Josiah Concept Ministries

Whew. When I started this I just figured that it would span one post, and instead I’m already up to three, and I believe that in order to truly do this justice, one more post will be required. After I finish out the remainder of his points with this post, I will finish out with a commentary of Romans 11:11-24, which is the “model” that Mike’s geocreationism platform is built on.

Old Earth Creationism is Correct that the Earth is Old

I find little to disagree with here. As noted in the previous entry, passage of time was not created until Day Four (Gen 1:14). This means that it is impossible to truly estimate the age of the earth. As a result, I find no inconsistency between Scripture and an old earth. The primary reason that organizations like Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International fight so hard for a 6,000 year old earth is that death and destruction, by definition, cannot exist prior to sin. To have millions, or even billions, of years of death, disease, and carnivorous activity prior to the first sin removes the Genesis foundation of the gospel message.

At least that is the position of “mainstream” creation scientists. Recently, I’ve begun diving deeper into that very issue, and I’ve begun to wonder if that is really necessary. It seems that human death is more important than animal death–why animal death is a factor at all is beyond me for they have no will and no soul.

Gap Theorists are Correct that There is a Gap in the Creation Story

Most Gap Theorists place a gap in the creation story, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. They believe that in that time, prior to Adam, is when all of the fossils that we are discovering for which we have no corresponding living creature lived. Shortly after God created the heaven and the earth (verse 1), this would be the time of the trilobites, dinosaurs, and other creatures that, according to paleontologists, lived before man walked this earth. In this gap, they reason, were also the primitive hominids, such as Neanderthals and Homo habilis.

God then destroyed all of this in a global flood followed by a massive ice age. Hence, we now have the Spirit of God hovering above the waters (verse 2). The rest of the story follows.

It’s obvious that we have no Biblical support for such a theory. But Mike places the gap later in the creation account, at Day Four. So, what is it about Day Four that seems to have some sort of mysticism about it? Let’s examine it closely:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. [Gen 1:14-19]

This passage starts with the creation of lights in the sky, separating day from night and marking the passage of time. Then, the text has God make two great great lights, the sun and the moon. Then, He makes the stars.

The key to the mystical allure of Day Four is that it is the first place in all of this creation account where we can begin to measure time. Prior to this day, there is no way to actually do that. Now, it is here that Mike wants the gap to occur–but we encounter a serious problem.

At this point in the account, God has separated light from dark (Day One), separated heaven from earth (Day Two), created land and ocean and made vegetation grow on it (Day Three). Day Four sees the heavenly bodies–sun, moon, and stars–but we have yet to see any sort of animal life. Placing the gap here doesn’t account for millions of years of fossils–at least not of any animals. Animals see the light of day for the first time in Day Five.

Day-Age Theorists are Correct that Each Day Maps to an Age

Since I see no inherent Scriptural problems with an old earth, so long as no death occurs prior to the Fall, I see nothing wrong with this notion, either. In the creation account, Moses uses the Hebrew word yom, which typically means either a 24-hour day, sunrise to sunset (as in a Jewish holiday), or an indeterminate period of time (that is, an age). Though the young earth creationists argue that the phraseology “evening came and then morning, and so was the xth day” removes any room for interpreting yom as anything but a 24-hour day, I disagree for two reasons.

First, God does not experience duration in the same way that we do. It is said of Him that a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is but a day (2 Pet 3:8). These are days from God’s point of view, not ours. Second, I believe that the use of the phrase “evening came and then morning” is to show that overlap of these days is not possible. Otherwise, we will truly lose the significance of the Sabbath day.

While I generally find that a young earth is more consistent with what Scripture teaches, I find no problems with an old earth model. Definitive proof an old earth model would not shake my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, and more importantly, would not affect my belief in God.

Theistic Evolutionists are Correct that God Caused Mutations and Allowed Natural Selection to Occur

And now we have the largest problem with Mike’s theory of geocreationism: theistic evolution, marrying God–a sovereign deity with an unsearchable purpose in creating mankind–with the purposeless entity of evolution and its counterpart, natural selection. That is a major contradiction in terms. Doing this does not explain anything; it only attempts to add an ultimate purpose to a process that doesn’t have one.

I see from both my stats page and my comments page that my previous post on this topic is getting quite a bit of attention. Let me assure everyone, especially Mike, that I will cover all every aspect of that post, and I will get to Romans 11. Right now, I am going through the post in a logical order. After I covered my initial reaction to the list, I can now move into looking at each item on the list and cover it in some more detail, which is the subject of this post.

Science is Accurate

I don’t know that anyone is necessarily arguing to the contrary, except for some attacks on the underlying assumptions of some of the science that is used in regard to aging the earth.

I would only wonder if some conclusions of scientists could be challenged. Mainstream science doesn’t like it when people argue with their conclusions, but that is precisely what a peer review period is for.

However, one of my arguments against the Christ-myth group is that it always the same modern people (Acharya S, Richard Carrier, drawing on a theory proposed 1800 years after the time of Christ, an opinion only shared by a minority of discredited scholars (such as Kersey Graves). This group never seems to make anything breakthrough; they always “bastardize” their works using the same sources and never anything up to date. Creation scientists seem to be the same way: always the same names appearing on every single publication, and always from either CMI or AiG.

Maybe the only real challenge that can be offered to science is that the earth is, in fact, older than mainstream science estimates, or the actual age is incalculable.

The very creation account that we are talking about here would provide some evidence to that effect. God doesn’t create the flow of time, or at least any way to measure the passage of it, until day 4 (Gen 1:14). This means that, prior to day 4, we had no way to mark the passage of time, and thus, no way to measure how much “duration” preceded this moment.

I, therefore, submit that it is impossible to know the true age of the earth, and by extension the universe itself. This explains why some measures of the age of the universe calculate 9 billion years, while others estimate 15 billion years or older. I’m not doubting the measurements, mind you, just our ability to accurately determine something that Scripture hints we are not able to accurately determine.

Scripture is Accurate

Nothing to argue here. I am a firm believer in biblical inerrancy.

Young Earth Creationism is Correct that Genesis 1 is Literal and Historical

This is a logical extension of point #2, that Scripture is accurate. Genesis 1 lacks the mythological elements of most creation stories. There aren’t deities fighting for supremacy, there are no divinely mandated missions, no prophecies to fulfill. In fact, an atheist friend of mind once said that if he were inventing a religion, this is the last sort of creation account that he would use, since it is so boring!

In fact, Josh McDowell argues in Evidence for Christianity that is precisely this blandness that proves the literalness and the historicity of the Genesis creation account. This account is written in the humdrum style of someone who is simply recording history, with none of the language of a person trying to construct a grand epic adventure story.

Greek creation, with Zeus having to journey below the Underworld to Tartarus to free the Titans, the Cyclopes manufacturing the weapons (Zeus’s thunderbolt, Poseidon’s trident, Hades’s helmet of invisibility, Athena’s bow and sword, etc.), the epic battle between Zeus and his father Cronus for the rule of the entire universe; these elements make a great movie. Something tells me that God speaking everything into existence isn’t going to be the next project that New Line Cinemas options in wake of the ironic combination of Lord of the Rings followed by His Dark Materials.

In Part III, I will finish the remaining items on the list. These items require some additional research and I will hop to it. Hopefully later today or tomorrow I can get these on the blog.

Mike from Geocreationism.com, in his post on February 13, 2007, has given the following seven points as the founding principles of his viewpoint of creation vs. evolution:

1. Science is accurate.
2. Scripture is accurate.
3. Young Earth Creationism is correct that Genesis 1 is literal and historical.
4. Old Earth Creationism is correct that the earth is old.
5. Gap Theorists are correct that there is a gap in the creation story (it’s Day 4 though, not Genesis 1:1)
6. Day-age Theorists are correct that each day maps to an age.
7. Theistic Evolutionists are correct that God caused mutations and allowed Natural Selection to occur. [source]

This seems to me as though Mike is starting with the assumption that everyone is correct and working on the premise that some sort of middle ground exists between the various viewpoints. That middle ground, which he calls Geocreationism, is the subject of his blog.

The crux of the matter, really, comes to how the reader answers the following question: For all of the competing theories, must someone necessarily be wrong? Obviously, Mike has decided to ride a seven-way fence by deciding that no one has to be wrong. But let’s take a closer look at Mike’s list and see if he is actually on to something.

First, as a student of human nature, I recognize that the order in which someone lists items is extremely important and reveals something about the nature of his underlying premise. For example, when receiving Christmas gifts from my wife’s family, I very well expect that such gifts will be To Jody and Cory. However, Christmas gifts from my side of the family are addressed To Cory and Jody. The reason for this should be obvious. When my side of the family sends a gift addressed first to my wife, I know that it is a gift that, while useful for both of us, is actually intended for her–such as a pastel colored set of towels. And when my name is listed first from her side of the family, likewise–the gift is usually something intended for spiritual development, which the husband ideally is in charge of.

So it is therefore significant to me that Mike lists science first, and Scripture second. The implication, from my perspective, is when science and Scripture meet in a place that has no reconciliation, I expect Mike will side with science. This is borne out by even a casual perusal of the Geocreationism blog, which is heavily pro-evolution. In fact, the site never doubts that humans evolved, however, it teaches that God used evolution as one means of creating the kinds of things He wanted.

This site does not teach Darwinian Evolution, but a variation where God introduces what he [sic] will, and then alternately lets the species tree grow wildly for a time, and then prune [sic] and graft [sic] until it looks like what He wants. He then lets the entire cycle go again, letting it grow, and pruning it back again. Evolution on the other hand is a continuous a process, where Natural Selection goes unchecked; I do not believe God lets nature go unchecked. He reigns it in. Regularly. Forcefully. Actively. Lovingly. In a similar fashion to how He maintains the Olive Tree of faith in Romans 11. That is the model for creation advocated here. [source]

Notice the inherent contradiction of this position already within only one paragraph: “. . . God introduces what he [sic] will, and then alternately lets the species tree grow wildly for a time, and then prune [sic] and graft [sic] until it looks like what He wants.” This is almost immediately followed by “I do not believe God lets nature go unchecked. He reigns it in. Regularly. Forcefully. Actively. Lovingly.”

Science 1, Scripture 0. See, mainstream science believes in natural selection as a process, and in order for Mike to make Scripture fit the science, he has to create a contradictory position where God lets nature take its course, but exercises meticulous sovereignty over it.

God cannot create a rock so big He couldn’t move it, because He can’t create something greater than Himself. He can’t make a square circle, simply because that is impossible to do within the geometric system He created. By allowing for free will, He necessarily allows for rebellion against His cause. Stark contrasts and opposites must exist within an orderly world, and God cannot create something that is defined by its opposite (such as a square circle, a triangle with five sides, or a greater deity than God Himself). This is the significance of separating Light from Darkness on Day One of Creation. The point here is that God cannot, by definition, allow something to propagate wildly by natural selection while also exercising meticulous sovereignty over it. This is logically, scientifically, theologically, and (most importantly) physically impossible.

Tomorrow, in part II of this series, I will take a closer look at each of the seven points.

Brian from Laelaps writes:

I would be very interested in hearing your interpretation of the hominid fossil record (i.e. Homo sapiens down through Proconsul). I know you’re busy and have quite a bit to work on with your book and all (and also I know you recently said that you’d rather focus on the salvation message rather than on geology/evolution/human origins), but I would be interested just to see how you interpret the fossil evidence for our ancient ancestry.

Well, you’re right: I don’t have the time to treat this issue with the respect that it deserves. It is a very interesting question and I will certainly explore it further. Right now, I only have very superficial information with which to work, and therefore my early conclusion will probably make you wince in the agony of my ignorance.

The question is written from an evolutionary point of view. This means that it assumes that I would interpret these fossils as ancestral to a modern human, because the question further assumes that evolution is a foregone conclusion. I don’t believe that it is. In other words, I believe what the Bible teaches: each animal reproduces after its own kind (Gen 1:24-25), and men and women were made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27).

I don’t deny the existence of these fossils. I deny the modern scientific interpretation of these fossils. I don’t believe that they are our ancestors. Perhaps they represent an extinct species of monkey, or perhaps they are simply modern humans. To the latter case, it is my understanding that our hominid “ancestors” are each only known from single, incomplete skeletons. That means that we are essentially guessing that this skeleton represents one of an entire race; it may only be an individual with an unusual deformity.

I’ve either made all kinds of sense or just stuck my foot into my mouth and swallowed. I’m hoping the first, but I give you permission to flame the living heck out of me if the latter is true.

Another source of evolutionist irritation is museum co-founder Ken Ham, a 55-year-old former science teacher who may be the most engaging Australian to hit the airwaves since the Crocodile Hunter. [source]

That quote caught my eye on Ken Ham’s blog, so I read the article from the Indianapolis Star, and found what might be the first actual balanced commentary.  I have no comments, except to say “read the article.”  It is especially helpful if you don’t already know what’s going on, as it contains some pretty good contextual information.

Science vs. Religion

It’s difficult to believe that anybody could actually be opposed to a call for science and religion to team up.  The fact that the rallying call comes from a scientist, Martin Rees, not a religious figure, is actually touching.

Not surprising, the measure is opposed by a group led by Richard Dawkins.  What a shocker.  Dawkins gives his usual diatribe about religion leading to violence:

“If we are too friendly to nice, decent bishops, we run the risk of buying into the fiction that there’s something virtuous about believing things because of fate rather than because of evidence. We run the risk of betraying scientific enlightenment.”

Bishops themselves never killed anybody, but possibly made the world safer for “people who do kill people by extolling the virtues of faith as opposed to reason and evidence”.

Thank you, Dr. Dawkins, for all you do in the spirit of cooperation.

Scientology Targets Youth (again) 

Yes, they are at it again, this time in the US.

Recruiting youth is actually a necessity.  If you’re going to convince them that aliens from outer space descended upon the earth and attached themselves to our species, then you’ll need to hook them young.

Remember that a Creator existing outside of time because He invented time itself, as well as having no cause because He also invented cause-and-effect relationships, may seem no less fantastic to some, but is actually infinitely more plausible than the alien theory.  Don’t believe me?  Check out apologetics by William Lane Craig, who could explain this better than I could.  He uses this approach in his apologetics and has a number of excellent articles.

Tom Cruise, my challenge stands.

I’ve been following the arguments between Ken Ham, founder and director of Answers in Genesis, and DefCon (the Organization for DEFending the CONstitution). As I mentioned previously, DefCon is circulating a petition where scientists and citizens have both spoken out against the opening of Ham’s Creation Museum this weekend (as of May 21, the scientist petition has 3,085 signatures and the citizen petition boasts 15,023).

As the title suggests, I find it amusing when both sides are arguing, but they are both dead wrong. Neither of them sees it. And here I am, following it for no other reason than pure unadulterated amusement.

Both sides are repeating the same arguments, over and over again, on their respective blogs. Neither argument is convincing, or even right. Let’s look at DefCon first:

Let’s let America know what this museum is really about — institutionalizing a lie — and ensure that everyone recognizes that such campaigns to deceive our children are not acceptable.

Also, be sure to let everyone you know about the religious right’s anti-science campaign and our efforts to expose their true agenda. [source]

Yes, I’ve heard DefCon say over and over again, ad nauseum, that the Creation Museum is institutionalizing a lie. “Institutionalizing a lie” is their rallying cry. But what lies, exactly, are Dr. Ham’s museum promoting? Why are they confusing our children? See, the blog makes these claims repeatedly, yet not a shred of physical evidence is provided for these claims.

I suppose that we’re just supposed to automatically know that. Pass they psychic pills over to me so I can be in on this secret. That is, if you’re not too busy arguing from outrage!

Dr. Ham isn’t any better. A typical example from him:

In an emotionally charged negative article against the Creation Museum, a scientist who has not visited the Museum, has not read any of the teaching signs, nor seen any of the videos, wrote an opinion piece for the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper, in which he used the following terms regarding the Creation Museum exhibits: “scientific fraud,” “lies,” “a travesty,” “false,” “misguided,” “misinformation,” “colossal unreason,” “hypocritical,” “misrepresent,” “bad science,” “manifestly false,” and “religiously motivated fraud.” [source]

While Ham correctly realizes that DefCon is arguing from outrage, he is seriously misinformed. The scientist to whom he refers, Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, has not visited the museum, however, there are museum virtual tours online as well as a website with plenty of media information regarding the exhibits. The article referenced contains descriptions of exhibits that could only be detailed by an eyewitness–or someone who has talked to one such person. In fact, members of DefCon have visited this museum and offered their own reports.

Dr. Ham only seems to answer the naysayers who haven’t been to the physical museum, not the ones that have. And he always answers them by crying “argument from outrage” followed by “they haven’t even seen it yet!”

I, for one, would like to see the Creation Museum. I know that God has blessed me with a great gift of discernment, so I’m sure that if it’s a huge fraud I’ll know it after two or three exhibits. Mostly, I’d be interested to read any literature that they have on the problem of light–in a universe as vast as ours, in a 6,000 year old scenario, we’d never be able to see just to the center of our galaxy. Only objects 6,000 light years away would be visible, since it would take the light that long to reach our planet. Anything further, such as the center of our galaxy (50,000 light years), the opposite edge of our galaxy (100,000 light years), or a quasar (12 million light years) should not be visible.

Tracing known galaxies on a backwards trajectory assuming their current velocity and estimated positions to a common point of origin postulates a 15 billion year old universe. The sun’s own ratio of hydrogen to helium estimates 5 to 6 billion years. How would the Creationist Museum answer that?

Ken Ham’s book, The War of the Worldviews, convinced me to be a YEC. Now I’m doubting that proposition based on the fact that the book does something very similar to what DefCon is doing to the Creation Museum: argument by outrage. I think I’ll reread that book with a more careful eye to detail.

I want to go to the museum to see if any of these big issues are addressed honestly, or if they’re sidelined, figuring that the average person doesn’t know enough about science to make complicated issues like that a problem. Well, actually, I just want to play with the animatronic dinosaurs because I’m a big geek.

There are many conversations in the blogosphere that happen to be going on at the moment that I would like to join, but find myself without the time to do so.  Therefore, I just decided to do a round up of the best that’s out there, and add a few imperfect thoughts to the mix.

First, for those unaware,  Dr. Francis Beckwith, a respected theologian, has recently converted to Roman Catholicism.  I’m no friend of the church of Rome, but everything I have to say can be read here at Dr. James White’s blog.  It’s just so difficult to believe that someone who has spent his life studying the Bible can convert to a religion that preaches so much contrary to the book he professes to love and defend.  As Dr. White says, and as I (a former Catholic) can attest, there is no teaching of God’s grace or forgiveness.

I know I sometimes feel like the adulterous woman in John 8:3-11.  Except that I’m a man.  And I haven’t committed adultery.  That aside, I feel like I’ve laid before God, all my sins and iniquities there for Him to see.  And He says to me what Jesus said: “I don’t condemn you.  Go, and sin no more.”

It’s so powerful, the grace of God.  That He is willing to forgive those children of His who, like me, lay their sins before Him and repent–and then just say to us simply, “Go, and sin no more.”  How many times will He forgive us?  I assume the same number of times that Jesus told Peter to forgive a brother that wronged him: “Seventy times seven times.”  That’s a Hebrew idiom that means “infinity.”

All of this because of Christ’s death on the cross.

Rome doesn’t preach that.  In Rome’s gospel, we somehow have to clean ourselves first, we have to do something to earn our salvation.  Of course, we can never know for sure if we have earned our salvation; that’s the sin of presumption.  Instead, we have to trust  in a repeating sacrifice of the Mass, the “infallible” interpretations offered by the church hierarchy, the sacraments, and (of course) an indeterminate stay in purgatory.  Those may cleanse us of our sins.

Of course, the real gospel message is one of simple repentance and preparedness to do the good works of God: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:8-10, emphasis added).  The Jesus of the gospel saves perfectly, every time (Heb 10:14).  We need no other imperfect sacrifice, offered repeatedly on the altars of Roman Catholic churches everywhere, we only need Jesus (Heb 10:1).

Yet, Dr. Beckwith appears to believe otherwise.  I suppose we should pray that God will reveal His truth to Dr. Beckwith in His time, and that this move will demonstrate God’s glory in a way that would not otherwise be possible.  God does make all things work together for the sake of His people (Rom 8:28).

DefCon–an organization for the Defense of the Constitution–is taking on Dr. Ken Ham’s upcoming Creation Museum by circulating two petitions, one for academics and one for ordinary citizens, but to what purpose I cannot ascertain by reading the petition.  It only calls for opposition to the Creation Museum, not to shut it down.  It doesn’t even ask us to boycott it.

Ham has answered the critics on his blog several times by repeatedly using the catch phrase “They haven’t even visited it.”  Yeah, Doc, but they already know our arguments as literal-Genesis guys, same as we know their arguments as evolutionary biologists, right?  So they can guess what is in there.  Same as I can hazard a guess as to what would be in an evolutionary museum.

Aren’t both of us just yammering away the same way?  I mean, evolutionists say that evolution must be true because God didn’t create it, look at the similarities between species, look at the evolutionary tree, etc., etc.  It must be true because the alternative is God!

The creationists do the same thing.  It must be true because the Bible says so, we can explain similarities between species by common design, God’s law and judgment doesn’t exist with 4.6 billion year old Earth, etc. etc.  It must be true, because the alternative is evolution!

We all know that I’m a Young Earth Creationist, that I don’t believe in evolution, and that I work at Burger King.  So what?  I’m still looking at this argument with the eyes of a person who could be dead wrong, since more scientific evidence supports an Old Earth and universe.  I want to believe in a Young Earth since that fits more closely to what the Bible says, but perhaps in the case of Young vs. Old, we just don’t have enough evidence from either side to rule out any possibilities.

Logic forces me to believe in a Creator simply because an infinity of past events leading to the present isn’t possible.  “Infinity” is a concept, not a number to be used in equations.  Time is merely the result of this universe, specifically, planetary bodies orbiting large centers of gravity create what we know as “time.”  Before that, there was no duration, aging, or anything else associated with the passing of time.  God, existing in this eternity, created the universe (and with it, time).  It only makes sense that the Creator of something was never subject to it, since “it” didn’t exist before the Creator created it.

The challenge as a Christian becomes preaching sin, death, and judgment when we know that these concepts are tied to the Fall, but (in an Old Earth model) not unique to the Fall.  The position of Ken Ham and the entire AiG crew is to teach a literal account of Genesis, support a Young Earth model, and thus maintain the integrity of God’s Word.

I, as a Young Earth creationist, believe that some room must exist for science to work its wonders.  Why can’t there be a reconciliation between what one teaches, and the other says?  Many Old Earth creationists believe in the tenets of sin and judgment, and know why death occurs in relation to the Fall, just fine and dandy without having to be Young Earth creationists.

Maybe, instead of my previous post on changing over to Young Earth creationist, I should have stated that I want to believe it, but the jury is still out.  Of course, being an apologist, I hate wavering on any Biblical issue.  As the defender of God’s truth, I should have a position to defend.  Wavering doesn’t bode well for me.

Of course, I think it does if my motive is to come to the truth of what God is teaching.  I believe that the Christians out there will sympathize with that, but the atheists will see this as a weak point and fire both barrels at it.

And on a weird note, Westboro Baptist Church is getting sued for having a parody video on their website of “We are the World.”  That was such a cheesy song, but it did so much good for the world.  And, of course, that was back when Michael Jackson was cool.  Westboro is now using it to spread their message of hate.

The parody version, “God Hates the World,” is still available on the cult’s web page and the lawyers have issued statements that say it won’t come down.  Let the pissing contest begin!

Hmmm… Interesting title for a worship song.  Do their Bibles not have John 3:16 in it?  That is assuming they actually read the Bible, of course.

It appears as though the greatest stumbling block to the fight against the AIDS pandemic in Africa is, in fact, spiritualists and faith healers claiming to be able to cure the virus. Several folks in rural areas opted for faith healing instead of taking the anti-retroviral (ARV) treatments to slow the progress of the disease.

Prior to this, the article states, poverty had been the greatest stumbling block to fighting the disease. Now, it is a religious culture of faith healing.

This is the point where the atheist reader would expect me to hop on my soapbox and start into the whole religious thing about prayer really healing and not to discount miracles, and how God will work in His time.

While all of that is true, I think that it is simply ridiculous not to take advantage of modern medicine if it is made available to the person. Here the atheist and I see to eye to eye: religion is harmful and must be set aside if we are to contain this pandemic.

I would be in good company in declaring this. I believe that Christ would lead the battle in putting aside religion and taking advantage of modern medicine. Why? Because Christ very often did tell people to set aside religion for similar purposes.

Consider the commandment “Honor your father and mother” (Ex 20:12). The Pharisees had ruled that money paid as tithes or any other money that was used in worship offerings did not have to be used to care for an elderly parent. Put another way, worshiping with a tithe or offering trumped that commandment, and thus did not incur God’s wrath. So many Jews actually used this as a loophole to avoid caring for their parents or other family members in their time of need.

Did Jesus encourage us to follow tradition here, or to set it aside in order to bring our actions closer to God’s will? He told the Pharisees

You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, “Honor your father and your mother”; and, “Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.” But you say, “If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban” (that is, given to God)–then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. [Mk 7:9-13]

If your religion is causing you to lay down your life prematurely or to spread a terrible disease, then it is time to stop clinging to the traditions of men and return to the Word of God. I cannot imagine that Jesus would want us to decline treatments designed to prolong and improve your life to simply rely upon prayer.

I’ve already dealt with the issue of prayer here. Answers don’t necessarily come in ways we think or expect them to. Oftentimes the answer comes in a way that seems perfectly ordinary. The ARV treatment is, in my humble opinion, the very answer to prayer that these people are looking for. And they are turning it down, because they think that it is what is demanded by their religion. Very sad.

I had the privilege of reading this item on the Rational Response Squad website:

MAY 9th 1:00 pm EST, Rational Response Squad responds to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron as they try to prove scientifically without invoking the Bible or faith that their god exists. Martin Bashir will moderate. View the entire discussion at ABC.com website! May 9th, 11:35 pm (check local listings) ABC Nightline will recap the entire discussion!

Well, I’m pretty geeked about this. This may surprise people, but I’m personally looking forward to the RRS tearing Cameron and Comfort a new one. I’ll probably have to work during the live broadcast, but I’ll download the discussion, and read the analysis later on the various blogs that will undoubtedly carry the news.

After the RRS destroys these guys in the debate, hopefully they’ll realize that the deck is stacked in atheism’s favor here. Cameron and Comfort must leave the Bible and faith (and by this we probably mean “blind faith,” not saving faith; but the RRS makes no distinction I’m sure) at home. These are theism’s greatest weapons! But will the RRS leave their scientific journals and research at home? Of course not! That’s atheism’s greatest weapon!

That is why this battle is lost before it is fought. At least it will be good for a laugh and some hefty analysis on what not to do when debating atheists. Leaving your Bible and your faith at home in a debate on the existence of God is roughly the equivalent to bringing a rubber knife to a gun fight. You may as well try to stop a freight train with a toothpick.

Granted, you can’t use the Bible to prove that there is a God. Once you prove the existence of a supernatural creator, you need the Bible to contextualize this being, for it is His Word. If Cameron and Comfort succeed in proving the existence of God (which I have no doubt that they can do), they can’t succeed in proving that this god is the Christian God without using the Bible.

Hopefully, these two well-meaning folks will realize their error through this debate. That is my prayer for them.

Now all I need is an RRS hat and paint to make some cool banners:

Go Sapient! Give ‘em no Comfort!

And:

Rook takes Kirk. Checkmate!

Any chance someone’ll start the wave? (I’m such a fair-weather fan!)