truly the highest of being… yet, a little more thought will make one realize that this is not the truth. There has to be something or someone higher… the deeper one digs in philosophy they will realize that one can become lost in the faith of man and in all the ideas of man’s philosophy. I see it can shake one to the core, yet in the end if one truly seeking truth, truth reveals itself and pushes on deeper and deeper into the realm of faith. Can a man live as an atheist without faith… no, one must place all faith in one’s own understanding though… and I for one do not think I have that much faith!

A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. –Francis Bacon

Again, I see that the idea that one must suppress belief in a god has more validity than to not believe. Yet, to believe in a god is not enough to find Truth. One must have faith. Faith is a gift from God it depends totally on what one places this faith in… yet if one cannot beleive in God, to admit that one lacks faith to do so, is the beginning of gaining enough faith for one’s path to find Truth.

Be blessed,
iggy

h1

Carrying the Cross… emails from TES

December 28, 2007
TES, my beautiful wife, received a email going around. Here is the series of picture, below is the email exchange we about it. (You may need to click on it to see it better.)
From: Tes Shelton [mailto:] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:24 PM
To: iggy
Subject: RE: The Cross

Is this accurate? What is the cross that we carry? Or do we have a cross to carry?

From: iggy [mailto:iggy@wwdb.org] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 10:57 PM
To: Tes Shelton
Subject: RE: The Cross

I hate this one…

The cross we carry is two things.

One each must carry their own death and in that realize that being dead we need the Life of Christ to live… so on a small level this is true…

BUT!!!!
The other cross we carry is that we partake in Christ’s sufferings and our salvation is perfected… yet to fail in our sufferings does not mean we lose salvation, for that means it then becomes works salvation and not by Grace.

Love ya

From: Tes Shelton [mailto:] Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 8:33 AM
To: iggy
Subject: RE: The Cross
I love you. I’m so blessed to have you as my husband. I love it that you study and think through why you believe what you believe. And, more importantly, that you let the Holy Spirit guide you and teach you His truth. I’m so proud to be your wife.

TES

All I can say is I have a great wife!
be blessed,
iggy
h1

Carrying the Cross… emails from TES

December 28, 2007
TES, my beautiful wife, received a email going around. Here is the series of picture, below is the email exchange we about it. (You may need to click on it to see it better.)
From: Tes Shelton [mailto:] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:24 PM
To: iggy
Subject: RE: The Cross

Is this accurate? What is the cross that we carry? Or do we have a cross to carry?

From: iggy [mailto:iggy@wwdb.org] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 10:57 PM
To: Tes Shelton
Subject: RE: The Cross

I hate this one…

The cross we carry is two things.

One each must carry their own death and in that realize that being dead we need the Life of Christ to live… so on a small level this is true…

BUT!!!!
The other cross we carry is that we partake in Christ’s sufferings and our salvation is perfected… yet to fail in our sufferings does not mean we lose salvation, for that means it then becomes works salvation and not by Grace.

Love ya

From: Tes Shelton [mailto:] Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 8:33 AM
To: iggy
Subject: RE: The Cross
I love you. I’m so blessed to have you as my husband. I love it that you study and think through why you believe what you believe. And, more importantly, that you let the Holy Spirit guide you and teach you His truth. I’m so proud to be your wife.

TES

All I can say is I have a great wife!
be blessed,
iggy
h1

Mike Corley goes to Mars Hill… it was not as he was told.

December 28, 2007
Mike Corley decided to do what a real Online Discernment Ministry would do… go out and check on all the rumors.
With hit pieces like this one by Ingrid… which seemed more about her own lascivious mind than the reality of what was happening at Mars Hill. I am glad to see someone actual research instead of regurgitate the lies and slander that many others are content with spreading in their protecting of “truth”.
Now, many have written about how bad Mark Driscoll is… yet to Mike Corley’s surprise… it seemed not as he was told… surprised? Not me!
Here is Mike Corley’s surprise.
At least one ODM has actually done some research… I just hope he now realizes that some he has associated in the past with, may not have the gift of discernment they claim…
And KUDOS to you Mike!
be blessed,
iggy
Source: CRN.info
h1

Mike Corley goes to Mars Hill… it was not as he was told.

December 28, 2007
Mike Corley decided to do what a real Online Discernment Ministry would do… go out and check on all the rumors.
With hit pieces like this one by Ingrid… which seemed more about her own lascivious mind than the reality of what was happening at Mars Hill. I am glad to see someone actual research instead of regurgitate the lies and slander that many others are content with spreading in their protecting of “truth”.
Now, many have written about how bad Mark Driscoll is… yet to Mike Corley’s surprise… it seemed not as he was told… surprised? Not me!
Here is Mike Corley’s surprise.
At least one ODM has actually done some research… I just hope he now realizes that some he has associated in the past with, may not have the gift of discernment they claim…
And KUDOS to you Mike!
be blessed,
iggy
Source: CRN.info
h1

Ken Silva raises missing the point to a new art form

December 27, 2007

There is a post by Ken Silva at xxxchurch.com who help people with porn addiction. This ministry has helped many people and has even helped some porn-stars find Christ and leave the porn industry. Now, I may not agree with some of their tactics but I do see real fruit coming from this ministry.

But Ken seems to think that Jesus does not love porn-stars or people addicted to porn…

Here is part of what Ken Silva aka “Comment Author proporn Comment Time Apr 11th 2007″ (interesting name that Ken Silva chose….) had to say:

“Since this supposed XXXchurch is quite a titillating and very questionable area of “ministry,” which young people would probably think is “cool,” I began to wonder if Rob Bell was involved in some way. Was I surprised to find out that Rob Bell “knew these guys.” Nope. Did it catch me off guard that Rob had been the one who would be instrumental in bringing, ahem, exposure to their “work” for Christ? O, most definitely not! Somehow I just knew Bell would be at the bottom of this spiritual sewer. And sure enough, clever Rob would be the one to come up with the catchy li’l title “Porn Sunday.””

Ken was hoping to “catch” these “rebellious” emergents in all their vile nastiness… yet it seemed to backfire.

And why had Ken not really pointed this out? Because he would rather continue in the sin of slander against people and ministries that state the truth.

Be sure to read all the 21 (real nasty and rebellious) comments… and you will see the only nasty one is Ken Silva himself.

Blessings,
iggy

If you are having trouble with porn addiction and need help now… Sign Up for Pure Online Now!