My Wise Generation

Christianity Is Not Blind or Ignorant, Think Critically

2009-03-31T09:14:00.004-04:00

The enemy would have modern Christians believe faith in Jesus Christ is both illogical and ignorant. Satan knows faith is the most powerful defense the modern Christian has against him, and he will stop at nothing to vanquish it. Those who can be shaken by the pseudo-intellectual lies crafted by the enemy will find themselves subject to his influence.

Ultimately, the validity of the Christian faith lies on one historical period, the birth and life of Jesus Christ. There is substantial legal-historical proof for both the virgin birth and correlation of fulfilled prophecy in the life of Jesus Christ. It is far to substantial to go into depth on a simple post. Recommended readings for this are both Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ", Josh McDowells "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" and "More Than a Carpenter". I would also recommend reading counter-points and critical perspectives to gain a complete understanding.

Evidences of both the miraculous birth and life of Jesus Christ are established in historical records beyond those who partook in the writing of the Bible, even the Koran confirms the virgin birth of Jesus Christ took place 500 years before the birth of Muhammad(*1).

A student of philosophy wrote a great article that concluded the following points (understanding of historical evidences and contexts is assumed, otherwise these points will appear assumed - it is recommended you dig into the historical evidences yourself to verify these points):

Four “core facts” which even the skeptics admit ...

a) Jesus was a real man, who lived and then died by crucifixion. Check out your history: Crucifixion was a cruel (but effective) method of death by torture. Victims died not from actual wounds but by suffocation, from the weight of their bodies hanging from outstretched arms. The Roman soldiers attending crucifixions were experienced in their work and could tell who was dead and who wasn’t.

b) The disciples saw something and they believed it was the risen Jesus. (The theory of mass hallucination doesn’t fly because, as psychology will tell us, it simply doesn’t happen.)

c) Their lives were totally transformed, even to the point of death. Now, at first glance, this may not seem much to us who have heard of things like the Jim Jones cult, Koresh, and Heaven’s Gate—but we aren’t talking about a case of mass suicide here. This is a group of (at least) eleven men, who went out to different parts of the world, devoted to the same cause, and who all separately suffered torture and met their deaths rather than renounce what they believed was the risen Jesus. Doesn’t anyone think that at least ONE of those men, if they had been privy to some sort of scam, would have spoken up rather than face martyrdom?

d) Lastly, one Saul of Tarsus, bitter enemy of the followers of Christ, is converted—HE believes he sees the risen Jesus, and it transforms his life to the point that he devotes his life to preaching, suffering, and dying for Christ.

For those well versed in the history of this era, these established logical deductions make a case for rational belief in both the life and ressurrection of Jesus Christ.

There are those who have suppressed these evidences for the benefit of their self-indulgent philosophies of life. Jesus Christ promoted both love and compassion for one another. His philosophy is of non-violence and community. Yet, his philosophy is looked at in outrage by those who do not believe. Instead of looking at the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, they look to disprove his existence by looking at those who believe in him. This is fundamentally flawed, as Jesus himself said no good could come from the evil creatures we are.

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." - Luke 18:19

The beauty of Christ's teachings is that he bridges our evil lives with that of the goodness of God. We can indeed be good, but only through a relationship with God. Jesus allowed man to truly be good by giving him communion through God with his life. Goodness, in this sense, is not what the world deems good, but what God deems good. Since men are fundamentally evil, they will fail at doing the good God want's them to do. This is merely common sense. Looking to Christians without looking at Jesus Christ as the ultimate verification of Christianity is fundamentally flawed.

Craig Chamberlin

*1: http://www.islam-101.org/

*2: http://shenandoahdawn.com/ibelieve.html

Obama and Congress, The Delegated Messiahs

2009-03-25T14:33:00.009-04:00

As America braced herself for the inevitable economic recession. She found herself in desperate need of a savior. Instead of turning to the one true savior, they turned to the power and wisdom of man. Obama and congress' intentions are, in respect to their burden of expectations, well intended, but their solutions are blind. The world, in it's lust for a man-made savior, will be surprised at the outcome. Those who do not turn to man alone for a solution will not be.

Obama and congress, who believe they can bring about the salvation of our current societal corruption are setting themselves up for disappointment. Those who embrace man-made government as a feasible solution to any form of corruption will find their thirsts unquenched. This truth translates across both ends of the political aisle.

A society is never fixed by it's goverment, a government is established by it's society. If the people become corrupt, the government becomes reflective of that corruption. We decieve ourselves when we blame those of particular parties for societal or government corruption.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." - Galatians 6:7-8

For years America has sown her seeds in the flesh. She has moved from the spirit of God to the spirit of lust, greed and materialism. In the process, her soul was corrupted, and in turn, her government was corrupted. It is purely human that in the years of her reaping the corruption she has sown, her blame is shifted to those in power.

We in America have none to blame but ourselves. Our love for money. Our love for sex. Our love for lust, our drive for living a life at the expense of the life of others. In our pride, we have elevated ourselves higher than our brothers and sisters. In our elevation, we now fall without a love for truth.

Pain is much more devastating when there is no true understanding of the source. In a bitter attempt to abolish the spiritual pain of America. We turn our faces to those in power in hopes that they can save us from the seeds we have sown. Although those in power genuinely believe they can fix the corruption through more government presence - they are bandaging the symptoms of the issue, not curing the source.

Government expansion as a solution to a corrupt society is equivalent to placing a bandaid on an infected wound. The bandaid may stop the bleeding, but if it goes untreated, the infection will continue to spread throughout the body. The spirit of America is dying, and unless she goes back to the one who can cleanse the soul of corruption, Jesus Christ, the man made bandages we create merely postpone the inevitable.

Craig Chamberlin

Teach Not Fools, But Encourage The Wise

2009-03-24T12:35:00.007-04:00

The modern Christian movement has placed much effort in the rebuke of fools. Fools, in this sense, is not a derogatory term but are those who ignore the truths of reality in the realm of cause and consequence to perpetuate their lifestyle. Instead, their wisdom is found in the world of sensual pleasure and self-exalted philosophy.

Ravi Zacharias once said about our generation, "How do you reach a generation that listens with its eyes and thinks with its feelings?"

I merit this challenge as the greatest demand of the Christians of my generation. Fools are those who think with their feelings. The moods of man are highly fluctuational depending on that which delights his senses at a particular time. In the test of truth, senses are deceiving, and fail to yield long term happiness.

The distraction Satan has placed before us is one of blind challenge. The modern Christian tries dearly to both justify and exemplify the truth of Jesus Christ to those who think with their senses. The result is always that of disappointment and shattered faith. Faith is lost because their efforts to help those they love yield little to no results.

The Bible clearly defines the uselessness attempting to teach the the truths of Christ to fools.

"A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself." - Proverbs 18:2

"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." - Proverbs 12:15

A Christian can expell much of their energy in the attempt to teach wisdom to fools. Fools, in turn, will find pleasure in the twisting of their wise words to fit their sensual lives. The fool understands that giving into God means to give up the life of sensual truth. No longer are they subject to their own will, but to the will of one who will reveal their worldly pleasures as the path to death.

“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” — C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Attempting to teach fools merely opens the Christian to vulnurability of receiving hatred from the world. Those who have hardened their hearts against wisdom have already made themselves the enemy of the truth. As with any battle, the fool sees the enemy as one that needs defeated, not tolerated.

It seems evident, the work of the modern Christian should focus it's efforts on teaching and encouraging those who are willing to subject themselves to the spirit of truth. A person of this stature is one who has humility and has admitted they are open to the possibilities of truths beyond their sensual perceptions. Many times, it is those who have reached a moral bankruptcy while living under the poor wisdom of fools.

The Christian faith offers truth for both the mind and the heart. It bears answers to questions even avid skeptics have found perplexing. For those who hunger for the truth of Christ through the mind, they ought to seek the writings of those who have endured the same intellectual challenges.

God has a way of reaching fools, in his own time. The role of the Christian is to pray for those who do not seek his wisdom. The fool doesn't believe in God's wisdom because of his heart, not his mind. Jesus Christ, as the master of the heart, is the only one who can open the will of those who have hardened their hearts to his word.

"Ultimately, the problem with man is not the absence of evidence, it is the suppression of it." - Ravi Zacharias

C.S. Lewis was, for a large portion of his life, a staunch Atheist. He challenged the Christian faith, as well as others, on all facets of the truth. He was not a man of poor intelligence, he was one who seeked deeper answers to lifes more complex questions. Ravi Zacharias, who heads up RZIM, has made it his life's pursuit to accept the most intellectual of challenges from both theists and atheists against Christianity. He often illustrates no other argument is near as coherent and filled with the wisdom and truth of life.

Seek not to change the minds of fools, pray that their hearts open to the necessity of God's wisdom. Through actions and words, seek to bring enlightenment to those who openly love wisdom, of whose heart Jesus has already softened to the need for his truths.

- Craig Chamberlin

Economic Pain, God's Megaphone to a Deaf World

2009-03-24T10:26:00.010-04:00

With the financial strain on more and more individuals these days, God has opened a great opportunity for Christians around the world to proclaim their love. We often look at the world in the ways that it can benefit us. When everything is going well in our lives, it is easy to continue on in life without the necessity of dealing with God. As history has shown, God is aware of this problem, and often uses pain to solve it.

C.S. Lewis once wrote "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains; it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” - The Problem of Pain

With America's continued move away from a society that embraces God's wisdom, we find ourselves presented with the consequences of our lack of wisdom. For years, everyone knew the apathy that they had for government corruption and secretly enjoyed the worldly pleasures offered by our great nation. Those who saw the corruption and pain resulting from that life have been praying for our great nation. It appears that those prayers have been answered.

You see, when we ask God to free us from our vices - he does so in a way that many times causes us great pain. Pride is the ultimate hinderance to our recovery through Christ, and before he can begin to work in our lives - he must destroy the power that we think we may have over our hearts. Only when we admit we are powerless, and that we need him, will he begin to bring us back to where we should be.

"Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others. If everyone else became equally rich, or clever, or good-looking there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest." - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

In our pride, we have destroyed our desire to do God's work. We have replaced our purpose with the God of materialism - looking to our finances, homes and luxuries for ultimate happiness. We have positioned ourselves above our brothers in sisters in competiton with them. We cannot truly love another if we desire to be greater than them. That is why pride is the most dangerous of sins.

Rejoice in this time for our country. The world needs to come back to God. We have become a nation that boast that it needs no God. It is by this very sin that God destroyed the tower of Babylon.

I do not find joy in the pain that those are suffering in these times, but lets not let that pain go to waste. Jesus Christ can offer freedom from the pains, sufferings and fears of this world. We need only embrace his truths.

- Craig Chamberlin

Episode III: Would Christ Change The Nations Laws For Good? Part 1 of 2

2009-01-14T09:02:00.008-05:00

Will Christian Politicians Benefit The Movement of Christ?
What it Means to "Resist" Evil
What The Laws Of Society Actually Reflect
The Root of the Problem
The Flaws of "Mandating" Christianity With Law
The "Bottom-Up" Principles of Christ
The "Top-Down" Approach of the World
Why You Don't See Many Christian Politicians
The Root Cause of an Unhealthy Nation

Jesus Gives Purpose To Our Pains

KCLorelei of Digg Shares Her Story:

"I was once one of those people who had to find out for myself, that my ways weren't working. Oh, I was a church kid. I had accepted Jesus as my Savior at an early age. But He wasn't the Lord of my life for many years. I made many poor choices in my teenage years, that ultimately led to tragic consequences. And I spent a very long time as a prodigal, always running from the truth.

God never forgot about me, though....

If it wasn't for one particular Christian that loved me when I was unlovable, and prayed for me, questioned my run from God....well, I don't like to consider where I'd be today.

I found forgiveness, restoration, comfort, healing, and even the joy of my youth too, because of the one lady that allowed God to love me, through her.

(Of course, there have been many other fine, loving Christian women since that first one that first reached out to me, that have helped guide me and keep me firmly in God's love this time. But I know which one touched my heart first)

I now am preparing to go back out in a specific ministry myself, to comfort others as I have been comforted with the love of Christ.

Me, who once thought I had nothing of any use to offer another person."

Episode II: Should The Christian Church Fall?

2009-01-12T18:53:00.005-05:00

The Downfall is Going To Happen
It's Not That We Want It To Happen
Why Would We Let The Church Fall?
The World Will Never Understand The Paradox That Is Christianity
We Are Not In This To Force The World To Be Like Us
Unconditional Love
Summary

As a side note:

This is meant to illustrate that the downfall of the Church has much importance to the outreach of the Christian faith.

Episode I: Introducing My Wise Generation

2009-01-11T17:10:00.002-05:00

What My Wise Generation is All About
Failure to Communicate Love
What Many Christians Agree Upon
Modern Wisdom Brings Pain
About the Host
Conclusion

Should Christians Fight With Non-Christians?

2009-01-06T11:40:00.010-05:00

Many of us ask ourselves at some point whether or not our moral defense is justified. Fighting in defense of the Christian faith is important, but is fighting really the way the war for the human heart should be waged? These questions perplexed me last April, and given my doubts, I stopped my message within this blog.

Now that I have given myself some time to re-evaluate and pray about my values. God has revealed a very important revelation. This year God placed me in a Church that fights sin in a way I never had fought it before. My desire was to appeal to common sense and logic, yet they fought with love, patience and understanding.

Jesus has provided me with time to sit back and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of my argumentation. I now realize that my discussions should not be non-believer focused, but believer focused. I cannot, for the life of me, place the burden upon myself to reveal the light to those who are in darkness. This is because there are actually two forms of logical argumentation. Worldly wisdom and Godly widsom.

Worldly widsom encompasses all thought, logic and reason set apart from God. Those who are wise in the world can live peaceful, happy lives, but must be enslaved to a part of themselves that is in the world. This may be money, sex, drugs, religion or any other form of addiction. Every man defends their God, those of the world choose a different God than Jesus Christ.

Godly wisdom ecompasses all thought, logic and reason given through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The holy spirit lives within each follower of Christ, and although we are often horrible at interpreting what the spirit tells us due to our sinful nature - that relationship allows us to learn with God's wisdom and following so that we can find true happiness. The spirit reveals to us our strengths and weaknesses given to us by God, and allows us to fulfill our purpose through him. This results in peace, patience, kindness and gentleness... what are known as the fruits of the spirit.

So this begs the question, should Christians fight with Non-Christians? The short answer is no, we are to love eachother as we love ourselves - if we fight with others, then we only fight with ourselves. It is difficult to love others that despise you, but this is the calling of following Christ.

What each Christian must understand is that we are called to love those that are least like us, and it is only through our example of this love that we can reach those who hate us. In order to be loved, we must first be hated. It is often that Christ's teachings are taught in a paradox.

Christ was first hated and destroyed so that he could prove his love for us, we must also do the same thing. Christ didn't hate those with whom he spoke. The words he spoke were of love, and he lived his life to prove his love for them. Yes, he argued with those who were blind, but he did so under the authority of God himself. Notice, also, that he did not argue with them for the sake of changing their minds, he knew that they would not understand. Rather, he used those who hated him as an example to those who loved him to better illustrate his message of love.

Do we fight with non-Christians? No. We let them destroy our beliefs and destroy our Church and bring down our faith. We let them follow the path they have chosen, and we love them through the whole process. We help them when they suffer from their decisions. God's work is beyond our own, when we attempt to bring non-believers into our logical framework and defeat them, we limit what God is capable of doing in their lives.

Christianity will shine brightest when the world is in darkness. Let us be a light to the world, and shine the love of Jesus Christ on those who hate us. It is what we are called to do.

Craig Chamberlin

"Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you. Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning." - Proverbs 9:8 - 9

Christian Defense: The Straw Man and Ad Hominem

2008-04-25T08:03:00.007-04:00

In a world filled with intellectuals, defense of the Christian faith and principles can become both a difficult and emotionally exhausting task. This is especially true when Christians are attacked with what are known as 'Straw Man' or 'Ad Hominem' arguments that aim to do three things: place the original arguer in a ridiculous position never taken, attack that position, and destroy the character of the arguer.

It is likely many individuals use the straw man or the ad hominem arguments by incident, and it is without a doubt that I have used them without even realizing it. This is why it is important to understand the structure of these arguments so they can be captured and corrected before the argument turns into an attack on each arguers character rather than addressing the true substance of the argument.

The straw man argument is the single most commonly used argument against the Christian faith and apologist. It is second to the ad hominem and is defined as:

"To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted." - (wikipedia.org)

For example:

Arguer 1:
Proposition I: The Christian faith can be defended by legal-historical evidences
Proposition II: Logical Evidences A, B and C defends their position.
Proposition III: Therefore the Christian faith can be defended by legal-historical evidences.

Arguer 2:
Proposition I: Those who argue the Christian faith can be defended cannot prove the existence of God using the scientific method.
Proposition II: Logical evidences D and E are often used to attempt to prove God using the scientific method.
Proposition III: Logical evidences D and E are clearly invalid because of logical evidence F and G
Proposition IV: Therefore, The Christian faith cannot be defended by legal-historical evidences.

As one can see, in the straw man argument, the second arguer often times completely ignores the logical evidences or arguments put forth by the initial arguer and instead discuss an entirely different argument. In this case the second arguer brings up logical evidences D and E, which were not argued by the initial arguer, he then dis-proves an argument never made, then concludes the initial argument made is false.

Many times, the argument the second arguer places the first arguer into is easily refutable and emotionally based. Doing this places the readers or viewers of the argument emotionally against the first arguer so they are more inclined to disagree with the original argument.

For example, an initial arguer may state they believe God exists due to the complexity of the universe and cite their evidences of unexplainable complexities. The second arguer may, in response, argue those who believe in God must also prove there is no 'flying spaghetti monster' or no 'Zeus', they then set up the argument from the position of those who believe in God to dis-prove a 'flying spaghetti monster' and prove 'Jesus Christ'. Finally, with the scientific method, they illustrate how this argument is false, and therefore conclude the other individuals belief in God must be invalid.

As one can see, the initial arguer cited evidences of unexplainable complexities, but these logical evidences were completely ignored. The second arguer then placed the first arguer into an argument he did not make and proceeded to defeat that argument. It looks great from those doing the reading and looks great for the second arguer, but it does not address the real substance of the initial argument.

The ad hominem argument is defined as:

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject." (wikipedia.org)

For example:

Arguer 1:
Proposition I: Homosexuality is a behavioral choice.
Proposition II: Logical evidences A, B and C defends their position.
Proposition III: Therefore homosexuality is a behavioral choice.

Arguer 2:
Proposition I: Christians also believe homosexuals should "burn in hell".
Proposition II: Cases A and B illustrate instances where this is true.
Proposition III: Logical evidences why cases A and B are harming other people.
Proposition IV: Therefore any argument put forth by Christians are rubbish.

The ad hominem is much easier to spot. When these come up it often illustrates a vilification of the initial arguer or the group the initial arguer may be a part of. In this case it was Christians. The second arguer used extreme cases to emotionally draw the readers or viewers into their position. Finally, they proceeded to attack the initial arguer as if they had been a part of the extreme cases cited, then concluded the initial arguer lacks credibility to establish any logical evidences.

The ad hominem is one of the most commonly used arguments against those who defend the Christian faith. One will find many times they are being vilified as if they committed acts or atrocities performed by Christians they have both never met and would never had been a part of. After they are accused of these atrocities, they will find themselves discredited as a reliable source of logical evidences.

As stated above, there are likely cases where I have done this without the realization of doing so. Many times the ad hominem and straw man are used as a defense mechanism when others test or question principles one holds dear. It is likely that many times the use of them is unintentional, but the aim is to remove them as much as possible to clear the way for a logical and reasonable debate of ideas. Modern society has entered the war of ideas, it is important that Christians are properly equipped with the logical tools necessary to defend their faith.

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:
3 Reasons Christians Don't Need Scientific "Proof" of God
Modern Man has "Educated Himself into Imbecility"
Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value
Video: Proof of Christianity: Challenging Skeptics
Truth is Artfully Etched in the Hearts of Mankind

Sex Change Therapy Offered to Children

2008-04-24T08:33:00.004-04:00

With the mass confusion caused by the "sexual discovery" movement a recent story revealed sex change therapy as an option to children as young as ten years old. When individuals perceive they are not designed uniquely as God has created them, they begin to believe change is necessary in who or what they are, or in this case, who or what their children are.

"The Boston Globe recently published an article on Dr. Norman Spack, who last year started a new clinic at Children's Hospital that, among other treatments, performs sex-change therapy on "transgendered" children. The Gender Management Service Clinic, as it is called, defines that group as "patients with no known anatomic or biochemical disorder who feel like a member of the opposite sex." - Sex-change therapies on children 'beyond the pale'

It is interesting that the very definition offered by this clinic is for those who 'feel' like a member of an opposite sex. As the modern generation has consistently done over these past ten years, they begin to let their feelings alone, instead of feelings in parallel with truths in reality, guide their decisions of who they are, what they are, and who or what they ought to be.

As we all know, however, feelings can be truly deceptive. If an individual finds another person so irritating that they feel they should hit them, it obviously doesn't mean pounding another individual is the right thing to do. Yet, the modern generation continues to let their perceptions of their feelings guide them blindly into the future.

"In the Globe article, Spack details how he prescribes hormone therapy to halt puberty in children as young as ten years old, and then uses further hormone therapy to change children to the sex of their desire. Spack also lauds how he changed one transgendered child who was "destined to be a 6-foot-4 male" into a 5-foot-10 girl." - Sex-change therapies on children 'beyond the pale'

The wish is that this could be illustrated as madness, but in a culture that is driven to believe feelings are the ultimate test of truth and reality, this is simply a logical deduction made by those who follow this philosophy. These are not madmen, they are intelligent human beings who embrace an idea that if a man feels like a woman then he ought to be changed into one.

It is true, however, that if a God designed each and every individual one cannot simply say he made a mistake in the design of a particular individual. If it was intended for a man to be a woman, he would have been - to argue he wouldn't have been is to argue God did not know what he was doing when he created the man. If this is true, he is simply not God. God creates each and every individual with their strengths as well as their weaknesses to compromise a truly unique human being.

Many times in an individuals life they 'feel' a desire to do many things. For example, a husband may 'feel' a desire to cheat on his wife. A teenager may 'feel' sleeping with someone is a sign of true love. A man may 'feel' like never working and providing for his family. What these individuals feel does not govern the reality that each and every one of those actions, if acted upon, would lead to devastating consequences.

"Spack was asked by the Globe interviewer to identify the most difficult ethical issue he faces in performing these treatments. His response: Telling a 12-year-old that they will probably be infertile for the rest of their life." - Sex-change therapies on children 'beyond the pale'

So as the modern generation allows it's feelings to govern its decisions the true victims of such a misleading philosophy begin to emerge. The children, who have no full understanding of gender roles, let alone sexuality, are placed into circumstances outside of their own control and understanding. Their lives are permanently transformed because they were not embraced as beautifully and uniquely designed.

"Spack was also asked how his Jewish faith impacts his work. He replied that his rabbi said it best when he said that "the transgendered are also created in the image of God."" - Sex-change therapies on children 'beyond the pale'

It is important not to forget religion can be used to justify destructive purposes. Let me be the first to point out the atrocious flaw in what this man's rabbi has told him. "The transgendered" is an initial assumption that God has made a mistake in the selection of that individual soul's sex. He has placed "a man's soul in a woman's body" or "a woman's soul in a man's body". If this is true, he has made the flawed assumption that God, who is a perfect creator, makes mistakes in the placement of souls.

These individuals have made the mistake of letting their feelings of being a man in a woman's body be a governing truth. In other words, if one feels they are a man in a womans body, it must be true that they are a man in a woman's body.

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:
Society's Failure in Sexual Responsibility is Destroying Children
How A Society Can Protect Children from Pornography
10 Tips to Protect Your Children from Internet Pornography
Majority of Digg Community Encourages Underage Orgies
The Uncomfortable Selfish Truth About Pornography

C.S. Lewis, 'mere' Christianity, Law of Human Nature

2008-04-23T09:46:00.005-04:00

The following is a commentary of The Law of Human Nature chapter of C.S. Lewis' book entitled 'mere' Christianity. The purpose is to elaborate C.S. Lewis' arguments to both the causal reader and the readers who have a curosity in his writings. If one finds this intriguing they should look into picking up the book 'mere' Christianity for themselves or visit the book in its entirety as linked below and looking into the ideas further.

Part I, Chapter 1: The Law of Human Nature

Introduction:
"Everyone has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?' - 'That's my seat, I was there first' - 'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm'...

...Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse."

Commentary: C.S. Lewis draws some interesting illustrations here at the beginning of his book. For those who have not had the opportunity to read 'mere' Christianity the beginning sets up an argument for the existence of a moral law based upon simple logic and reason. The purpose for this establishment is because it does two very important things. First, it establishes that people all tend to behaviorally acknowledge that which they cosider a moral right, and in placing the moral expectations on others self-divulge the idea of a moral law. Secondly, it opens up the reader the self-discovery of their own behaviors and adherence to some sort of standard. These two purposes allow for a framework of establishing to another individual about the existence of a moral lawgiver.

In other words, what good would it do to try and convince another individual God exists if their perceptions are such that morality is relative. Relative morality suggests that each individual and culture can decide for itself their own perceptions of moral right and wrong and without a standard, they are all morally justified. Our behavior, as C.S. Lewis discusses, expresses quite the contrary - we often place a standard of moral expectations on others that we place upon ourselves.

Main Discussion:
"This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. ...And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair."

Commentary: This idea is not discussed enough in modern day society. The universal acceptance between most cultures about the atrocities performed by the Nazi's does actually illustrate something universal in the hearts of mankind. When evil unveils itself in the most obvious of forms the universal moral law speaks louder than when evil is not as clear cut. The world is much more proned to unite together for a common cause amidst the most obvious of evils because the moral law screams loudly into the hearts of each and every individual when they exist.

This uniting illustrates that something is shared between all of mankind when faced with true evil - and that within the hearts of men that unity illustrates some form of standard that all men ought adhere too.

He makes a second, even more compelling point, that if this moral law or standard of right behavior did not truly exist - then it was the Nazi's who were truly oppressed when their freedom of expressing their own moral laws were destroyed. He illustrates that we could not possibly accuse them of being evil unless there actually existed within their hearts some way to differentiate between good and evil. If someone argues that this conscience, or moral law within the hearts of men does not exist - then how could one have blamed the Nazis for the evils they committed? They simply may not have known any better.

"I know that some people say the idea of the Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all man is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But that is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike them will be how very like they are to eachother and to our own...

I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five..."

Commentary: The simplistic illustration C.S. Lewis gives here contrasting what we often perceive as good behavior drives an important point. Imagining a world where murder were encouraged, adultery was applauded and lying or stealing were considered positive character traits is almost a ridiculous notion.

However, it is only a ridiculous notion because everyone knows within their hearts that these behaviors violate a standard that all people ought to adopt, it further illustrates that we all have an image in our minds and in our hearts that places expectations on both ourselves, others and society. These traits commonly carry over not just within our own cultures, but within other cultures as well - the only difference is often how violation and adherance to each moral standard is dealt with.

"...the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson...

Commentary: Also an intriguing point, as one cannot argue moral right and wrong are not a standard and then lend a complaint to an offense against their standard without bringing the other individual into their own. For example, If I argue there is no moral standard and someone says "Alright" and pops me in the nose, I cannot possibly argue that he shouldn't have hit me in the nose without first establishing that he ought to adhere to a standard of behavior. I lose the argument by the very sake of arguing.

"It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may sometimes be mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature..."

Commentary: How very true this often is. There was always the insightful idea that we tend to see the flaws in other people that we have in ourselves. Many times when one struggles with alcoholism they can be the first to see the alcoholic. These inadequacies tend to make us much quicker to judge others for their own flaws than to see our own. We very often violate that which we expect other people to do.

For example, one may argue another individual ought to always be honest, but when confronted on a lie many times that very same individual will rationalize himself into lying once again.

"... I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much - we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so - that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behavior that we find all the explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves. "

Commentary: What many may find interesting is that when they begin to look at the reason they make excuses for themselves it is because often times they have done something that has violated what they perceive as a standard of right conduct. As Lewis points out, if we didn't feel so strongly about keeping with the standard of moral right and wrong why is it we go so far out of our way to make excuses for ourselves when we violate it?

He then discusses the idea that when we do something that adheres to the standard of behavior we expect from others we are quick to praise ourselves. There is definitely something going on in our hearts and minds that demands both excuses and praises - for if no kind of standard existed within ourselves or within societies - perpetual excuses and compliments would not make sense to exist. Why is it we exhaust ourselves with a moral standard if this moral standard does not truly exist? It is quite interesting because our reactions to the adherance and violation of this standard clearly illustrates that this moral standard does exist.

Conclusion:
"These, then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."

- C.S. Lewis, 'mere' Christianity (Part 1, Chapter 1, The Law of Human Nature), 1943

The above excerpts are from 'mere' Christianity, the emphases are my own and the attempt is posit commentary towards C.S. Lewis' arguments to interest the reader in his works.

Craig Chamberlin

The 'mere' Christianity text is available for free online at: http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

Video: Proof of Christianity: Challenging Skeptics

2008-04-22T07:58:00.012-04:00

VenomFangX (Shawn) is one of the many popular young individuals on YouTube who openly discusses criticisms and skepticisms of God. In this particular video, he provides strong logical proof of Christianity by challenging skeptics to fully understand their position when they say the prophecies and historical contexts of the Bible are a man-made fantasy.

(Shawn 0:01) "Hey there, today's video is basically going to be a case for Christianity. I am going to present an argument to you that I believe is so irrefutable that you will not be able to call yourself a rational thinking person and not convert to Christianity."

(Shawn 0:15) "Now many people actually already believe in God they just don't know which religion to turn to in order to find the true and living God. Well, I am here to say to you God does not want a religion, he wants a relationship. It was a religion that crucified Jesus and I believe Jesus is God. We're not going to get there yet.

(Shawn 0:32) "The Bible is actually the most unique book in all of antiquity in fact in the whole history of mankind. It is not actually one book written by one ambiguous guy that we know nothing about, unlike the Koran and other supposed "Holy books". The Bible is a compilation of many books, around 66 books written over a period of many thousands of years. These books within the Bible are actually written by over forty different authors who lived lifetimes apart and often in countries apart."

(Shawn 1:00) "There's no way they could have corresponded with each other being so far apart in both geography and just in time. These various authors progressively revealed a God who, going by the name of Yahweh or "I Am" in English. This God revealed the plan of redemption for mankind going right back to the book of Genesis, the first book in the Bible, all the way to Malachi."

(Shawn 1:24) "Now, if you don't believe God is big enough to use man as a tool in his hand to write a book to get it to you then you need a bigger God. Basically, if I was to write a letter in a red pen, did I write the letter or did the red pen? You wouldn't say the red pen wrote it, you'd say I wrote it, likewise God wrote the Bible over many thousands of years using men as his instrument in so doing.

(Shawn 1:43) "So, what can we find within the text to say that this is not just of a human origin, that it is clearly of supernatural origin. Let's talk about that. Now I know that I am speaking as if I have already proven the existence of God to you, and... I have other videos about proving the existence of God and you can consult those if you want too, but lets talk about the Bible and how it itself is proof of God.

(Shawn 2:08) "Now, lets just go with the hypothetical that God is real and he wants us to worship him and know him. Just looking at the very texts that we use today [that] are all around the world for the various Gods we have such as Hinduism, Buddhism, the Koran for Islam, the Bible for the Christians and the Torah for the Jews. There are other lesser scriptures but it seems to me if God is really concerned with human affairs, then he would want us all to have his word. The Bible is not only the most printed book in the history of mankind, it is also the one book that has been translated into the most languages. So just by the sheer numbers and the sheer amount of people that have the Bible in their hands it seems God has been using that book uniquely more than any other book. That alone should point you in the Direction, if there is a God, that's an if, although I've proved it in other videos but if there is a book that God is circulating for us to know his will for us it seems the Bible is the one."

(Shawn 3:04) "Now lets talk about the contents of the Bible and why we would be able to open it up and say "Hmm, there's no way a man could have wrote that." And that is exactly what we would expect if God indeed wrote that book right? And, of course, I have already said it's not just one book, it's many books. God wouldn't exactly make us just rely on what one person said and I'm not even asking you to rely on what I said, pick up the Bible and look for it yourself I am not making up stuff. The greatest miracle and the greatest proof in the Bible's favor is actually Jesus Christ himself and the spreading of the gospel message. Yes the Bible is reaching every nation in the world, and the amazing thing is the prophecies given by the old prophets of the Torah of Israel, they all said the messiah to come would bring the entire world into the knowledge of the God of Israel.

(Shawn 3:51) "Jesus is no doubt the single vessel in which this has become a reality, now there is a timeline given by the prophets before Jesus was born and if you don't believe these texts were written before Jesus was born look to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, they were discovered in 1948 or 1947, and they have all of the Old Testament books in them. These old testament books contain the prophecies of the messiah to come and they were written before Jesus came. They said the messiah would come, die and then the temple would be destroyed. This messiah had to bring the whole world into the knowledge of Israel before his death and before the destruction of the second temple in 70 A.D. which happened right after Jesus died.

(Shawn 4:31) "So either Jesus is the messiah or there is none and every evidence in all reality points to the fact that he is because look at the whole world, it knows now the God of Israel. All the gentiles of the world now worship the God of Israel, who was simply the God of the Israelites until Jesus was known. So, imagine then, I mean if you're being completely skeptical here and your saying you still don't believe it. Basically here is what you believe, you believe that a book was written about a fictitious God who gave a timeline of when someone would come along, born in Bethlehem, born of a virgin, give great miracles, die, be resurrected from the dead, people actually believe in him, spread the message to the whole world. You believe that was to happen, given the exact timeline that you've given, because you believe this was fictionally written by some fallible men. So this fictional God that just someone made up, came up with all that stuff and then it came to pass.

(Shawn 5:20) "I mean, what are the odds of that? Why don't you try it? Go ahead and try it. Write about some fictional messiah, and then some people actually have to meet him, believe in him, then spread the message to the whole world and the whole world has to believe it and then on top of that, you have to have people like me who are of Jewish background come to the realization and recognition of this messiah who was then foretold in your scriptures above all else when I actually pray to this God he actually answers me. So uhh.. yeah you've got a heavy task at hand.

(Shawn 5:47) "What's even more incredible than that simply ludicrous hypothetical that the Bible could have been just made up and happened to fulfill all the prophecies that it made about itself. If you look at Isaiah 49 it talks about the redeemer of Israel coming and being a light to the Gentiles and being abhorred by the nation of Israel. So, tell me, what are the chances of this? You have this holy text, which the Israelites, which are the Jews, they believe... they believe every word of it. Within their own text it says that they would abhor the redeemer to come and that the whole Gentile world would receive the messiah, the redeemer, and then at the same time they would still continue to reject him even though he has fulfilled their own prophecies. Do you see how incredible that is?

(Shawn 6:30) "And then on top of that you have the Muslims which are a fulfillment of prophecy as well. For you see, Jesus said, and all throughout scripture we see, that the anti-Christ, who is anyone who rejects that Jesus is the messiah and the son of God, would come in to seed the whole world. We all know that the Muslims, or Islam is a very progressive religion. It is spreading. Jesus said that the deception of the anti-Christ would be over the whole world and I have said in an earlier video that Muslims are very proud that their religion is growing so fast and it just is a fulfillment of what Jesus said that the anti-Christ would come, and that the deception would be over the whole world.

(Shawn 7:05) "Now, lets do another hypothetical. What are the chances of a fictional religion coming up with a messiah figure who would come, be foretold to be rejected by the very believers of the messiah, then be accepted by the whole world and then, right after that, a anti-Christ or an anti-Messiah like figure would come and then have the whole world reject this messiah. I mean, it's just layer upon layer upon layer and all of them are coming to pass. Now if you believe that's just a blind chance or coincidence, umm, that's ridiculous."

(Shawn 7:38) "So, lets just do a recap of everything we talked about. In fact were going to do a little bit of history of the Bible. Let's start back from the very beginning when God revealed himself. So God, Yahweh, "I Am" revealed himself to Moses... he gave his ten commandments and started giving prophecies about the redeemer to come. So, all throughout scripture we can look at Isaiah, who spoke I think more than any other of the prophets of the messiah to come.

(Shawn 8:05) "If you look at Isaiah 7:14 it talks about the virgin birth. If you look at Isaiah 9:6 it talks about how this child would be called God. If you go to Isaiah 53 it talks about how the messiah would suffer and die for our sins. If you look at Isaiah 49 it talks about how this redeemer would come and be rejected and abhorred by the nation but be a light to the Gentiles.

(Shawn 8:23) "So, here we have this, I'm looking at it from an atheistic point of view, I'm trying to, you know, help you guys out here. Basically you believe that these Israelites made up their religion and... made up this savior figure who then, did come, or you say they made [him] up as well, this Jesus of Nazareth who is documented in history but lets say, for the sake of argument that he is made up. Okay so, he comes in fiction. So people start writing stories about this messiah who then fulfilled prophecies from an Atheist point of view.

(Shawn 8:52) "So, people then accept it and say "Yeah, okay, he fulfilled scriptures" and then there is the people of the old faith who then reject this messiah according to prophecy, or according to what their fictional story said. ...Then, this new fictional story about Jesus says within it's scripture that then there would come a point where someone else would come and then have all of the world reject this new belief. So then Islam comes around, and you have them fulfilling exactly what these other fictional writers are saying about the anti-Christ.

(Shawn 9:23) "So, it seems to me that... this is not just a coincidence after coincidence after coincidence. This is simply the greatest hoax or the greatest... what's the word I am looking for... Basically I don't even think there is a word for it, it's so astronomically impossible that I simply cannot believe that ... there's any other explanation than the Bible is true. There's just nothing, I mean, come on, let's be serious.

(Shawn 9:49) "How can you possibly believe that all of that, I mean, and that's just scratching the surface. The Bible's a real thick book and every prophecy in it has come true except the ones that are about the last days which are coming true now. So, if you still want to maintain... a Naturalistic world-view and believe the Bible is just written by man you're giving a lot for men, to men, for coming up with such an ingenious story and having it all fulfilled. So, if you're still an Atheist or you're still completely skeptical check out my other videos and just really ask yourself, how can everything I just mentioned be possible if there is no God if what is being written is simply fictional. It transcends any fictional writing in the history of mankind."

This video has been typed out so others can view Shawn's argument in the written form, allowing for further research into the subject.

Be sure to visit Shawn's other works at: http://www.youtube.com/user/VenomFangX

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:
3 Reasons Christians Don't Need Scientific "Proof" of God
Science Assumes the Natural, Therefore Concludes the Natural
Analyzing: Christian Bill O'Reilly vs Atheist Richard Dawkins
Naturalists Use Faith to Argue Against God and Creationism
Jesus Christ's Sacrifice as the Ultimate Act of Love

Six Things Expelled Critics Don't Want You to Know

2008-04-19T01:03:00.020-04:00

After just leaving the theatres to review Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed I carried with me a sense of relief. The fearful expectation going into the film was that it might hold gaping flaws and little perspective from the opposing viewpoint. Despite what critics are saying, however, some of the biggest names in the film were Darwinists and it did quite a good job gaining perspectives from scientists of different religious, non-religious and historical backgrounds when establishing its arguments.

I will, for the sake of balance take from one of the most popular posted criticism of the film Expelled 6 Things in Expelled that Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know and make simple counter-points.

1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.

"When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly...

...The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book...

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."

Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes."

Response:
This accusation is representing the context of the film Expelled incorrectly. The film does not make a blatant obvious attempt to connect Darwin's personal philosophy to the holocaust nor does it attempt to establish causation such as "If one believes Darwinian theory, then they will become Nazi's". In fact, it mentions two times explicitly in the movie that "It is true if someone embraces Darwinism it does not imply they will become like the Nazi's"

The context of this quote is illustrating that destroying the weak in society can and has historically become a logical deduction for someone who embraces survival of the fittest to its full extent. The quote establishes that Darwin foresaw this as a possibility. The fact that Darwin's next quote strongly discourages anyone from doing so is irrelevant, because if man came from mud then why ought someone even listen to Darwin's attempt to discourage murdering the weak?

The reality is if there is no moral law or no God then Hitler's perception of Darwinian evolution and eugenics (the murdering of the lame and genetically "less superior") is a completely reasonable conclusion to draw for a society to remove them as a burden. This quote, within the context it was illustrated in the movie, illustrates that even Darwin saw the logical deduction that could take place. This is not a flaw in the film.

2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.

"public venues in support of ID and against "big science." But if he has, the producers did not include one. The speech shown at the beginning and end was staged solely for the sake of the movie. Michael Shermer learned as much by speaking to officials at Pepperdine University, where those scenes were filmed. Only a few of the audience members were students; most were extras brought in by the producers. Judge the ovation Ben Stein receives accordingly.

Response:
Of course it was staged. There is an artistic principle professionals in the film industry like to call symbolism. The reality is not a full speech was even given. If you look at how it was filmed in context the entire speech in the auditorium is a symbolic backdrop to establish a target audience. He begins by opening the ideas in a college campus auditorium establishing two very important points:

1) This speech (or symbolic of the film itself) is intended for students who have a genuine interest in Science and participate in college academia.

2) The war between intelligent design and evolutionary theory is taking place on the grounds of academia.

In the closing commencement it symbolizes a hope for the future, such that the audience themselves embrace the truth's of scientific inquiry, and when the 'walls' separating intelligent design inquiry from evolutionary inquiry come crumbling down, it will be a glorious day for academia.

The speech, as a portion of the film was clearly not intended to make any direct points other than to establish a target audience and symbolize a possible transformation for the future. This also, is not a flaw in the film and actually was beautifully artistically executed.

3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.

"As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit."

Response:
This is completely and utterly irrelevant. The questions these gentleman were asked were not deep nor should have been unexpected. Richard Dawkin's crumbles under a question regarding the 'probability' of his disbelief in God and his take on the origins of man. For a gentleman who wrote an entire book on how God is a delusion these questions shouldn't even break him a sweat. He then theorizes a possibility of an intelligent design, but that intelligent design couldn't possibly be a God, it must be something of higher intelligence, such as an alien race. Another scientists even suggests the absurd notion of life beginning on the back of crystals.

As for the other scientists who were asked questions, you find in documentaries that people have a much better propensity to be honest when they are comfortable answering questions. Explaining the exact context of the film would further encourage them to simply fall under scripted answers instead of giving genuine ones on the spot. This is a strategy used by many who create documentaries and for good reason.

I would, for sake of argument, accept it was unreasonable for them to "mis-represent" the purpose of the film if the questions Ben Stein had asked were actually difficult ones, but they were not. Instead, these gentlemen used their opportunity in the film to call intelligent design "idiotic" and "preposterous" (even though Dawkin's then later suggests an intelligent designer that may be aliens). Of course, now that they know what the film was about they want to take back their statements. If they didn't mean what they had said, then they simply wouldn't have said it, no matter what the title or purpose of the film was.

This is not a flaw in the film, in fact, it is a strength. It reveals genuine perspectives from some of the most world renowned Darwinian scientists.

4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.

"One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment...

...Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg's decision to "peer-review" and approve Meyer's paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it...

...The report prepared by Rep. Souder, who had previously expressed pro-ID views, was never officially accepted into the Congressional Record. Notwithstanding the report's conclusions, its appendix contains copies of e-mails and other documents in which Sternberg's superiors and others specifically argued against penalizing him for his ID views. (More detailed descriptions of the Sternberg case can be found on Ed Brayton's blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars and on Wikipedia.)"

Response:
It is true that the Sternberg case is controversial - it doesn't change the reality that there are evidences of this controversy on both sides of the spectrum. The reality is many sites have sprang up offering conjecture regarding the scientists who came forth in "Expelled" in an attempt to state, "What really happened was such-and-such" or "He didn't get tenure because of this-or-that".

The reason this is interesting is because the minute a film is released (or weeks before) suggesting intelligent design as a possibility, a machine has begun its work to instantly discredit it as propaganda. These sites aim to establish that the film, the people who partook in it and those of whom it discusses lack credibility (or they were victims in the case of the pro-Darwinists).

Ironically, in the act of blatantly attempting to discredit or victimize the scientists, filmmakers and participants in the film, they only further illustrate the point of the movie that any opposing viewpoint will be publicly discredited and squandered.

There is another big flaw in this argument. Discrediting the "accuracy" of the film does not explain why thousands of other scientists not in the film have discredited the ideas of Darwinian theory as a reasonable explanation to the origin of species.

"The reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposals were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous." - Embryologist Soren Lovtrup

"But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing..." - Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Darwinism is claiming that all adaptive structures in nature, all the organisms which have existed throughout history were generated by the accumulation of entirely undirected mutations. That is an entirely unsubstantiated belief for which there is not the slightest evidence whatsoever." (emphasis added) - Molecular biologist Michael Denton

"About 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at a Macroevolution Conference in Chicago to consider the question, "Are mutation and natural selection enough?" Evolutionist Roger Lewin sums up the conclusion of the conference:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying micro evolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro evolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Ray Comfort, How to Know God Exists, 2007)

Michael Ruse, a preeminent evolutionist wrote in New Scientist:

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists... argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all... many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."

"Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., has compiled a list of almost 3,000 scientists and professors who reject evolution, most of whom hold Ph.D.s in science. He believes, given the time and resources, he could easily complete a list of 10,000 names."(Ray Comfort, How to Know God Exists, 2007)

These are only a few of a long list. The reality is many of the premises and 'critiques' put forth to discredit and backlash the scientists in the film are an attempt to try and illustrate they are part of some conspiracy to teach 'creationism' in schools or are part of some 'intelligent design' propaganda machine. As one can see above, however, there are thousands of scientists who look at evolution as an inadequate scientific explanation of the origin of man.

5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.

"Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are just described as having an atheistic preference.

Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated.

By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."

A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science.

Response:
This argument is a scripted and often repeated response to individuals who attempt to explain away intelligent design because it violates the purpose of science and doesn't hold any 'validity'. The reality is evidences do indeed exist to illustrate that simple chance based methods for the origins of the species are probabilistically impossible. There still is no evidence that explains how information can be gained through mutations, and any basic engineer will tell you complex systems cannot simply come into existence by sheer chance.

The idea that a system as complex as the human cell was formulated by natural selection is completely and utterly un-scientific. There is no scientific basis for a claim of something with such complex design coming into existence without there first being a designer. Even more-so, when one looks at the design of the cell they find it is far more complex than any system ever engineered by the human mind. To suggest such a complex system came into existence without some form of intelligent intercessor is a claim with no scientific basis.

On the other hand, it can be clearly demonstrated that complex systems can be assembled by an intelligent designer. This, in fact, can be recreated in a lab, hypothesized and tested.

The argument then makes this statement: "By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. "

The nature of the designer is irrelevant, what is clearly evident (and can be demonstrated) is the designer must have been more intelligent than what is designed. As many know, any computer system or artificial intelligence system is only as efficient or intelligent as the one or ones creating the system. The real question science tries to answer is how the designer actually designed it, not the nature of the designer itself, that task is often better left with philosophers and meta-physicists.

6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.

"...Nevertheless, the film is wrong to imply that understanding of evolution inevitably or necessarily leads to a rejection of religious belief. Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, a leading neuroscientist who used to be a Dominican priest, continues to be a devout Catholic, as does the evolutionary biologist Ken Miller of Brown University. Thousands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true are also still religious. Moreover, billions of other people around the world simultaneously accept evolution and keep faith with their religion. The late Pope John Paul II said that evolution was compatible with Roman Catholicism as an explanation for mankind's physical origins..."

Response:
This argument also mis-represents the context of the film that there is a direct causation link between evolutionary theory and Atheism. It actually illustrates that some individuals have lost their belief in God because of the theory of evolution. It does not, however, attempt to prove a causation - such that if someone believes in evolution they must not believe in God.

It is illustrative that the theory of the origin of man as an evolution based argument can lead to the potential loss of belief in God. It is the same idea that individuals begin to demand natural explanations to everything because scientifically no supernatural intercessor can be allowed to intervene. The fact that individuals in the film openly admitted their belief in evolutionary theory led them to dis-believe in God is enough to illustrate the possibility of it occurring to others. This was the point the film was driving, and it is hardly a flaw in the film.

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:
Analyzing: Christian Bill O'Reilly vs Atheist Richard Dawkins
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed vs Evolution
3 Reasons Christians Don't Need Scientific "Proof" of God
Science Assumes the Natural, Therefore Concludes the Natural
Naturalists Use Faith to Argue Against God and Creationism

Jesus Christ's Sacrifice as the Ultimate Act of Love

2008-04-18T19:01:00.007-04:00

Many have probably given some thought to Jesus Christ's commandment to "love your neighbor as you love yourself". When looked at in detail, this is a profound and almost impossible commandment to live up too - Jesus Christ's sacrifice illustrated this love in it's purest form.

Each and every one of us has a tendancy to live our entire lives providing for ourselves, giving ourselves food and clothing, treating ourselves to nights on the town. The commandment Jesus gives us is not an easy one, nor does it appear it was meant to be. It is quite interesting to think about this in further detail. If we are to love others as we love ourselves it means that we are to put them at the place of highest importance because we give ourselves that very same treatment.

Jesus Christ was the perfect example of this, after all, his sacrifice for the atonement of sin was the ultimate act of selflessness and love. Dying for the world illustrated that Jesus Christ was acting as he had preached - he did for us what he expects us to do for others.

The sacrifice made by Jesus and his commandment to love others as we love ourselves is often one of the most difficult issues I struggle with as a Christian. It is very difficult to put others at a higher importance than ourselves, and the few times one does succeed, it is a tremendously wonderful feeling. I, like any other Christian, contantly fail to live up to such a standard.

The standard exists none-the-less, and Jesus Christ's Sacrifice really puts into perspective to us that the small sacrifices we make to put ourselves into the position of others is really not as difficult as it must have been for Christ himself.

It is important to remember that loving others as we love ourselves is not a justification for ignoring when those who we love are putting themselves in harms way. Many times confronting individuals humbly, compassionately and with fear and reverance is the sacrifice necessary to show that we truly love them. It is painful, yes, but we would hope those that we love would do the same to bring us out of harming ourselves.

Let us also not forget that Jesus Christ's first and foremost commandment was to "Love the lord your God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul." (Matthew 22:37 - 40)

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:
When the Christian Heart Fails in Sinful Temptation
When the Christian Heart Fails to Love the World
The Beautiful Fear of God
The Blessing When God Seems Distant
The Mind Cannot Change The Heart

Analyzing: Christian Bill O'Reilly vs Atheist Richard Dawkins

2008-04-17T14:24:00.022-04:00

If individuals have not had a chance to view the short debate between Atheist Richard Dawkins and Christian Bill O'Reilly between belief or simple dis-belief they can view it here. There are some interesting conclusions one can draw from the short discussion these two individuals had.

Bill O'Reilly held his own in this discussion with who is known as one of the biggest names in atheism Richard Dawkins. In fact, both did quite well. It is important to take a closer look into this discussion as it went by quicker than the average person could possibly absorb and it is a huge issue that merits far more than only five minutes of air time.

(0:41 O'Reilly) "I think it takes more faith to be like you an Atheist than like me a believer and its because of nature. You know, I just don't think we could have lucked out to have the tides come in, the tides come out, the sun go up, the sun go down... Don't think it could have happened."

(0:54 Dawkins) "We have a very full understanding of why the "tides go in, the tides go out", about why the continents drift about, of why life is there. Science is evermore piling on the evidence, piling on the understanding."

Commentary: O'Reilly's point here is not clear - he does clarify it after Dawkins responds. It appears that O'Reilly takes the position that sheer 'chance' as the creator and designer of man is unlikely - but he parallels it with an awkward illustration of tides and the sun, leaving him at a position of needing to correct himself when Dawkins illustrates that we clearly understand why tides go in and tides go out. While it is true that science is piling on information and understanding, his response was to a poorly executed argument made by O'Reilly.

(1:07 O'Reilly) "But how did it get there? I understand... the physiology of it if you will... but it had to come from somewhere and that is the leap of faith you guys make, that it just happened.

(1:21 Dawkins) "Well, a leap of faith, you don't actually need a leap of faith, you're the one who needs a leap of faith because ... the [requirement] is on you to say why you believe in something. There is an infinite number of Gods you could believe in. I take it you don't believe in Zeus or Apollo or Thor, you believe in presumably the Christian God, Jesus."

Commentary: O'Reilly's position here is now clarified. What he is suggesting is that it doesn't quite make much sense as to how intelligence and all the beauty of nature could have come into existence by sheer chance. Everything appears to have a designer behind it, and suggesting that the universe, as complex as it is, just simply came to be is not a convincing argument. He then posits that Dawkin's must have much larger faith to believe that the sophistication of the world came by sheer chance than by a designer. Now this point does hold logically and evidently true, after all, any engineer or software designer will tell you design and sophisticated systems cannot just simply come into existence without some form of intelligent intercessor there to formulate and establish the necessary coherence to make it function. There has yet to be any evidence of an intelligent system simply being established from sheer chance, it goes against the first two laws of thermodynamics to suggest as such.

Dawkin's response here suggests that O'Reilly requires proof of the existence of God to establish what he believes in. This is an uninformed argument, as Christianity possesses one of the most powerful backgrounds of legal-historical proof of all the faiths in existence. Suggesting there are not evidences of both the existence of Christ and his miracles is simply an irresponsible statement to make and it illustrates Dawkin's lack of historical understanding of the Christian faith.

(1:40 O'Reilly) "Jesus was a real guy, I could see him. You know I know what he did and so I am not positive that Jesus is God but I'm throwing in with Jesus rather than throwing in with you guys because you guys can't tell me how it all got here. You guys don't know."

(1:54 Dawkins) "We're working on it physicists are..."

(1:56 O'Reilly) "Well when you get it then maybe I'll listen"

(1:57 Dawkins) "Yes well, I mean if you look at the history of science over the centuries, the amount that's gained in knowledge each century is stupendous. In the beginning of the 21st century we don't know everything, we have to be humble, we have to in humility say that there is a lot we still don't know."

(2:12 O'Reilly) "You know, being humble is a Christian virtue."

(2:15 Dawkins) "Well, I suppose it is."

(2:17 O'Reilly) "Alright, when you guys figure it out come back here and tell me because until that time I'm sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy and my religion of Roman Catholicism because it helps me as a person."

Commentary: This is one of the most revealing portions of the discussion between the two gentlemen. Dawkins had stated above "..you don't actually need a leap of faith, you're the one who needs a leap of faith because ... the [requirement] is on you to say why you believe in something. There is an infinite number of Gods you could believe in." As one can see, Dawkin's contradicted himself - on one hand he is saying that Christians must provide the evidences necessary to establish the validity of their faith in what they believe, on the other hand when confronted with the reality that science cannot answer such a profound question of the origins of the universe his response is simply "We are working on it." Well, if it is being worked on then until the evidences are found, belief in the idea of intelligent systems coming into existence by sheer chance without the evidences necessary to establish how it occurred requires a leap of faith.

Dawkins cannot in one hand demand that Christians provide evidences for what they believe in and on the other dodge the reality that science lacks the evidences necessary to defend what he believes in. Using his test of the validity of faith, his own standing on the origins of the universe requires just as much of a leap of faith as any other. Actually, given the strength of the legal-historical evidences of the Christian faith as well as the lack of any intelligent systems spawning from non-intelligence by sheer chance, it possibly requires more faith to believe Dawkin's position than the Christians.

(2:29 Dawkins) "Now that's different, if it helps you as a person that doesn't mean it's true."

(2:31 O'Reilly) "Well it's true for me, see I believe it."

(2:33 Dawkins) "You mean true for you is different from true for anyone else. How can something be true for you, something has either got to be true or not.

(2:40 O'Reilly) "No no, I can't prove to you that Jesus is God so that truth is mine and mine alone, but you can't prove to me that Jesus is not. So you have to stay in your little belief system."

(2:50 Dawkins) "You cannot prove that Zeus is not, you cannot prove that Apollo is not -"

Commentary: This was one of the most disappointing positions O'Reilly took in this entire debate. Dawkin's holds a much more valid argument, if truth is absolute then it must hold true to all people not just the individual. It is likely that O'Reilly simply wasn't prepared for this type of debate and intermixed an argument of 'perspectives' of truths with 'absolute' truths. When dealing with perspectives O'Reilly makes the point that he will likely not be able to convince Dawkin's that his position is correct - but convincing someone of the truth and the existence of absolute truth are two different things entirely.

The reality is that if O'Reilly embraces the Christian faith he must embrace that it is the absolute truth and that Jesus Christ is God. If Jesus Christ is really God then it cannot be true to only O'Reilly, it must be a universal truth that applies to all men. Truth cannot be relative, it must be absolute - and this is a position one ought to agree with Dawkin's on.

Dawkins again, however, discusses that there is no difference between the 'evidences' of Zeus and Jesus. This is a blatantly irresponsible argument - the legal-historical evidences of the existence of Christ and his works are so well documented that they hold more validity than many other historical documents. In fact, the New Testament was even used as an accurate historical perspective when looking into the History of the Roman Empire and many other A.D. historical documents. Archeologists use it as one of the primary tools in referencing historical contexts as well. Christianity is not a faith based upon no "evidences" and it possess quite a strong foothold in both philosophical and historical contexts.

(2:54 O'Reilly) "I saw Apollo man, and he was down there and he was not looking good. Now, we also differ in the sense that you feel that religion has been a bane... to civilization and I feel atheism has. I will point to the worst mass murderer in... modern times: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Palpot, all confirmed atheists. All people who wanted to wipe out religion. Now I know you can point to the crusades and you can point to Al'qaeda right now. I mean it's there, theres no question but I say, I'm throwing in with the founding fathers of the United States [who] saw religion and spirituality as a moderating influence, as a good thing if people embrace the true tenants"

(3:35 Dawkins) "The Founding Fathers of the United States were secularists above all, some of them were religious, some of them were not but they were above all secularists who believed in keeping church and state separate."

(3:44 O'Reilly) "They had too because of the oppression in Europe."

(3:45 Dawkins) "... Precisely, I mean but - "

(3:48 O'Reilly) "Almost all of them, they all said a prayer before their deliberations. In their letters, and I have almost all their letters they all reference the Deity, our declaration of Independence references heavily but they saw it as a moderating influence because the federal government at that point couldn't control the country - "

(4:04 Dawkins) "Yeah."

Commentary: An interesting bias shows from both gentlemen during these few statements. It is clear that both want to illustrate that the founding fathers were bias in one direction or another so it can verify the position they are going to take on what they really intended for society. What one may find interesting is that the founding fathers consisted of both secularists and believers - but what O'Reilly says here is indeed true, that the majority of them did hold a belief in a Diety of some form or another.

However, the perspectives of the founding fathers is a debate that has transcended and existed since they found the United States - and it is a debate that will likely continue. It would have been more interesting to see the debate continue in the actual discussion of belief as opposed to disbelief in God.

The purpose of O'Reilly bringing up the position of the founding fathers was to illustrate the importance of religion in society and that the founding fathers agreed with him on this issue. He is taking a critical view to Dawkin's perspective that religion has been more of a hindrance on society than a benefit. As as honest opinion, the idea of all religion being harmful and detrimental to society both historically and modernly is not only a ridiculous notion, but one that barely even merits acknowledgment. The amount of lives transformed for the better through faith in Jesus Christ alone are astounding - to suggest religion as a whole is detrimental is an irresponsible and uninformed position to take.

(4:04 O'Reilly) "- and they said you know if people follow Jesus, then the country is gonna be better."

(4:09 Dawkins) "It may well be a moderating influence, as for Hitler and Stalin I mean, of course. Hiter by the way was a Roman Catholic."

(4:15 O'Reilly) "No he never was, he was raised in that home, but he rejected it early on."

Commentary: Hitler a Roman Catholic? It would do Dawkins some good to read a history book or at least obtain a basic understanding of the requirements to be a Catholic and a Christian. One could be raised "Catholic" and never ever practice the faith, go to Church or accept the truths of Christ - does that mean they are a Catholic or Christian? Not by the definition of course. If people are considered Christians by association and not by their practicing of the Christian faith or their actual proclamation that they believe in the lord Jesus Christ then one could pretty much label anyone, including Dawkins, a Christian if they so much as had a conversation or some other association with one.

(4:18 Dawkins) "We can dispute that.. Stalin was an atheist, no question... but, Stalin did the bad things that he did not because he was an atheist. I mean, Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.

Commentary: Comparing mustaches to a philosophy that drives a moral framework is both irresponsible and reflective of Dawkin's lack of understanding of how philosophy, morality and ethics correlate. O'Reilly also did a poor job with his illustration that Hitler and Mao were both atheists. The reason this is important is because the atrocities that were performed by Hitler and Mao can be 'justified' because they were atheists. If there is no absolute judge of right and wrong then the deeds Hitler and Mao committed can be morally justified. One cannot tell them they were being evil if there is no absolute good that they had violated.

However, contrast that with the 'Crusades'. Those who had committed the atrocities under the banner of Christianity did so violating the very laws and moral rules set forth by Jesus Christ. Through atheism, genocide can be justified because each person can establish their own laws of moral right and wrong, it needs only be justified by the person committing the acts - through belief in a God, right and wrong must first be established by God and the acts performed by individuals must be judged by God's standard. As a result, the Crusades were horrid, yes, but they were acted out against the laws of Jesus Christ. The holocaust, however, if there is no God and no absolute right and wrong can be justified because Hitler believed it to be justified.

Dawkins then makes the statement that Hitler and his kin were evil. Well, if they were evil then they must have violated some form of absolute good. If they violated some form of absolute good then a law of good and evil must exist. If a law of good and evil must exist then there must be a governor of that law, it cannot simply come from nowhere. If there is a governer of that law then as the moral lawgiver and ultimate judge of right and wrong said judge must take the form of God - of whom Dawkin's adamantly disbelieves in.

(4:30 O'Reilly) "I don't think they had any moral foundation, any of those guys -"

(4:33 Dawkins) "I don't either."

(4:34 O'Reilly) "I will say, your book is fascinating and congratulations on your success and thanks for coming in here."

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:
3 Reasons Christians Don't Need Scientific "Proof" of God
Science Assumes the Natural, Therefore Concludes the Natural
In 1943, Former Atheist Illustrates the Moral Law
How Can God Exist When There is Evil?
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed vs Evolution
Oprah's New Age Religion Contradicts Christianity
Bill Cosby's Philosophy Transcends Race and Gender

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed vs Evolution

2008-04-17T07:39:00.020-04:00

If individuals haven't been paying attention the past few weeks they will have missed an important event that is to take place on April 18th, 2008. The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein regarding the suppression of anti-evolution theory in the world of academia will debut in 1000 theatres nation-wide. If you haven't had a chance to see the trailer you can view it here:

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed aims to take a critical look at the
consensus of the scientific community regarding the theory of evolution. The primary focus on the particular issue of scientists discrediting fellow scientists both professionally and politically if their own theories fall contrary to the theory of evolution.

Our generation lives in an information hungry time, and the fear by many who believe in the theory of evolution is that their theory might be mis-characterized or mis-labeled through a film such as Expelled.

Never-the-less, this film has created a buzz for those who have adamantly looked into the theory of evolution and have found many scientists disagree that the theory any longer holds true as a verified theory. The idea that a 'consensus' exists is far from the truth as it is represented so very often in open forum discussions on college campuses.

Abound on the Internet it has already been labeled 'propaganda' by evolution advocates. It is interesting to see how many individuals become defensive over something as simple as a video 'debunking' evolutionary theory. It is, perhaps, because many individuals rely on this theory for their own personal philosophies of life that bring them to such anger and hatred towards an opposing viewpoint.

Scientists at one point were open to the ideas espoused by opposing viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous and blatantly incorrect their assertions may be. For some reason, however, they find with this particular subject the need to censor fellow academics and keep particular papers from being published that suggest the contrary.

If evolutionary theory is the truth many have advocated over these past years, then the evidences ought to speak for themselves. Could it be that the evolutionary theory does not have the foothold those who have embraced it originally thought? Those who have looked into it extensively have found the theory to have basic fundamental scientific flaws - let those flaws speak for themselves. In the meantime, it is up to science to find the evidences necessary to defend it's position from criticism, not suppress it as illustrated in Expelled - and this is how it has always been.

Craig Chamberlin

Oprah's New Age Religion Contradicts Christianity

2008-04-16T07:47:00.008-04:00

If individuals have missed the recent YouTube video portraying Oprah discussing her ideas of the New Age religion you can view it here. There are some interesting points that she makes that ought to be discussed in more detail that contradict Christianity, and one ought to remember to address these points respectfully.

(Oprah: 1:00) "One of the mistakes that human beings make is that there is only one way to live, and that we don't accept that there are diverse ways of being in the world and there are millions of ways to be a human being and many paths to what you call God. That her path might be something else and when she gets there she might call it the light."

There is truth to the initial portion of Oprah's statement. Christians today do indeed struggle with acceptance of other's viewpoints, but it does not necessarily imply that their viewpoint is incorrect. Two different issues are at hand here, how does one balance what they believe to be true with the reality that it implies others do not hold that same truth? It is doubtful that Oprah doesn't believe what she is discussing is truth as well, and if someone approached her new age religious perspective with the idea that there was only one way to heaven then she would undoubtedly struggle to accept their viewpoint just as Christians struggle with the same issues when someone else approaches them with 'another way' to God.

Oprah is trying to be open-minded with her new age perspective about all religions and opening all paths but in doing so at the same time she cannot be open minded to those who hold the belief that there are not multiple paths to God. One cannot have their cake and eat it too, if she embraces the idea that there are multiple paths then she must argue those who believe there are not are incorrect, and the minute she does as such she is no longer open-minded of all viewpoints. For if the God she suggests exist, then that God would undoubtedly punish those who defy the reality that he designed within his plan multiple paths that lead to himself. Those who hold the only one way viewpoint, therefore, will not be looked upon as favorable to the God she suggests exists.

(Oprah: 1:12)"But her loving and her kindness and her generosity if it brings her to the same point that it brings you it doesn't matter if she called it God along the way or not."

It would be interested to know exactly what is meant by bringing individuals to 'the same point'. There is, however, a firm difference between doing the will of God and doing ones own will. Oprah's new age illustration is that the path to salvation and acceptance with God is through 'good works' and in being kind, generous and virtuous they will find favor with God when they stand before him.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " (John 3:16)

"I am the way, the truth and the life, no one can get to the father except through me." (John 14:6)

There are some definite contradictions in the Biblical context in regards to the ideas Oprah is suggesting. While at the same time attesting to the belief in Christianity she wishes to embrace other religions as being another way to God. There is, however, a dilemma, as the Bible illustrates that salvation is not a result of good works, but good works are an inevitable result of salvation. In other words, belief in Christ comes first to obtain salvation, and through that salvation and communion with Christ the individual can find God's purpose in their lives and live their life through God's will - these are the good works that follow belief in Christ.

Good works, in this respect, are an after-effect of salvation, and they are only 'good works' if they fall under the banner of God's purpose in the individual's life. It is not implied in the Bible that good works lead to God, it is that Jesus Christ leads to God, and the result of believing in him is 'good works', which are defined as God's will instead of our own will. We can't, however, do God's will without a relationship with him through his son Jesus Christ.

(Kelly: 2:52) "[The recommended reading by Oprah] really opened my eyes to new way of thinking, a new form of spirituality that doesn't always align with the teachings of Christianity, so my question is to you Oprah, how do you reconcile these spiritual teachings with your Christian beliefs."

This is an excellent question towards her new age perspective, it positions Oprah to defend the contradiction even I addressed above, it asks how Oprah can be a Christian while at the same time believing in something contradictory to Christian beliefs.

(Oprah: 3:10) "I reconcile them because I was able to open my mind about the absolute indescribable hugeness of that which we call God. I took God out of the box because I grew up in a baptist church where there were rules and belief systems and doctrines. I happen to be sitting in church in my late twenties... this great minister was preaching about how great God was and how omniscient and omnipresent and God is everything and then he said the Lord thy God is a jealous God and I was caught up in the rapture of that moment until he said jealous and something struck me... I was thinking God is all, God is omnipresent and God is also jealous? God is jealous of me? Something about that didn't feel right in my spirit because I believe that God is love and God is in all things so that's when the search for something more than doctrine started to stir within me. I love this quote... "Man made God in his own image: eternal, infinite and unnameable was reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as my God or our God."

Oprah really didn't address the question, she actually dodged it. This might not have been intentional, many people probably realize that when asked a question on the spot it is not always easy to come up with a great answer to the question, I will, for her sake give her the benefit of the doubt.

There are some issues here though, primarily when she discusses the conflict in her spirit when she found God to be a jealous God. It is primarily important to note that within context this means that God is jealous of things we make into being God - or man made idols, he was not discussing when man worships "another omnipotent being". Jealousy, as the modern man interprets it in in a negative context - and Oprah may have been interpreting it in this way. For example, jealousy is often associated with insecurity. In the Biblical context, however, the jealousy that God holds is his intolerance of unfaithfulness or rivalry. When God says he is a jealous God he is stating he is intolerant of the unfaithful and of those who embrace their man made Gods. He must be, because as the only God and as the supreme judge he must judge based upon the truth that he is the only God. It would be unjust of him to let us worship man-made God's when there are those who worship the one true God.

Addressing the quote that she loved: "Man made God in his own image: eternal, infinite and unnameable was reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as my God or our God."

Man has made and often makes Gods in their own image, but every time God is transformed into an idol, whether it be blindly worshiping without a relationship or ritualistic beliefs it contradicts the Biblical idea that Christ wanted man to seek after truth.

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." (Matthew 7:7)

Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that individuals blindly follow the faith, nor does it encourage imbecility. In fact, Christ demands the complete opposite, he wants us to know God, to understand him, it was part of his purpose in becoming man so that he could communicate the beauty of God to mankind. This is quite possibly one of the most beautifully unique aspects of the Christian faith, in that it is encouraged by its creator to incessantly question it and put it into practice and the truths should hold no matter the circumstances, they may not always be clearly evident, but time often shows the truth as it is.

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:
Bill Cosby's Philosophy Transcends Race and Gender
Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value
Will "Good Men" Find Favor With God?
Modern Man has "Educated Himself into Imbecility"
Jesus Would Have Been Against Socialism

Will "Good Men" Find Favor With God?

2008-04-15T08:14:00.004-04:00

An often discussed issue is whether or not good men who perform great things or do great things in this world will find favor with God when they pass into the next life. It is a fearful and scary notion to believe those we perceive as being 'good men' will not find favor with God when they stand before him.

There is, however, a dilemma to this thought process. Often times what one man perceives as goodness is something that they simply find favorable about another individual. Many times one looks at someone as being a 'good person' when that person makes them feel good and also gives them the impression that they are helpful, kind and gentle people. One may, for example, think of another man as a good man because of the few times they encounter him he is kind, gentle and polite, but know very little of his actual thoughts and heart.

If a God exists, and he is the epitome of goodness, then if a man attempts to do good things how can the deeds of the man be good without reference to the very creator of goodness? In other words, if goodness can only come from God, then how ought an individual do good deeds if they never know God?

Individual deeds, in this respect, are separate from God - and what we may perceive as a 'good man' may not actually be 'good' in God's eyes. Jesus said something interesting in Matthew 7:20 - 23:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

What if, for the sake of this verse, there is no such thing as a 'good' deed and a 'bad' deed. What if there were only 'God' deeds and 'godless' deeds, the will of the father deeds and the will of ourselves deeds. When one looks at the frame of reference as to the motives of the deed and that is what will determine whether the deed merits acceptance by a God or not. For example, if I give $100.00 to charity, but not because God led me to do so, am I truly attempting to do God's will?

God has set into each and every persons heart a purpose and drives them to do great things in his name. We can either live our lives in communion with him, and do the things he leads us to do, or we can never know him and do what we want to do. God deeds, therefore, are deeds we perform because God leads us to perform them, and when we come before God he will have authorized them. Godless deeds are deeds we perform by our own perceptions of what is good, and we do them without giving glory to or fulfilling the purpose God intended in our lives.

A person can go through their entire lives doing 'good' deeds by only their own perceptions, and completely separated from God. In doing so, all of their good deeds were not led by God, and when they stand before him they may find themselves in terrible circumstances. On the other hand, as we are commanded to do God's will, if we embrace the Lord Jesus Christ, and allow him to take control of our lives, even the smallest of things if done in his name and for his glory will be pleasing to him.

As much as I always wanted to believe that 'good men' would find favor with God, I had come to the realization that 'goodness' can only come from God, and without a personal relationship with him, and without submitting our will to him, with every 'good' deed we attempt to perform apart from him brings us further from his will and deeper into our own. It can be a fearful and terrible notion to see that there is a rhyme and reason for Christ saying "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one can get to the father except through me." (John 14:6) Without a relationship with Jesus Christ, all of the "good deeds" we do are done in our name, not in Gods - therefore they are not "good" deeds, for they are deeds only meant to glorify our own will.

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:
Jesus Would Have Been Against Socialism
3 Reasons Christians Don't Need Scientific "Proof" of God
Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value
Truth is Artfully Etched in the Hearts of Mankind
The War Against the Evil One

Jesus Christ Would Have Been Against Socialism

2008-04-13T10:01:00.010-04:00

There have been some ideas around that Jesus Christ would have been adamant about enforcing socialism in government. "We should be," many have been arguing "compassionate and charitable to all people and promote equality in all that we do."

It is important to note that not all socialist programs existent in society today are necessarily a bad thing, but the primary idea discussed here is the complete embracement of socialism as a form of government.

While the statement above is both admirable and true, it does not accurately portray socialism. The structure of socialism is an attempt to regulate equality through the use of the government. In other words, it aims to demolish social injustices by enforcing social justice on the people within that society.

For this reason many advocates of a fully fledged socialist government are eager to enforce laws that, for example, force those who are with more revenue to give up a portion of their incomes to have it redistributed to those who "need it more". This is a classic Robin Hood type mentality, and although it sounds good when stated as a philosophy, the philosophy itself is both un-just and un-Christian.

Most who believe in Jesus will likely agree that those who are better off financially should aim to be more charitable. In fact, the Bible also suggests that all Christians should be charitable even if they are not well off by giving a portion of their earnings to God and God's works. Socialism, however, is equivalent to walking up to a fellow Christian and telling him "It is time for you to be charitable, therefore, hand over 25% of your income so that we can give it to those who need it more than you."

This undermines Jesus Christ's teachings that all men ought to be Charitable because it eliminates the individuals choice to be charitable. As a result, the individual who is 'forced' to be charitable instead becomes bitter because their choice to be charitable is taken from them and they cannot choose what to do with it themselves.

The idea that a government can change the hearts of people is the root behind socialism. This is, of course, a logical fallacy. It is equivalent to saying that rules established by a school will make good children out of students. The reality is that rules are put in place so that individuals can choose to follow them or not - eliminating that choice does not make a child any more moral just as eliminating the choice for individuals to be charitable does not make them more charitable.

Jesus Christ preached of both personal responsibility and societal responsibility. Christians are to love their neighbors as they love themselves, but they are to choose to love their neighbors as they love themselves, not be forced to do so. For this reason it makes sense that Jesus Christ paid little attention to the laws of the society of his time and instead emphasized on changing the hearts of people.

Jesus Christ had realized that changing the hearts of individuals will allow for the laws of the society to change themselves. A Christian nation is not one simply with Christian laws, but one with hearts that embrace the truths of Jesus Christ's teachings and live their lives according to it. As a result, the Christian nation, being of a majority following and believing in Jesus Christ will have laws that reflect those beliefs.

It is very unlikely, in fact, counter-intuitive to believe that Jesus Christ would have emphasized the government attempting to take control of the social injustices that exist within a society. Instead, it is likely Jesus Christ would have placed the responsibility on each individual to come to him so their hearts can be transformed, and after that transformation has taken place in the hearts of a society, their laws will reflect that transformation.

Jesus Christ has always started at the root of the problem, and that root is deep within the heart of each and every individual. Jesus Christ, as the master of the heart, can transform a sinful man to one who strives and desires to do good. Jesus Christ, then, offers himself as a means to be forgiven when the man fails, giving them an opportunity to pick themselves up and again strive and desire to still be good.

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:
Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value
How A Society Can Protect Children from Pornography
Society's Failure in Sexual Responsibility is Destroying Children
The Cancer of My Generation
Modern Man has "Educated Himself into Imbecility"

The War Against the Evil One

2008-04-12T19:38:00.010-04:00

Around each and every corner lurks that which will attempt to snare you into its grasp. There lies within this world a dark evil that resides in the hearts of each and every individual. This evil has a desire to consume the individual with its passions and bring them to their own self-destructions.

Satan is alive and well, and a wise man once said "The greatest accomplishment of Satan is his ability to convince the world he does not exist." The architecture of his plan is present in modern day and it easily witnessed too when one dares to look close enough.

That which Satan does best is corrupt good. C.S. Lewis discussed these ideas himself:

"...good should be original and evil a mere perversion; that good should be the tree and evil the ivy; that good should be able to see all round evil (as when sane man understand lunacy) while evil cannot retaliate in kind; that good should be able to exist on its own while evil requires the good on which it is parasitic in order to continue its parasitic existence."

- C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, 1994

Satan perverts that which God has created, and through that perversion it illustrates that all evil as the world knows it is a parasite of goodness. God created everything wonderful and beautiful and Satan's goal has always been to pervert that which God has made while at the same time hiding his existence from the world.

Fortunately, God has equipped his followers with the tools necessary to battle the temptations of Satan as he brings them into our lives. It is inevitable that each and every Christian will fail in temptations, but Christ's delivery from the consequences of sins gives the Christian the hope to further battle both his own desires to do evil and to battle the manifestations of evil in the world.

God also gave to the Christian his word. Like a double edged sword the word of God transcends and brings light to the deceptions raised by Satan. Satan has a way of being very convincing to the world until God's reflection is placed before it. Many individuals find that living by Satan's illusions is far more convincing than living by God's truths, but God's truths always have revolved around love, compassion, patience, peace, kindness and gentleness. These are illustrated further in Galatians:

"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other."

- Galatians 5:19-25

As one can see, there are also perversions of God's goodness, and these perversions are emphasised as truths by Satan himself, and he convinces mankind of the world that these perversions are the true path to happiness. Happiness itself becomes a perverted notion because apart from God happiness is something that is simply an illusion.

This war has been raging since the beginning of original sin. It will do the Christian well to acknowledge both the power of Satan and his persistent goal to destroy as many individuals along with him before he is cast into hell for all eternity.

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:
Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value
When the Christian Heart Fails in Sinful Temptation
When the Christian Heart Fails to Love the World
Truth is Artfully Etched in the Hearts of Mankind
How Can God Exist When There is Evil?

Bill Cosby's Philosophy Transcends Race and Gender

2008-04-12T10:45:00.022-04:00

Bill Cosby over the past years has developed a stigma from a good portion of the black community for his demanding of social responsibility. The remarks he has made in a popular article this morning, however, should not be confined to just african americans, that which he is teaching can be applied univerally. Although he illustrates beautifully how a philosophy of love and social responsibility can help to eliminate racism, it also begets a society of love and compassion - and all races and religions should embrace this notion.

"Instead of focusing on some abstract notion of equality, he argues, blacks need to cleanse their culture, embrace personal responsibility, and reclaim the traditions that fortified them in the past. Driving Cosby’s tough talk about values and responsibility is a vision starkly different from Martin Luther King’s gauzy, all-inclusive dream: it’s an America of competing powers, and a black America that is no longer content to be the weakest of the lot."

This is an applaudable notion. Cosby's arguments ought to transcent beyond that of the just Black community. It is clear that his target audience is indeed to motivate and bring a ray of light into the black community with his message, but those of us who are not african american shouldn't pass up the truths of his notion of a society with social responsibilities. What Mr. Cosby teaches here is a beautiful truth that should be embraced by all people, and in doing so all communities who follow it will be more quick and apt to embracing eachother.

The civil-rights generation is exiting the American stage—not in a haze of nostalgia but in a cloud of gloom, troubled by the persistence of racism, the apparent weaknesses of the generation following in its wake, and the seeming indifference of much of the country to black America’s fate. In that climate, Cosby’s gospel of discipline, moral reform, and self-reliance offers a way out—a promise that one need not cure America of its original sin in order to succeed. Racism may not be extinguished, but it can be beaten.

It is important for society that one of the greatest steps it can take to overcome its predjudices is by realizing that we are all one people, and through discipline, moral reform and self reliance we can find a way to overcome those prejudices by becoming an example of how people ought to be and how they ought to treat eachother. This is truly illustrative of a philosophy my generation should be seeking to follow. The philosophy of loving our neighbors is the first step in overcoming prejudices, it is a philosophy that can allow individuals to disagree lovingly.

“I don’t want to talk about hatred of these people,” he continued. “I’m talking about a time when we protected our women and protected our children. Now I got people in wheelchairs, paralyzed. A little girl in Camden, jumping rope, shot through the mouth. Grandmother saw it out the window. And people are waiting around for Jesus to come, when Jesus is already within you.”

What a beautiful statement. This does not just apply to the black community, this applies deeply to much of america today. It is almost as if a majority of us have given up the fight for a good moral foundation and a responsible society. In giving up, we wait for the end times to come, but he have forgotten to fight for love and compassion in society to alleviate the pains and sufferings so many individuals go through as a result of our apathy. As a result, those of us who are Christians, who do not take action in defending a society of moral responsibility have given up. Many times this is for very powerful reasons, as the fight gets tougher the ideas of giving up the fight become more and more simple.

We can wait for Christ to come, as Cosby says, but to do so would require us to ignore the reality that Christ is in our hearts trying to tell us to break out of our apathy so we can accomplish great things and by living through him, we can become an example of how the world ought to be by trying to live our lives with love and compassion to the best of our ability.

That night, Cosby was one of the last honorees to take the podium. He began by noting that although civil-rights activists had opened the door for black America, young people today, instead of stepping through, were stepping backward. “No longer is a person embarrassed because they’re pregnant without a husband,” he told the crowd. “No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the unmarried child.”

The abolition of shame is a powerful signifier that we have began to ignore the moral condition of ourselves. If I no longer find shame in stealing, adultery or theft then my heart has no longer embraced the importance of living my life by a moral lifestyle. There is only so much that martyrs and the fighters of peace can do for us, they can only lead the way for us. The rest, however, is up to us. We need to, at that point, "take up our cross" and follow. Christ commanded "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me". This is the transcending of thought into action. Christ has lead the way for us as individuals, but we cannot fulfill the way that he made without following in his footsteps. This applies to any individual who leads the way for our society, with all the sacrifices that were made by the civil-rights movement, many have failed to follow in their footsteps.

We as a nation need to embrace eachother in loving arms, but not simply embrace it irresponsibly. We need to live our lives actively as an example of how the world ought to be, in doing so, we can transform both our lives and the lives of the people around us. Bill Cosby illustrates just how powerful actively living our lives through Christ and through social and moral responsibilty can create a more responsible and moral nation.

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:
Modern Man has "Educated Himself into Imbecility"
In 1980, The Self-defeating Creed of the Relativist Modern Man
In 1958, A Prestigious CBS Reporter Warned Against Inconvenience of Truth in Television
Society's Failure in Sexual Responsibility is Destroying Children

References: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/cosby

Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value

2008-04-11T12:16:00.007-04:00

The ultimate goal of the subjects covered in these writings is not to impress or imbue doctrinal followings of Christianity. The aim is to get the reader to view the perspective of the modern generation critically. It is very likely some issues covered will not be covered with 100% accuracy, as I am only one man and am a sinner just as any other man.

I implore the reader to read into each and every subject extensively to gain all perspectives on the issues that are facing the modern generation. There are countless resources that exist on the internet that cover each of these topics both extensively and sometimes exclusively. I hope that the many readers of this weblog do not take what is said at face value, rather they look at it and attempt to both apply it to society and analyze it critically from others perspectives.

As a Christian I hold the belief that Christ illustrated the truths necessary to create both a loving and compassionate society not through laws, but through love. In his teachings he covered every aspect of human life and gave the possibility of both understanding and learning how to apply his teachings using both the living word (the Bible) and communion with the Holy Spirit (belief, prayer and worship in him). He gave these two so they could be used in unison and not as a stand alone - in other words, if an individual uses only the Bible as a means to learn and understand Christ and never communes with God will find the teachings of Christ difficult if not impossible. I know this from personal experience. Also, using only the communion with Christ may leave the believer with little foundation of the Christ he believes in, allowing him to be easily swayed.

If the Christian community truly believes Christ was who he said he was, then the truths of his teachings ought to be evident in everyday life. This is through both the reforming of the individuals desires to be good instead of evil and through the application of Christ's teachings to modern day issues. For example, if Christ illustrates the dangers and ramifications of lustful thought, then the consequences of accepting lustful thought into ones lifestyle ought to have spiritual (individual), societal and cultural consequences.

Ultimately, both the relationship with Christ and ones desire to seek out the truths of the Bible is entirely up to the commitment of the individual doing the reading. I ask, no I implore, the reader not to take my words as the truth. Instead, they ought to seek out the truths for themselves.

Craig Chamberlin

Related Articles:

When the Christian Heart Fails in Sinful Temptation

2008-04-11T07:57:00.006-04:00

When the Christian fails to avoid a temptation into sin they know is a sin a tremendous guilt typically follows. Guilt tends to be a cleansing agent for the heart of the Christian. It helps to identify our sinful nature apart from God. When faced with guilt no Christian needs Christ more - and it is in these moments that one must come to him in shame and humility.

Coming to Christ in these times is one of the most difficult things to do as a Christian. It is when a Christian fails in temptations that he is most shamed in coming to his Lord because he feels completely and utterly unworthy of even consulting him. Often times we attribute to this fact that we do not deserve forgiveness. "If I truly loved you Lord," we might say "why do I fail you as I do? Why can I not keep your commandments?"

It is amazing that most Christians do not realize just how powerful sin is over their lives. Many times the Christian knows they are sinning and giving into temptation in the process of doing so. If they are aware, though, ought they not be able to keep themselves from sinning? The tragedy of the Christian heart many times is that even though the Christian knows he is going to sin, he does it anyway - realizing the consequences of guilt that are going to follow.

This brings a whole new light to what Paul discusses in Romans:

"We know that the law is spiritual, but I am not spiritual since sin rules me as if I were its slave. I do not understand the things I do. I do not do what I want to do, and I do the things I hate. And if I do not want to do the hated things I do, that means I agree that the law is good. But I am not really the one who is doing these hated things; it is sin living in me that does them."

- Romans 7:14-18

One important point to remember is that Paul was not excusing the sins in his life as if they were not his own responsibility. Paul realized, however, that there were two parts to him, and one part has a powerful hold over him and gets him to do things that the other part of him despised. In other words, Paul illustrated that the true person he desired to be loved God's law and wanted to keep it - but the other part of him had such power that he violated the law none-the-less. That part of him that drives him to violate it was not the man he desired to be.

The reality is that sin holds a deep power over the Christian's life. Coming to Christ after committing these sins and giving into temptation should be the first thing the Christian does to experience forgiveness. Acknowledging ones self as a wretch and unworthy before God illustrates that we understand just how much we need him - and his forgiveness gives us exactly what we need to get back on our feet from our failures and continue to do ones best in walking in godliness.

Any Christian will say experiencing Christ's forgiveness of one of the most beautiful experiences one can have.

Craig Chamberlin

The Uncomfortable Selfish Truth About Pornography

2008-04-10T07:38:00.009-04:00

There are a number of aspects to pornography that raise important questions. Analyzing the motives behind the purpose and the desire for pornography is an important issue, as pornography is currently both a widely consumed and produced product in society today. When one "looks behind the moral curtain" they find an uncomfortable truth associated with pornography.

It is important for individuals to realize that pornography is inherently selfish. The act of seeking out something to satisfy ones own desires developes a selfish mindset in the individual. The reason pornography is different than anything else is because the product which is seeked out is another human being. This is far different than one seeking out 'alcohol' or 'drugs' to give themselves pleasures. When alcohol are drugs are objectified it does not adversely affect a relationship with that product, because the product itself is devoid of feeling and personality.

When an individual becomes accustomed to seeking out the 'product' of another human being to satisfy their own selfish desires it causes detrimental affects to their relationships with other humans. When a man often seeks out pornography to satisfy their own desires they begin to look at women as a means to that end as well. Women, therefore, become the product similar to that of a drug abuser or an alcoholic. When alcohol is seen through the lens of the alcoholic they find an overpowering desire to use that alcohol to fulfill themselves.

The results are devastating. The individual who becomes the "lustaholic" or "casual lust drinker" no longer can see the product (or women) as being more than a means to satisfy their own desires. As a result, they find both difficulty and strife in the development of a non-sexual relationship with those individuals. This is what is known as objectification. It is important for one to realize that objectification is not something that one simply chooses to do, it is something that merely happens as a result of using women as objects and behaviorally training oneself to respond to other human beings as a means to satisfy ones own desires instead of empathizing for them.

How does one battle this epidemic? Lust is one of the most powerful temptations to each and every individual. Many non-Christians have made the mistake of believing that Christians have no desire to seek out pornography or the objectification of the opposite sex, this is simply not true. The difference is Christians try their best to battle these desires with both the knowledge that God knows what is best for them and with the realization that using others to satisfy our own desires will only further separate us from treating each-other has human beings instead of treating each-other as brothers and sisters of mankind.

Craig Chamberlin

10 Tips to Protect Your Children from Internet Pornography

2008-04-09T07:40:00.007-04:00

With the continued sexualization of society today more and more expectations are being placed upon parents to protect their children from both pornography and sexual predators. There has been a surge of Internet based attacks directed at children to entice them into both participating in and viewing pornographic materials.

Many of these companies and individual websites make revenues off of (RPC) Revenue-Per-Click or (RPM) Revenue-Per-1000 Impression models. They value very little who actually clicks on or views the advertisements and reach out to the broadest market they possibly can to generate these clicks including children. Some have even resorted to targeting children with cartoon characters or toys.

This article gives 10 tips for the parents who are looking to protect their children. It will briefly reveal to you how to track all of the videos and images stored on your computer to determine if any pornographic material is stored on it and offers a suggestion for a free pornography filter and useful approaches to learning more about internet safety and communication. This list is by no means exhaustive.

Tip #1: Educate Yourself.

There are hundreds of techniques kids can use today to hide their Internet tracking. It is important for parents to realize that kids are on the Internet daily, and if they come across websites such as the one you are viewing now, they can learn methods to hide their surfing habits just as you are trying to learn how to find them. For this reason it is important for parents to stay ahead of their child in educating themselves on how to track, view and monitor surfing behavior.

There are a number of resources you can find on the subject. Google will be your best friend in this endeavor and it is recommend you get your feet wet by searching for various search terms on Google such as "protecting kids from pornography" and "monitoring my child's surfing behavior". There are thousands of resources out there, one simply just needs to go looking for them.

Tip #2: Check your computer for all image and video files on a regular basis.

Depending on how often your child uses the computer, it is important to remember that many kids come across pornography on accident even though some access it intentionally. To search for all the image and video files types that are typically pornographic on your computer you want to look for pictures with the both the .GIF and .JPG file extensions and video files with the .MPEG, .AVI, .MP4, .QT, .MOV and .WMV extensions. These are standard image and video file formats, so it will also find all of your regular photos and videos you may have stored on the computer as well. To do this follow the steps below:

Click 'Start'

Click 'Search'

If you have the search companion (the dog), click "All Files and Folders"

In the search box, enter "*.GIF" without quotations and click Search

All of the files on your computer with the .GIF extension will show up, then it is a matter of going through them to see if any abnormal photographs exist. You will do steps 1 - 4 above with all of the file extensions listed above to check for all types of files pornography typically takes on a computer.

Tip #3: Monitor your computers internet tracking "cookies".

All websites sites often store what is known as a "cookie" onto your computer with their domain address attached to it, the filenames typically look something like "cookie:username@domain.com". The 'domain.com' can reveal whether a user on your computer has visited a particular site with sex content assuming that website has a domain that suggests it. To check your cookies follow the steps below.

Open 'Internet Explorer'

Click 'Tools'

Click 'Internet Options'

Under 'Browsing History' select 'Settings...'

Select 'View Files...'

All files in your temporary folder also have a section called 'Address' that will tell you where a photo, text file or cookie originated from. As an important side note, if there are no files in your temporary internet folder or no cookies this is a sign that someone has wiped the history from the browser and is attempting to cover their tracks. Take this as a red flag. Remember though, that by default this folder clears itself every 20 days, so you could have caught it just after its 20 day cycle.

Tip #4: Learn how to install and master an Internet pornography filter.

There are a number of Internet pornography filters out there, I would suggest starting with the free one entitled K9 Web Protection which has presets for content that is considered pornographic. Once you have downloaded and installed this filter, do not just enable it and walk away. As we have discussed before, kids today are extremely computer savvy, and understand that there are ways to get around filters.

The user who installs this filter can add additional sites to the filter, so it is important to know your child's interests and go online and search for sites yourself to add to the filter you might deem inappropriate. This filter will give you the ability to keep your child from accessing certain websites, and if they find that one of their own sites that you do not find offensive is blocked, you can allow them access to it after viewing it.

As an additional important side note, make sure you change the password to your pornography filter on a monthly basis and ensure it is a password that is not easily guessable.

Tip #5: Approach your child with humility.

If in the instance you find pornography stored on your computer it is important not to panic. This will provide you a wondrous opportunity to communicate with your child about sex. It is very likely that they know all about the subject matter in this day in age, between friends, television, movies and the Internet it is very unlikely that they have not encountered the subject in great detail.

At this point one should sit down with their child and communicate to them the importance of avoiding pornography, and the pains it can cause on a relationship. Christian parents can communicate to them the dangers established by God that point out that people can become addicted to pornography and it can become a danger to their joyous connection with God. It may not seem like your children are listening, but believe me, they are listening more than you know.

Remember that pornography is a weakness for many individuals, and many of them know they are not supposed to be viewing it. If they didn't already realize they weren't supposed to be viewing it or downloading it they wouldn't have hidden it from you. For this reason, it is important not to lash out at them, rather to communicate to them why it is important for them to avoid it.

Tip #6: Have the computer in a room where there is family traffic and windows from the outside looking in.

This is quite possibly one of the most effective methods of protecting your children from pornography. Having the computer in a family room where there is constant traffic from all members of the household and having it in a room where there are windows from the outside looking in will keep a child from going to sites they know they ought not be going. It also will give the parent and opportunity to discuss it with a child if they happen to see their kid come across it by accident.

Tip #7: Be persistent.

It is important to keep on track with both the filters and tracking surfing behavior. Many times it is over long periods of no accountability that leads a child to continue visiting places they ought not to visit. As a result, they may start viewing materials they should not be viewing, and if they find that they are not being held accountable for those materials then they will continue to view them more and more often as they get away with it.

It is important to catch the accidental or intentional surfing behaviors before they develop into anything too significant to address, doing so will benefit both you and your child greatly if it is caught early.

Tip #8: Get involved.

The internet is an exciting and wonderful educational resource, odds are your child has found all sorts of wonderful and entertaining things they love to visit. Take the time to get involved in what your child is experiencing online, become a part of it, view the sites with them and learn what is so fascinating about it. Be careful though, you just might find yourself having a good time in the process.

Tip #9: Communicate, Communicate, Communicate. Sheltering into the teen years will not do the trick.

It is understandable if you want to make sure your children are not exposed to pornography at an early age, but once they reach the age of being a teenager, sheltering them is not going to do much good. At this point, they will be hearing about pornography and sex from television, movies, school, friends, the internet, magazines and many more places. At this point you must become a great communicator to them about sex and lust and teach them the importance of not 'using' others to give themselves pleasure.

This will need to be done on a consistent basis, perhaps as you are watching television with them or if you come across an article in their magazine. It will be uncomfortable at first, but after awhile it will likely become normal and they may become more comfortable talking to you about it. Be very careful to avoid the trap of sheltering your child their whole lives and never teaching them 'why' it is important to not do certain things. It often results in them not being able to handle the world as it really is, and when exposed to it, the complete opposite occurs, they reject you and embrace the world.

For Christians, it is important to 'apply' the word of God at this point, a simple "God said so" will likely not work, you will need to be able to explain to them why God said so and why it is important to them personally in their relationships with both others and with God. I recommend a book entitled 'The Truth About Sex' by Kay Arthur and for the young adult who is struggling with lust a book entitled Impossible Joy.

Tip #10: Seek out more than just these tips and understand all the threats.

This website is far from the only resource for educating yourself and for useful ways to protect your child from internet pornography. There are various other threats that exist out there including websites that encourage children to continue their anorexia or bulemia and how to hide it from their parents as well as sexual predators who use social networking sites to communicate and entice children into doing things they normally wouldn't do. Even though the internet is a wonderful resource and an amazing tool, it is both as useful and as devilish as the individuals who participate in it.

In Conclusion:

Remember that as your child begins to grow they will want more and more Independence, and you may need to adjust or tweak these tips depending on how old they are or how well they understand the importance of avoiding particular places on the Internet. This will become especially true in the teen years. Many kids will rightfully desire an amount of privacy when it comes to talking with their friends over e-mail or through social networking sites. This should be taken into consideration and within your discretion as their parent.

Craig Chamberlin