Monthly Archives: April 2010
CedarCreek Talks About Sex
Shocking. CedarCreek, a Toledo-area megachurch, is trying to be relevant. They are planning two meetings about sex from God’s point of view, the first titled “Sex: It’s Bigger Than You Think” on April 25 and “From Messing Up to Making Up” on May 2. As per CedarCreek’s usual M.O., there is an aggressive advertising campaign and a website.
While I think that it is refreshing that many churches are starting to eliminate the taboos once placed on talking about sex, not everyone seems to agree:
But the Rev. Andrew Edwards, pastor of Northwest Baptist Church in Toledo, said church is not the place to talk about sex. He voiced strong opposition to CedarCreek’s campaign, saying that discussing sex with teens would make them more likely to engage in it because it would “stir up their emotions.”
The pastor criticized CedarCreek for “letting the world dictate what they do instead of the Bible.”
“What they’re using is the sensual, not the spiritual,” Mr. Edwards said. “I oppose what they do. I don’t think what they’re doing is going to help. They’re just using it to market to teenagers.” (source)
Often, the world charges that the church simply isn’t relevant on sex anymore. To the world, monogamy is cruel, premarital sex is a “right,” and those who would preach abstinence prior to marriage are evil. Adultery is just another fact of life, and the sooner that the church accepts that, the better.
We’re evil for expecting people to exercise a little self-control? It can’t be about that, can it? God shouldn’t actually expect us to keep it in our pants unless we’re in a committed, loving, relationship sealed with the sacrament of marriage, should he? I mean, that’s just cruel. And then, once married, he actually expects us to honor those marriage vows?
No wonder Richard Dawkins described God famously in The God Delusion with all of those lovely adjectives strung together on page 31. It’s just plain evil to give us a beautiful gift and then expect us to actually obey rules with it. We should be able to have sex wherever, whenever, and with whomever we please, regardless if we’re married, single, divorced, underage, or related to the person after whom we lust.
Self-control is for the birds. After all, we’re just animals that have evolved higher intelligence. Animals don’t have all those restrictions; they have sex with any partner that will have them! We’re no different than any animal, so why should we obey all of these rules when it comes to sex, the most fun that anyone can have, ever?
Sorry, Mr. Edwards, but obviously I disagree. It is precisely because the world has the view of sex that I just satirized is why the church should educate people about it. People should understand that sex is a beautiful thing, when exercised properly. But few people are willing to practice the appropriate self-control, and even fewer understand the proper use of sex.
And that is where the church comes in.
Ignoring this problem will not make it go away.
Irony: I’m a Fan
Here is a great example of irony:
Did all you atheists know that there is a whole month the god botherers are dedicating just to pray for us to jump aboard the crazy train of delusion? I didn’t know about this till I saw it on an old classmate’s Facebook profile! The god believers have dedicated a whole month “and beyond” to “Pray for an Atheist”.
Listen you god believing fools, it ain’t gonna do any good. Your god doesn’t exist and no matter how hard you wish, no matter how many magical incantations you say, there will still be an ever-growing population of atheists in this world.
Neslock comments:
I’ve never met an atheist that cares whether they’re prayed for or not (outside of the desire that the person praying do something better with their time). I think this is a subtle play on the idea that “atheists” are really “satanists”; why would any atheist have a “strong objection” to being prayed for, when most atheists just consider prayer to be wishful thinking?
So, you don’t have any strong feelings about being prayed for, but you take the time to complain about it an online forum anyway?
And the author of the post says this in retaliation to a believer:
Why do we mock the believer when he fears that we are going to spend an eternity in a terrible place for merely not being able to believe due to lack of evidence that this Sky Boss really exists? It’s because of how smugly you all think that you have some superior knowledge over us, when in fact you do not. You simply choose to follow some ancient mythology, invented my human beings as a coping device for things they could not explain nor understood. Humans cling to this afterlife belief because they are afraid of death. Christianity is basically a death cult, looking to an unproven afterlife while thinking that this earthly life is somehow not good enough to have lived. (emphasis added)
WOW. It seems to me that it is the atheist who thinks that they have superior knowledge over the believer. The blog I pulled this from, God is for Suckers, is dedicated to:
Commentary, news, and rants on the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky. Illuminating and watchdogging the widespread attempts to institutionalize the theocratic rule of the US. Making fun of believers everywhere.
The whole blog presupposes that the atheist knows something that the believer doesn’t. More irony.
Yet more irony:
Others have said plenty about how prayer can be arrogant, so I feel I should bring up one of my usual points: Faith is a monument to pride, arrogance, and hubris. It’s the act of declaring oneself to be the supreme arbiter of the universe, and the belief that gods bow to the faithful’s definitions of them.
I prefer the humility involved in science.
Humility like PZ Meyers displays?
It’s rather neat that modern scientists know more than God. (source)
Good News for a Change
It’s nice to read a heartwarming story for a change:
Despite protests and pressure from feminists and pro-abortion groups, an 11-year-old girl in the Mexican city of Chetumal has refused to undergo an abortion. The young girl explained her decision saying that she understands, “a life is growing in her womb.”
Good for her! Her child didn’t ask to be born under these trying circumstances, so why punish the child by killing it? It doesn’t make sense. What to do with the child can be decided at a different time. The important thing here is that new life be loved and preserved.
This is Dumb
I am a Christian first. But I belong to a wider category of people who are called theists. The only thing that we all have in common is that we believe in a force greater than ourselves, which we believe to be deity, and that we worship.
When one theist says something stupid, it makes all of us look bad. Witness:
Many women who dress inappropriately … cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes. Calamities are the result of people’s deeds. We have no way but conform to Islam to ward off dangers. (source)
So said Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi, a hardline Muslim leader.
All this time, I thought it was because Iran was situated near a nexus of faultlines. Silly me!
What is Going on Here?
In a previous post, I highlighted some hilarity from my spam folder. It looks like I got some more. A user calling himself “names of jesus” posted a link to this website, which apparently can’t decide if it is a skeptic site, or an Evangelical site.
It opens thus:
There were at smallest amount three historical characters with similar names who lived in Galilee in the earliest century, whose lives were pasted together by the Apostles to create the mythical Jesus Christ. The names were |like to Yessu, Yessui, and Yeshuah. One was indeed crucified by the Romans, but he was merely a common criminal. One in truth had disciples, but he was stoned to death by his own people for heresy. The third was the son of Mary of Nazareth, the result of her adulterous relationship with a Roman soldier called Pantheras. So, no Virgin Mary, and no real Jesus Christ.
I’m thinking skeptic site. Then, after listing many of the names of Jesus from both Old and New Testaments, it continues:
My name and who I am does not matter. I am only a sinner saved by the grace of God and I just want to tell you that Jesus Christ loves you. God loves you, no matter what evils you have done. You and I both deserve to go to hell because of our sins, but He sent His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to bleed, suffer, and die on an old cursed tree for your sins. Jesus died on the cross of Calvary for you. Satan(the devil) hates you and wants your soul to burn in the lake of fire forever. Satan wants you to stay in bondage to your sins, but Jesus came to save your soul. He wants to be your Saviour and Lord.
What?? I thought this site was a skeptic site. Above, it just said there was no historical Jesus. Who, then, has saved the webmaster’s soul?
He then continues with a plea to the reader to give his life to Christ. Well, if Christ doesn’t exist, why would anyone do that? If this is a skpetic site, then it is a clear example of Poe’s Law (much like Landover Baptist Church). If it is an Evangelical site, then the introduction undercuts the conclusion and they need to rethink what message they’re trying to convey.
For now, I call Poe’s Law.
A Hiccup in Service, and Some Miscellaneous
This blog may be slowly gaining some popularity, but it still only reaches a relatively small audience. Therefore, few people (if anyone) probably noticed a short hiccup in service. The domain “josiahconcept.org” wouldn’t have worked after midnight on April 17 through the early morning hours of April 18. I apologize for the temporary inconvience.
I pay two fees in order to maintain this site. I register the domain through GoDaddy.com (which uses women in bikinis to advertise its services, so go ahead and let’s hear the charges of hypocrisy based on 1 Tim 2:9; I’m ready!), which has pretty reasonable prices and good service. WordPress.com also charges a nominal fee to redirect web traffic via the purchased domain instead of forcing me to use the default blog address (called domain mapping).
I was an idiot and kept putting off renewing my subscription to domain mapping, which expired on April 16. Therefore, beginning on the 17th, attempts to reach this site via josiahconcept.org would be met with an error. This morning was my first opportunity to correct that problem.
Also, this past week my mother-in-law was in town. She sleeps in the same room as the computer is located, so I can only blog sporadically when she is home. As chance would have it, I didn’t get to blog at all. This also contributed to the domain mapping subscription running out under my nose.
As a result, there is a serious backlog in comments. I got to most of them this evening, but there are still two really long ones (both from HeHe) that I haven’t mustered the werewithal to dig through and answer yet. I should get to those soon.
There are also two comments in moderation (again, both from HeHe) that I haven’t got around to yet. I should have all this resolved shortly.
Hopefully soon I can begin work on two big projects for the blog. The first is digging back through previous posts to find some material that can either be adapted or stand as-is for articles under my “Articles” tab. That will probably be ongoing for the remainder of this year.
The second is a multi-part essay that aims to answer the question “Who is a True Christian?” Many skeptics believe that all it takes to be considered a Christian is a profession of Christian faith, such as that made by Fred Phelps. Based on Matthew 7:17-19 and 12:33, however, the issue is a bit more complex than a simple mental assent to Jesus as Savior (see also Jms 2:19). Anytime we apologists attempt to disown a character like Phelps, the skeptic whips out the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I hope to put that to bed for good.
Speaking of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, philosopher Anthony Flew (the fallacy’s inventor) died on April 8. Flew, an able apologist for atheism, recently became convinced of the existence of God. He wasn’t a Christian, so I join James White (and hopefully many others) in wondering why the EPS touted him as a great victory over atheism. Maybe he was closer to the truth, but he still didn’t embrace truth in its fullness. Either way, his books are still going to be on my reading list, particularly the book that describes his conversion to deism.
Bruce Waltke’s Dismissal from RTS
Professor of Old Testament Studies Bruce Waltke’s dismissal from Reformed Theological Seminary is making its rounds on the Internet these days. For those that haven’t heard, Waltke posted a video on the BioLogos website where he argues that evolution is compatible with Christian orthodoxy. In part, USA Today reports that he said:
If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult … some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness. (source)
I want to seize on what I think is the key phrase in that, that not believing evolution “make[s] us a cult. . . some odd group that is not really interacting with the world.”
There is no doubt that we should interact with the world. However, there is a huge danger in adopting a worldly belief system, just so we don’t seem like a cult. The apostle Paul exhorts:
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom 12:2)
James writes:
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (Jms 1:27)
And later states:
Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (Jms 4:4)
The apostle John weighs in as well:
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 Jn 2:15-17)
The conclusion is best stated by saying that we should be in the world, but not of the world. It seems as though Warnke is saying that we should accept the scientific conclusion that man evolved from other organisms, in a branching tree of life that eventually whittles down to a single common ancestor for every life form. And we should accept that scientific conclusion so that we don’t seem so different, so set apart from the rest of the world.
Well, the Bible states that we should be separate from the world. The apostle Peter says:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Pet 2:9)
If we become like the world, how then are we supposed to witness to it? We are supposed to live a holy life, dedicated to God. If there is no difference between us and the average pagan, how will anyone see a clear difference in being Christian?
I will close with one of my favorite quotes from St. Francis of Assisi: “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.”
Reverse Hypocrisy
I’ve spent so much of my time reviewing atheists and skeptics that I’ve forgotten part of my mission is to point out inconsistencies in the doctrine and practice of other Christians. I saw an article in my hometown newspaper, The Blade, that contained an amazing quote by a professed Christian.
Normal hypocrisy is something that we see all the time. Basically, it is a fundamental difference between the way you think and the way you act. In other words, thinking like a Christian but not acting like a Christian. Ted Haggard is a great example. He preached against homosexuality, but resigned from the ministry in disgrace when it was revealed that he had a gay lover.
In Saturday’s edition of The Blade, I saw an example of reverse hypocrisy. This would entail acting like a Christian but not thinking like a Christian. Local woman Alesia Prater was robbed at gunpoint by now-convicted felon Rebecca Olinger. At Olinger’s sentencing, Prater was allowed to speak and said:
She’d have been better off asking me for money rather than pointing a gun at me. As a Christian, I have to forgive her. I don’t like that I do, but I do. (source)
Hmmm. That’s interesting. Prater not only feels obligated to forgive her assailant, but she doesn’t like doing it. And she vocalizes it. She’s doing it out of obligation for the sake of being a Christian.
Well, that’s just wrong. Read the rest of this entry
Eternal Security
Eternal security, also called “perseverence of the saints” and better known as “once saved, always saved (OSAS)” has drawn the attention of Ben, who goes by kangaroodort on the blog Arminian Perspectives. Ben has noted an item from Jeff Paton on the August of 2009 George Sodini debacle. Ben and Paton both believe that the Sodini is the textbook problem with eternal security.
Sodini, prior to his killing spree, wrote the following on his blog (December 31, 2008):
“Be Ye Holy, even as I have been Ye holy! Thus saith the lord thy God!”, as pastor R— K—- [redacted by raincoaster] would proclaim. Holy shit, religion is a waste. But this guy teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven. Ask him. Call him at [redacted by raincoaster]. If no answer there, he should still live at [redacted by raincoaster]. In any case, guilt and fear kept me there 13 long years until Nov 2006. I think his crap did the most damage. (cited here)
Note that Sodini states “you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven.” The pastor convinced him of this. A quick scan of his church’s website (the doctrinal statement wasn’t available when I went there, but they did have a table of contents) appears to confirm that it teaches OSAS. So, it is very possible that Sodini believes that his ticket is punched and he will go to heaven regardless of his beliefs and practices leading up to his death.
Paton appears to be blaming the mass murder itself on Sodini’s complete misunderstanding of the OSAS doctrine. Witness: Read the rest of this entry
Back Rome Again 
I Have No Words for This
Apr 18
Posted by Cory Tucholski
The following comment was attached to my “A Few Things Atheists Need to Know About Christians” post, but was caught (with good reason) in my spam folder:
It came from someone who named himself “online matchmaking” and listed a lesser-known Christian singles website as his homepage. Advertisement, anyone?
I mean, seriously: “diametrically contradicted,” “I’m still pondering on the opposite points of view,” and “modern-day democracy and the marketplace of ideas online?” Who talks like that?
Posted in Humor
2 Comments
Tags: Comment Spam