Doubt and the Vain Search for Certainty

Fantastic article for anyone who wrestles with needing certainty for things. Click here

Here's an excerpt:

Two major surveys of the religious beliefs of scientists, carried out at the beginning and end of the twentieth century, bear witness to a highly significant trend. One of the most widely held beliefs within atheist circles has been that, as the beliefs and practices of the “scientific” worldview became increasingly accepted within western culture, the number of practicing scientists with any form of religious beliefs would dwindle to the point of insignificance. A survey of the religious views of scientists, undertaken in 1916, showed that about 40% of scientists had some form of personal religious beliefs. At the time, this was regarded as shocking, even scandalous. The survey was repeated in 1996, and showed no significant reduction in the proportion of scientists holding such beliefs, seriously challenging the popular notion of the relentless erosion of religious faith within the profession. The survey cuts the ground from under those who argued that the natural sciences are necessarily atheistic. Forty percent of those questioned had active religious beliefs, 40% had none (and can thus legitimately be regarded as atheist), and 20% were agnostic.

The stereotype of the necessarily atheist scientist lingers on in western culture at the dawn of the third millennium. It has its uses, and continues to surface in the rehashed myths of the intellectual superiority of atheism over its rivals. The truth, as might be expected, is far more complex and considerably more interesting.

The point of these reflections is obvious. Any worldview—atheist, Islamic, Jewish, Christian or whatever—ultimately depends on assumptions that cannot be proved. Every house is built on foundations, and the foundations of worldviews are not ultimately capable of being proved in every respect. Everyone who believes anything significant or worthwhile about the meaning of life does so as a matter of faith. We’re all in the same boat. And once you realize this, doubt seems a very different matter. It’s not a specifically Christian problem—it’s a universal human problem. And that helps to set it in its proper perspective.

What('s) the hell?

I struggle with the concept of the hot, fiery, tortuous eternity in hell for non-believers -- I just have a hard time picturing Jesus allowing someone to burn baby burn. So, I've been reading different perspectives on the topic of hell that makes more sense to me. I may never understand hell, but what I do believe is that there is a choice to live for God or not, and that the end will be different based on that choice. I'm thinking that living for God will have a better final destination.

Here's a very good article I found on heck..

Ancient Faith, Modern Life
Frederica Mathewes-Green

Why We Need Hell

It is tragic that some Christians have been so battered with stories of a prideful, vindictive God that they have fled from Jesus’ fold. No wonder some become atheists; who would want to spend eternity with such a tyrant?

Click here for the rest of the article

God is Pro-Choice

What if you had a child that was the perfect student, the perfect citizen, the perfect brother, nephew and so on and so on -- yet, he rejected you as a parent? He did everything to please everyone in his life, except honor you?

Silly example, but if your pet dog is nice to all of the neighborhood dogs, and can do all the tricks in the world, but still bites you everytime he's around you, you have no choice but to part ways no matter how much you love him. Same with God, if you reject him at every turn in your life, He will eventually give you what you want -- eternity without Him -- even though that's the last thing he wants. God will make every attempt to reach you (by your conscience, people in your life, etc.), but he will always give you your choice -- your free will -- to choose or accept him.

The laws that God gave to Moses (the big 10) instruct us to treat our fellow humans well (the last 6 of the 10) BUT also to honor God (the first 4). If we are only doing good to our fellow humans, that is great, but we are still ignoring our creator/master/savior.

Jesus said: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Fortunately, God does want to be with us for eternity! All we have to do is have a relationship with him and trust Him that he is God, and he knows what's best for us. God is pro-Choice!

Intolerance is Not a Bad Word

Below is a great article about tolerance. It's not really intolerant, unless you are one who is intolerant of people who may challenge your beliefs about intolerance.

When Tolerance Is Intolerant

By Greg Koukl

There’s one word that can stop you in your track. That word is “tolerance.”

Let’s take a look at the confusing and mistaken ways tolerance is used in our culture today.

Using the modern definition of tolerance, you will see that no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It’s what my friend Frank Beckwith calls the “passive aggressive tolerance trick.” Let’s start with a real life example.

I had the privilege of speaking to seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines. I wanted to alert them to this “tolerance trick,” but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board

"All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another."

“Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting that.”

They all nodded in agreement as I wrote the first sentence. As soon as I finished writing the second, though, hands flew up. “You can’t say that,” a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?”

“In fact, that happens to me all the time,” I pointed out, “including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I’m wrong?”

“It’s intolerant,” she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement also violated itself.

I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?” They agreed.

Then I pointed to the second statement—the “intolerant” one—and asked the same question: “Is this a view?” They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them. They’d been taken in by the tolerance trick.

If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than Jews is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than Christians. But this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because “tolerance” turns out to be gibberish.

“Would you like to know how to get out of this dilemma?” I asked. They nodded. “Return to the classic view of tolerance and reject this modern distortion.” Then I wrote these two principles on the board:

“Be egalitarian regarding persons.”

“Be elitist regarding ideas.”[1]

The first principle is true tolerance, what might be called “civility.” It can loosely be equated with the word “respect.” Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false. Tolerance requires that every person is treated courteously, no matter what her view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.

To say I’m intolerant because I disagree with someone’s ideas is confused. The view that one person’s ideas are no better or truer than another’s is simply absurd and contradictory. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance.

The irony is that according to the classical notion of tolerance, you can’t tolerate someone unless you disagree with him. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to “put up” with. Tolerance is reserved for those who we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat them decently and with respect.

This essential element of classical tolerance—elitism regarding ideas—has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant no matter how you treat them.

Whenever you’re charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition, then point out the contradiction built in to this new view.

As ambassadors for Christ, however, we choose the more courageous path. In Paul’s words, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). In a gracious and artful way, we accurately speak the truth, and then trust God to transform minds.

Now I Know Greek, Kinda

Click here

A great website where you can check out the original Greek translation of the New Testament -- and look up what specific words in the bible meant. i.e.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16

believes: (Pisteu)

1. to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in
   1. of the thing believed
      1. to credit, have confidence
   2. in a moral or religious reference
      1. used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul
      2. to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith 1bc) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith
2. to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity
   1. to be entrusted with a thing

Kill Your Enemy?

This Blog entry of Greg Boyd's captures my sentiments on war. Here's a snippet -- the whole post is very much word reading.

...my Lord’s words and example have taught me that it's better to love your enemy, do good to them, pray for them, and bless them than it is to ever kill them. I’ve been taught to never retaliate but to always return evil with good. I’ve been taught that violence is cyclical, and that if you live by the sword you’ll die by the sword. By submitting myself to this teaching, I’ve come to actually see its wisdom and beauty. I’ve come to see the taking of human life as demonically arrogant – demonic, because it expresses hopelessness in another, which is the opposite of love (I Cor. 13:7), and arrogant, because only the giver of life can justifiably take it.

Click here for the rest