Posts

Posted on

Clarification Q1

Question 1

SR Asked:

“How can God judge someone for something that they didn’t do?”

The original answer is an attempt to explain what happens to a child who dies immediately after birth. The Bible never tells us this directly. Do they get saved even though they have never accepted Jesus? Do they go to Hell because they have never accepted Jesus? My reasoning is based primarily on God’s foreknowledge; God knows in advance how people are likely to turn out. Even we, as humans, know people we trust and people we don’t. That does not mean we know everything they will do in the future, but we know the nature of the things they will do. Added to this, after 6000 years of human history and billions of individual lives, it will be very clear, when all the books are opened (and all the videos are shown) where people belong, and what someone with a similar spirit would have done. God’s Judgement will be in accordance with His justice, His love, and His mercy, and also with the requirement that rebels cannot be allowed into Heaven to cause the same mess that we have on Earth. I also believe that Justice will not only be done, but be seen to be done. See also Question 6:

6 Do Men Understand Exactly how God Works?

No. The belief that they do is based on pride. Men have neither the perspective, the knowledge, nor the intelligence to know exactly how God works. Any attempt to tie God down to a few simple mechanisms is a futile endeavour, based on pride. We are not called upon to understand God, but merely to have Faith in him; that does not mean having Faith that He exists, as that is obvious from what has been made. It means having trust and confidence in what He does and will do.

Posted on

Sins Visited on the Fourth Generation? Is That Justice?

The statement that sins will be visited even to the third and fourth generations of the the Fathers is one of the more worrying ones in Scripture. The Bible also clearly states that everyone is to be punished specifically for his own sin. Theologians can and do debate this endlessly. We think the answer is simple, and found in the latter part of the article on Predestination here.

Posted on

Wanting to Offend God? Is it better to be Gay or Violent?

 

Homosexuality and violence are rarely out of the media for long, whether they are in the news or presented in fictional portrayals. But they are rarely mentioned in the same sentence as here. And there is a widespread view that Homosexuality is especially offensive to God, whilst violence does not carry the same stigma. How does such a view arise, and is it correct?

The dreadful Westboro Baptist Church of “GOD HATES FAGS” fame in Topeka, Kansas, cannot take the whole blame for this. They are but one tiny church among thousands with varying views. But their claims get some leverage because they claim to be Bible-based, and almost everyone, however thin their Biblical knowledge, knows the account of the destruction of Sodom by God. Sodom, the city which gave its name to sodomy; and the Sodom event being the only time God chose to rain destruction on a whole city (more accurately five; four apart from Sodom itself).

It turns out that this is a fine example of a little knowledge being dangerous. Digging a little deeper, we see that some of the men of Sodom wanted to rape two male visitors to the city. This precisely parallels another event in the land of Benjamin, described in Judges, where men demanded sex with a male visitor. The difference in the two passages is that in the Sodom account the visitors were protected supernaturally; in the Benjamin account the demanding locals were given a woman, whom they raped to death. There’s just a bit more going on in these passages than homosexuality:

1) Total failure to welcome and care for visitors.

2) Total disregard for the well-being of others.

3) Rampant, uncontrolled sexuality, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

4) Violence to the point of murder.

And although the incidents each only involved a limited number of men, it appears that the rest of the populations were doing little about it. Their silence made them complicit.

So which of these offences upset God so much? We are not told in either passage, but elsewhere in Scripture we read that the people of Sodom were punished because they were “overfed and did not care about the poor”. Does that mean that God was happy with the other behaviour? Clearly not. You don’t need to be a great Bible scholar to know that. When it came to living godly lives, the people of Sodom had lost the plot completely. So why the imagined specific connection to homosexuality? Actually it is only because of a post facto (after the event) adoption of the name of the city to mean homosexual sex. Ignore that, as you should, and the story of Sodom changes completely.

We can dig deeper still. A full search of the Bible reveals only about ten occasions when it addresses homosexuality directly, and that’s on the basis of including the two references already discussed. Only ten references in about seven hundred and fifty thousand words? Anybody who wants to make a case for gayness being especially offensive to God on the basis of that is definitely on a losing wicket! (Note that there are other places where Sodom is mentioned, and people assume a specific reference to homosexuality, but this is not in the text. Sodom stood for unrestrained godlessness.)

Another event that warrants specific mention, that almost certainly references homosexuality, is in Genesis 9, when Noah becomes drunk and his son Ham “uncovers his nakedness.” Because of this Noah puts a curse on Ham and his descendants. But here again, if the homosexual inference is correct, there is more than that; there is rape, incest, deceit, and even boasting and/or an attempt to corrupt others. Interestingly, given the question posed in this article, Genesis 9 also contains crystal-clear warnings about bloodshed. The idea that the Old Testament allows violence apart from that commanded or specifically sanctioned by God is wrong.

There is still more. The belief that the Sodom event was the only time God poured out mass destruction is in itself incorrect. Sodom was a walk in the park compared to Noah’s Flood. And if you don’t yet know that Noah’s Flood was real and global, look at the Science Page here, and the Evolution Page here. The Flood wiped out everyone except Noah and his family. The World, we are told, was wicked, evil and corrupt, all of which is a little vague when it comes to knowing what exactly the pre-flood people were up to. However, just one thing does get a specific mention: there was a huge amount of violence. So whatever else we may surmise, it is clear that there was at least one common factor that brought about both the destruction of the Flood, and the destruction of Sodom. That factor was violence.

The answer to the question posed in the title is clear. There is no wriggle room. People may say that the the argument above is based on the Old Testament, but the New Testament goes even further, confronting us with the command to love our enemies. Others point out that God Himself has used violence. But God has taken exclusively to Himself the right to use violence in Judgement, and the times when He has done so happen to be rather few. He has used men at times to execute such judgement, but that does not give men the right to use it on their own initiative. People professing Christianity need to be extremely wary of having even a faint smell of blood on their hands. Take note here that Judicial Execution for law breaking is probably the most acceptable form of violence; but when Jesus came across such an execution he aborted it. He did not question the guilt of the person concerned; in fact He confirmed it. And He did not question that the law in force at the time prescribed the death penalty. He did, however, abort the execution and sent the woman on her way. If even legal execution is unacceptable, what form of violence can ever be?

They key points here are that Homosexuality has been hyped into a Mega-Sin in the absence of Biblical Support, and the promotion of that concept has helped to obscure the wrongful nature of violence, and also the wrongful nature of heterosexual activity outside of marriage; we don’t hear quite so much condemnation of that from the Churches. As ever, the need is for people to read Scripture for themselves, ignoring the biased representations that too often come from Press or Pulpit.

Catholic Tony Blair and Protestant George Bush are well known for engineering the Iraq War. Their actions and professions of Faith send a message to everyone, be they Christian, Atheist, Muslim or anything else, that Christianity and violence can fit together; they do not. We cannot deny the Church connections of Blair and Bush; but we must deny that they or their respective churches are in any way representative of genuine Christianity.

 

Posted on

Failed Cup of Coffee Shows Crucial Dynamic in Geology.

There was a time at work when I wanted to be able to make myself a coffee really quickly. (Obviously too busy! Supply Teaching. Science and Maths.) I figured I could mix the right proportions of sugar, coffee and milk powder in a jar that I carried with me, and just add several teaspoons of the mix to hot water. It didn’t work. No matter how much I shook or stirred the jar to mix the contents, they tended to settle into layers. Rather than drink coffee that wasn’t to my taste, I gave up.

What my coffee was demonstrating was the same principle that geologist Guy Berthault proved in his experiments: simply that any particles that are dumped together tend to stratify into layers, according to the size and density of the particles involved. This completely overturns the idea that stratified rocks are built up slowly, fine layer by fine layer. Such layering is actually instantaneous. The implications for the formation of rocks and the Age of the Earth are enormous.

See the Berthault experiments and some more explanation here.

Posted on

The Remarkable Man Who Corrects School Textbooks

In a large and dusty office in Longview, Texas sits a man who corrects school Textbooks. The office is on the first floor, above shops in a rather run-down strip mall. It doesn’t look like the kind of place that would ever have any input on the rest of the World. But Neal Frey, if he’s still alive and well, and his faithful wife, are in the right place. School books are big in Texas. You may remember that the alleged lone gunman in the Kennedy assassination fired from a high floor in a School Book Repository. You won’t find a school book warehouse right in the middle of a British city. And you won’t find, in Britain, the law that Texas has, saying that school textbooks must be accurate. Partly because of this, many other US States follow Texas where school textbooks are concerned. So Texas schoolbooks affect the whole of the USA.

Correcting them just means reading through and picking out the mistakes. Simple! An American Science High School textbook runs to about a thousand pages. There are three publishers, who each produce their own version. Then there are the Teachers Guides. Then there are the other subjects, History, Geography etc. On finding an error, he has to notify the authorities and provide evidence for the mistake.

His biggest triumph has been with the claim that 99% of ape DNA is identical to Human DNA. All versions of the Texas books stated this “fact”. Neal Frey showed that the evidence really puts the figure around 70%. The books were all changed. Did the publishers draw attention to their previous error? Did they amend the 99% to 70%? No, they quietly dropped all reference to similarity or otherwise between Ape and Human DNA. Why? The 99% looks like evidence for evolution. The 70% is profound evidence against. The 99% figure, of course, continues to be stated anywhere that the law doesn’t prevent it.

Some things that Neal digs up would find little support in the UK. He is, for example, a believer in American Exceptionalism like many of his countrymen. Many in the UK would also not approve his move on Human/Ape DNA. But we find it to be an excellent example not only of how spoof evidence of Darwinian evolution is popularised, but also of the complete dishonesty that surrounds the endeavour. That figure was never published to educate young people; it was published to evolutionise them. Otherwise the correct figure would have appeared with an apology. As already stated, the bogus figure is still touted wherever the law permits.

More on the 70% here.

Posted on

Why You Should Understand Thermodynamics and Information.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is effectively the most fundamental law in all of science apart from, as you may have guessed, the First Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law is pretty simple and fairly intuitive; in essence, it just says that you can’t make something out of nothing. It doesn’t have the profound implications which the Second Law has.

From here on we’ll normally refer to the Second Law of Thermodynamics as simply “2TD”. What it says, in very, very simple terms, is that over time things get worse. This is also stated as things moving into greater chaos, or, more scientifically, as the “Increase of Disorder.” It may well be that in a particular place at a particular time things have become neater, better organised, cleaner or whatever, but overall there is always a decline because energy has inevitably been used. When used, energy degrades, and that degradation has an end point where it can never be used or do anything again. That is a very big deal indeed, since nothing happens without energy being used. This gradual degradation of energy is what tells scientists that the Universe had a definite beginning, and must also have an end, because the energy is running down so that the Universe is, in effect, gradually dying. (Physicists say “Entropy increases”.) This is a process which is quite different from, for example, planetary orbits which appear to be a cyclic, repeatable phenomenon. The degradation of energy is neither cyclic nor repeatable; it’s a one-off, single occurrence. It is, in fact, what gives us Time itself! If you ever wondered if Time was an invention of men to make life more convenient, or alternatively something that has an actual physical reality (as I did in my teens), you now have the answer; Time is a result of 2TD. I did say 2TD was fundamental, didn’t I?

This has implications for Eternity. If Time is limited, Eternity must be something different from Time and infinitely greater than Time. This concept of being Outside of Time gives us the understanding that Eternity is not Time going on, and on, and on, and on; it is actually the absence of Time. You can think of Time as a bubble within Eternity.

This understanding of Eternity and Time is also scientifically satisfying due to the principle that the “Cause is Always Greater than the Effect“. When we try to understand the beginning, or creation, of Time, that principle leads us to conclude that before Time existed there must have been something greater that could have caused it, which logically would be Eternity.

So the first points to take away from an understanding of 2TD are that Eternity is not a long extension of time, but the absence of it; and that time can run alongside or within Eternity. That’s a bit mind-boggling for most people, but follows logically from the science.

The next point to ponder is that Thermodynamics only relates to physical things: matter and energy. Such things are locked within Time. It is therefore a reasonable assumption that anything which existed in eternity/Outside of Time would also be completely outwith the matter/energy/time matrix that Thermodynamics defines. As such, it might also be non-material, and have no requirement for energy. Hold this in mind, and read on.

A related matter here is Information. Wherever we observe a high-level of organisation, which is the opposite of chaos or Disorder, Information is always involved. This is true regardless of whether that organised system is a living thing or an object like a car. The Universe is commonly defined as “All the Matter and Energy that exists.” But the Universe also contains Information; there happens to be bucket-loads of it on DNA! And two things science knows about Information are that, firstly, it only derives from Intelligence; it can never be created by chance. And secondly, that Information is a fundamentally different quantity from Matter or Energy. If it were not, it could be measured with the same units; but it can’t. Matter is measured in grams, Energy is measured in joules; and Information is measured in bytes. We use both matter and energy all the time to store or transmit information, but information has absolutely no fundamental or mathematical connection to either. The only entity it directly connects with is Intelligence. Since there is no Intelligence in the Matter or Energy within the Universe, and since there must be an Intelligent source for the Information on DNA, we should logically expect such a source to exist outside the Universe.

Putting all the points above together leads to a most interesting conclusion: such an information source would be outside the Universe, outside of Time, and non-material. That is exactly how we conceive of God or a spirit, and it is surely not coincidence that the most fundamental science implies the existence of such entities.

The Second Law also provides us with a devastating one-shot kill of Evolution. The many difficulties of Darwinian Evolution actually happening are always explained away by the supposed power of billions of years. But when we understand 2TD we know that billions of years of Time must produce chaos. That would be true even if the starting point were something highly organised. If the starting point is accepted as something as chaotic as a massive, mindless “Big Bang”, then the idea of aeons of Time ever producing anything organised is a double absurdity. Either Darwin’s Theory is wrong, or 2TD is wrong. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is never wrong! (This might just be why you never heard of 2TD in school. Pupils are forced by law to learn Darwin’s theory. Teaching them a physical law that contradicts it might cause doubts.)

Posted on

Church-free Christianity

Church-free Christianity is simply what it says on the tin. However, a little explanation is in order as people might think it refers, for example, to  people who call themselves “Christian” simply because they are English, or to Non-practising Catholics. It does not. Nor does it refer to churchgoers or New-Agers who adopt the name to sound trendy or different; nor to anyone else who lacks clear Biblical doctrine.

Church-free Christians are often dismissed as simply “unchurched”. There are large numbers of people who have drifted out of Church and are not really clear where they stand on key issues. It may be fair to refer to such as “unchurched”.  Church-free Christians, however, have made a positive decision to follow Jesus outside of church, and have a clear doctrinal basis. The following four points are typical:

First, they are completely clear about the Gospel and have fully accepted it for themselves. They know the Sacrifice of Christ provides men with the Greatest Salvation possible. They know it is available to all men, and that any other form of Salvation, be it by works, the Eucharist, Animal Sacrifice or anything else, is an error.

Second, they understand that Jesus is Lord of their life (as well as everything else) and endeavour to live it in a way that is pleasing to Him. This “Working out of Salvation” includes an effort to move deeper into all truth, including deeper understanding of the times in which we live

Third, they have a clear understanding of the Bible as God’s Word, and make their own personal study of it. They know it has far greater Authority than any Vicar, author, Pope, website, or anything or anyone else.

Fourth, they clearly understand Darwinian Evolution to be a scientific fallacy, and accept Genesis without any effort at “interpretation”, such as the Gap Theory.

Beyond this there may be a considerable variation in belief and practice. Some will never attend Church, others will see Church as at least the best place to fellowship with like-minded people. In doing so, they will know that their Salvation is not dependent upon it, and that the Church leader, whatever his title, is only a man, not an object of reverence.

Most will have spent many years in Church(es) so are likely to be fairly mature Christians. They will know that opportunities for fellowship are very limited, given the tiny numbers who fit the four statements above. As such, they will depend heavily on Jesus, on the Scripture, and on their own resources.

How many such people exist is a good question. All that one can say with certainty is that the numbers must be very, very small, and that God knows who they all are. And also that their importance can only increase as Churches continue to coast and to close their doors.

Posted on

Violence in Self-Defence is OK? The Narrative Here Will Give You Second Thoughts.

A big question about violence is what you do when faced with direct threats to yourself or your children. This video covers the story of Jacob Hostetler, who would not defend himself or his own family – and went on to have at least half a million descendants.

The video runs for 41 minutes. If you prefer text to video, dive down below it for a short written summary of the events and discussion.

A point that always comes up in discussion about non-violence is what you do when directly threatened. Most people, professing Christians included, think violence must be justified in such a case. We believe the true Christian view is that it is not; and that the alternative view becomes the thin end of the wedge in justifying violence on a wider and wider scale. This account of Jacob Hochstetler, who took the view that violence is never justified, is truly remarkable.

In 1738 Jacob Hochstetler and his family sought sanctuary in America from the religious persecution Anabaptists were suffering in Europe. With other members of their Amish community they settled along Northkill Creek on the Pennsylvania frontier, between French-controlled Indian territory and British settlements. Eighteen years later the French began to incite the tribes to attack English settlers moving into lands claimed by France, and a bloody war ensued.

Jacob and his family where attacked in their home. One son was quickly injured, and the sons went for their hunting muskets to defend themselves. But Jacob would not allow it, so they simply barricaded the door and windows and hoped the Indians would go away. The Indians then set fire to the house. The family tried to take refuge in the cellar, but were eventually forced out by the heat, whereupon they were attacked and Jacob’s wife and one child killed. The rest were taken prisoner.

Taken many miles away to the Indian encampment, Jacob was allowed to go hunting on his own with a musket to help feed the tribe. They had realised that he could be trusted to do no harm. In due course he took advantage of this and escaped. He managed to return to the British settlements, where he was debriefed since he had been in enemy territory. This is partly why the story is so well documented.

Jacob and his wife are now estimated to have between half a million and one million descendants, both Amish and non-Amish. Biblically, it is a sign of great blessing to have many descendants. One is reminded of Abraham, who was willing to kill his one and only precious son if God commanded it. Abraham, of course, went on to have countless millions of descendants.

Accepting possible death when there seems to be a way out is the ultimate test of Faith. It’s a situation that none of us ever wants to face. Should we not be able to agree, when we have no immediate threat and are able to consider things quietly and peacefully, that doing no harm must be the better course, and certainly the one that Jesus would wish us to take?

Posted on

Christian Zionism is a Contradiction in Terms

Of all the new winds of doctrine to engulf the churches in the last two hundred years, Christian Zionism has to be one of the most grievous. And perhaps its most remarkable feature is that it is in obvious contradiction with the Gospel. Since this is clearly not obvious to many, a little repetition of basic facts is in order here.

First, Christianity is based on the actions and teachings of Jesus Christ as written in the New Testament. At the heart of Christianity is the Once-for-All substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross; the final sacrifice that makes it possible for all men to be Saved, with no further punishment. One might even say that this concept, known as the Gospel, is not merely the heart of Christianity, but actually is Christianity.

Second, Christ’s sacrifice replaced the Old Covenant sacrificial system documented in the Old Testament. This system relied on the ongoing blood sacrifices of animals in the Jerusalem Temple to expiate sin. Most Jews of the first century did not accept the New Testament teachings about Jesus, and continued with the Temple sacrifices for forty years after the Crucifixion; until Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews scattered in 70 AD.

It should be clear from the above points that the Christian Zionist desire to rebuild the Temple and restore animal sacrifices is completely antithetical to the once-for-all Sacrifice of Jesus. One may support one or the other, but not both. If Christ’s Sacrifice was what the New Testament says it is, then animal sacrifice is not merely redundant, but blasphemous. And if animal sacrifice is still necessary, then the teaching of an effective, substitutionary Sacrifice of Christ is wrong.

This is not saying that people cannot choose either one or the other. We have free will and we all make our choices. But plain logic does not allow someone to choose both. To support animal sacrifice is to reject the cross. It is hard to conceive of a more serious error for a Christian to make.

For those who prefer a more Biblical treatment of this subject, we recommend the video below. It was  made by Steven Anderson who we do not support due to several statements made by him with which we do not agree. This video, however, deals very well with the subject from a Biblical viewpoint and is well worth the time needed to view it. You could skip the second part where he lectures on genealogies and DNA; the argument presented there is secondary, though probably also sound. The video is called “Marching to Zion”. Click HERE to watch (1 hour 48 minutes for whole video, 1 hour 10 minutes for the main part.)

There is also the far from inconsequential matter of the violence, suffering and death resulting from Zionist migration to Palestine. There are those who claim that Jewish immigrants to the area found an empty desert, and Palestinians only arrived subsequently from their native areas to make trouble. This story is patently absurd, since the Mediterranean and the Middle East are the cradles of Western Civilisation, and have been permanently occupied for thousands of years. The creation of a new state or colony almost inevitably results in violence between the new arrivals and the original inhabitants.  In this case it has certainly caused, and still causes, huge bouts of violence and suffering. For a Christian endeavouring to propagate love for enemies and peace, support for any of the coercion or violence that takes place in this situation is simply not possible.

(Parenthetically, for atheists there is a variation on the Christian Zionist attempt to philosophically both have their cake and eat it; they will often point to the historical, Biblical claim that Jews have to the Holy Land, while simultaneously denouncing the Bible as mere fables.)

The Christian Zionist error links with another rather common one of putting too much emphasis on the Old Testament. Clearly the Old Testament has much to teach us, but for a Christian the New Testament is paramount, and the Old must always be viewed through the framework of the New. Expressed in poor but pithy poetry we might say:

If you wish to put more emphasis

On the Old Testament  than the New,

Don’t call yourself a Christian,

Call yourself a Jew.

 

A further matter which really should not need discussion, at least by Christians, is the likelihood of the Temple being rebuilt. The Bible makes clear in 2 Thessalonians that the Temple will be rebuilt, and the “Man of Sin” will set himself up there as God, before Jesus returns. And all the things that have happened in the last hundred years or so, and continue to happen today in the Middle East, are moving toward that conclusion. Whatever any individual Christian does or does not do today, the Third Temple will be built. The only issue for Christians is whether they are able to witness to the Cross and show Love for all men, completely free of any false doctrine that compromises and undermines their words and actions.

See also Evangelical Really Means Zionist?

 

Posted on

Is Christianity a Religion? No, it’s a Relationship with Jesus.

Since this site is primarily about the failure of Churches to represent true Christianity, a few words on what Christianity really is are in order. People are so conditioned to thinking of Christianity as something centred on churchgoing, especially the Sunday Service of Hymns and Sermon, that they find it hard to imagine any alternative.

The real fundamentals of Christianity, however, are not hard to understand. A person’s Christian Life begins with conversion, which is the acceptance of the validity of Christ’s Sacrifice and their personal need for it. (See Gospel if you are not clear on this.) The dynamics of this conversion in reality only involve Jesus and the New Christian. It may well be that some Church or Missionary, or tract or website, played a part in the conversion, but the power for Salvation comes only from Jesus, and it is only to Jesus that the new convert has allegiance. A new two-way loving relationship has been formed, very much akin to marriage, and everything now depends on the outworking of that relationship. This is what Paul is talking about in Philippians 2 when he instructs Christians to “work out your own salvation.”

Just as every Marriage relationship differs, every relationship with Jesus differs. The often wide differences are caused by the very different situations people are in when they turn to Christ, and differences in speed at which the relationship matures. No such thing as a typical, black and white, boilerplate Christian! Take two extreme examples:

  1. Imagine a drug addict and thief from an abusive home who eventually meets Jesus at age thirty.
  2. For comparison, think of an Amish person who decides at eighteen to accept Amish teaching, lifestyle and Baptism. (See The Special Place of the Amish in History for more on the Amish.)

Ten years on, the Amish person will almost certainly be leading a life that has every appearance of genuine conversion. Yet it’s possible that he is merely following his particular culture; it’s more difficult to see the effect of conversion on someone who already functions well, and lives in a society where things like sharing, faithfulness and modesty are normal. However, the ex-addict ten years on may still be dealing with issues from his previous life, even though he has made huge steps forward in his relationship with Jesus and improving his lifestyle. The permutations and variations are infinite. It makes it very hard to know who is really in a relationship with Jesus. There is no simple marker like weekly church attendance or Infant Baptism. It’s about working out the relationship because you love Him, because He first loved you.

For all Christians, and especially new ones, the key advice is to get soaked in the Bible from personal reading; sadly there are very few people who will give that vital advice. The teaching from churches, whether Protestant, Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, or whatever is much more “Listen to us!”

Click here to browse other articles on the Home Page.

Or here to read more on “working out your own salvation.”