Atheism or Christianity: Whose Fruit is Sweeter? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1576

Atheism or Christianity: Whose Fruit is Sweeter?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

“Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies.” Such is the arduous title of a recent article that appeared in Journal of Religion and Society. Although the content of the article is much more reader friendly and interesting than its title might suggest, the author’s proposal is disturbingly misleading. According to Gregory Paul, “a freelance scientist and scientific illustrator specializing in dinosaur evolution” who penned the article in question (“Author Information,” n.d.), “[a]greement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population” (Paul, 2005). Supposedly, America’s forefathers like Benjamin Franklin were wrong in their many remarks about how religion (and specifically the Christian religion) would be a blessingupon America. Gregory Paul indicates that actually the blight of theism is clearly visible, and apparently a source of much of America’s dysfunction.

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.... No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction... (Paul, 2005).

Thankfully, Mr. Paul admitted that his writing was “not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health.” Nevertheless, he leaves readers with the strong impression that the fruit of theism is much more bitter than that of atheism.

Although one could argue that on certain grounds the United States is not as “dysfunctional” as some might contend, statistics do indicate that in America 22% of the population suffers from one or more STDs (“Tracking...,” 2004), more than one million innocent, unborn babies are slaughtered every year (“Induced Abortion,” 2002), and on average one murder (not including abortions) occurs every 32 minutes (“Crime in...,” 2003). These are only a few of the ghastly statistics that indicate America certainly is not the “shining city on the hill” that many (including our Founding Fathers) would like for it to be. That said, is one justified in closely attaching such data to America’s predominant theistic viewpoint? After all, “[o]ver the past fifty years of research, the percentage of Americans who believe in God has never dropped below 90%” (Gallup, Jr. and Lindsay, 1999, p. 23). Does theism really breed poor societal health and dysfunction? Answer: It certainly could. But, pure, unadulterated Christianity and true, biblical theism does not.

Most Americans believe in a higher power, which they may call “God,” but for many this is not the God of the Bible. They simply believe in a “convenient” creator, who allows them to do whatever feels good. They reject the Bible as revelation from God, and choose to live according to their own rules (which can lead to a dysfunctional society if those “rules” are contrary to biblical mandates). A great percentage of the remaining theists in America who call themselves Christians have perverted Christianity to the extent that somehow (among other things) having sexual relations outside of a scriptural marriage and killing innocent, unborn babies is acceptable. This type of theism is no better than atheism, and its fruit will be just as bitter. Israel suffered much throughout their history, but this was not the result of their theism. Rather, it was because of their departure from true, faithful devotion to Jehovah God (e.g., Numbers 14:33-34; Judges 19-20). As far back as 1947, Lincoln Barnett, in an article titled “God and the American People,” observed how “[i]t is evident that a profound gulf lies between America’s avowed ethical standards and the observable realities of national life. What may be more alarming is the gap between what Americans think they do and what they do do” (emp. in orig.). This gap has only widened in the last fifty years. What many theistic Americans may say they do (obey the God of the Bible) and what they really do (contribute to the moral decline of society by breaking God’s laws) is, indeed, disconcerting and grounds for legitimate criticism.

Atheistic, pro-evolution democracies, however, cannot logically associate the immorality of America with pure Christianity, and thus assume that atheism is more beneficial for a society. A country comprised of true Christians would be mostly void of such things as sexually transmitted diseases, murder, thievery, drunken fathers who beat their wives and children, drunk drivers who turn automobiles into lethal weapons, and heartache caused by such things as divorce, adultery, and covetousness (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:21; Matthew 19:9; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5-9; Galatians 5:19-23; Ephesians 4:28; 5:25,28; 6:4). Only those who break God’s commandments intended for man’s benefit would cause undesirable fruit to be reaped. [NOTE: This is the kind of society that America’s Founding Fathers envisioned—one based upon the unchanging, moral principles of the Bible. In reality, America was founded to be a republic, not a democracy (seeMiller, 2005).]

The God of the Bible cannot logically be blamed because “theists” or “Christians” forsake His commands and do that which is right in their own eyes (cf. Judges 17:6). Furthermore, simply because the more atheistic, pro-evolution democracies do not permit their godless philosophy of life to produce the true fruits of the “survival of the fittest” mentality, but rather choose to live according to moral guidelines similar to those found in the Bible (e.g., not murdering, stealing, lying, etc.), does not mean that alleged low rates of crime, murder, etc. is the fruit of true atheistic thought. In short, unrighteousness, whether it stems from atheism or a corrupted form of Christianity, produces bitter fruit that will eventually bring about the wrath of God.

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34).

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink, who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away justice from the righteous man! Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble, and the flame consumes the chaff, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom will ascend like dust; because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel (Isaiah 5:20-24).

REFERENCES

“Author Information” (no date), The John Hopkins University Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title_pages/1442.html.

Barnett, Lincoln (1947), “God and the American People,” Ladies Home Journal, November.

“Crime in the United States, 2002” (2003), Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Gallup, George Jr. and Michael Lindsay (1999), Surveying the Religious Landscape: Trends in U.S. Beliefs (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing).

“Induced Abortion” (2002), Alan Guttmacher Institute, [On-line], URL: http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.pdf.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Christianity, Democracy, and Iraq,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/308.

Paul, Gregory S. (2005), “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies,” Journal of Religion and Society, vol. 7, [On-line], URL: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html.

“Tracking the Hidden Epidemics 2000” (2004), Center for Disease Control, [On-line], URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/RevBrochure1pdfintro.htm.

Can't Teach Morality in School by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2113

Can't Teach Morality in School

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

You’ve undoubtedly heard the expression: “You can’t legislate morality!” Actually, such a claim is fairly recent in American culture and flies directly in the face of fact. After all, God has legislated human morality from the very beginning of time. The laws of every country do the same. If we cannot legislate morality, shall we annul all our laws against murder, theft, and perjury in court? The notion is typical of the mindless drivel spouted since the 1960s by those who reject traditional American values—values that arose from the Bible.

The same may be said concerning the relentless attempt to expel God and morality from the public schools. Liberal educators insist that morality must not be taught in the school system. The theory is that moral standards have no objective reality. They arise from within persons and exist only in reference to the subjective opinion and will of the individual. Hence, schools should not attempt to enforce upon students one particular value system. Such insidious, suicidal nonsense has transformed the American public school system into a recipe for national disaster.

Acceptance of such thinking is not only a recent phenomenon in American history, the notion was soundly repudiated by the Founders of American education. A mountain of evidence exists to verify this claim. As one example, consider the founding of the University of Pennsylvania, due in large part to the efforts of Benjamin Franklin (“University of...,” n.d.). Nine signers of theDeclaration of Independence and 11 signers of the Constitution were associated with this institution. This longtime traditional member of the Ivy League is a private university founded in 1740 in Philadelphia as a charity school. It became an academy in 1753, with Benjamin Franklin as president of the first board of trustees, and is credited with opening the first school of medicine in the United States in 1765. Consider the motto of the school: Leges sine moribus vanae. Meaning? “Laws without morals are useless.” What better description of what is happening to the nation in general and public education in particular?

REFERENCES

“University of Pennsylvania” (no date), Answers.com, [On-line], URL:http://www.answers.com/topic/university-of-pennsylvania.

Did Jesus Go to Gerasa or Gadara? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1434&b=Matthew

Did Jesus Go to Gerasa or Gadara?

by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Matthew recorded that Jesus commanded demons to come out of two men (8:29). This account is recorded in all three of the synoptic gospel accounts, but with two different renderings of the name of the place where the miracles occurred. The Greek word commonly accepted in Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 as the basis for the name of the people who inhabited the place where Jesus and the disciples went is rendered Gerasenes in English (Metzger, 1975, pp. 84,145). The Greek word in Matthew 8:28, however, reveals that Jesus went to the country of the Gadarenes (p. 23). Were the writers of the synoptic gospel accounts confused about where Jesus was when He healed the men? Albert Barnes explained the difference between Gadara and Gerasa:

Gadara was a city not far from the Lake Gennesareth, one of the ten cities that were called Decapolis. Gergesa [probably a variation of “Gerasa”—CC] was a city about 12 miles to the south-east of Gadara, and about 20 miles to the east of the Jordan. There is no contradiction, therefore, in the evangelists. He came into the region in which the two cities were situated, and one evangelist mentioned one, and the other another. It shows that the writers had not agreed to impose on the world; for if they had, they would have mentioned the same city; and it shows, also, they were familiar with the country. No men would have written in this manner but those who were acquainted with the facts (1949, p. 91).

Matthew, Mark, and Luke were writing of the same general area. The Roman city Gerasa was a famous city that would have been familiar to a Gentile audience, but Gadara, as the capital city of the Roman province of Perea, was the chief of the ten cities in Decapolis (Lenski, 1946, p. 205; Coffman, 1975, p. 85; Youngblood, 1995, p. 468), so even those who lived in Gerasa could have been called Gadarenes. The stamp of a ship on Gadarene coins suggests that the region called Gadara probably extended to Galilee (McGarvey, n.d., p. 344; McClintock and Strong, 1969, 3: 706). The New Testament writers chose to refer to the area in different ways.

It is also a possibility that in the handing down of New Testament manuscripts over many years, slightly different readings of the same word have developed. Some have suggested that the words “Gergesenes” and “Gerasenes” are not words referring to people from a city other than Gadara, but merely different variations of the word “Gadarenes” (Youngblood, p. 468; McGarvey, p. 344).

It is clear that Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not contradict each other—in fact, they complemented each other. The writers were not confused about Palestinian geography. In this instance, each writer intended to draw attention to an area close to the Sea of Galilee. The precise place where the miracle occurred is not as essential to our understanding of the narrative as is the realization that Christ has control over the spiritual realm (Lenski, 1946, p. 205).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1949), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Coffman, James Burton (1975), Commentary on Mark (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Lenski, Robert C.H. (1946), The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Metzger, Bruce M. (1975 corrected edition), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: United Bible Societies).

McClintock, John and James Strong (1969 reprint), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

McGarvey, J.W. (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

Youngblood, Ronald F., ed. (1995), New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Nelson).

Did Jesus and the Centurion Speak to Each Other Personally? by Jim Estabrook

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=644&b=Matthew

Did Jesus and the Centurion Speak to Each Other Personally?

by Jim Estabrook

On one occasion when Jesus entered Capernaum, He was asked to heal a certain centurion’s servant. Skeptics allege that a contradiction exists between Matthew’s account of this story (8:5-13) and Luke’s account (7:1-10). Whereas Matthew’s account says, “a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him” on behalf of his servant, Luke recorded that “he [the centurion—JE] sent elders of the Jews to Him, pleading with Him to come and heal his servant.” Since Matthew seems to indicate that the centurion personally came to talk to Jesus, and Luke’s account says that the centurion sent others to plead with Christ, skeptics contend that the two accounts are in no way harmonious. Rather, they (supposedly) represent an obvious contradiction, and thereby serve as proof that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God.

Those who claim that such differences represent legitimate errors fail to realize that the Bible often gives “credit” to one in authority, even when others do the work. For example, when John wrote, “Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him” (19:1), he simply meant that Pilate ordered it to be done. Likewise, when the text says that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, it means that His disciples baptized more than John (John 4:1-2). In fact, the apostle John clarified this when he wrote, “though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples” (4:2). Throughout the Bible, people are sent to speak on behalf of a person, and sometimes the text indicates that the person in position of authority actually spoke for himself when, in fact, that person was not even present. The liaison that spoke was doing so with his authority. Today, as in times past, courts of law hold that “what a man does through a duly constituted agency, he himself actually and legally does” (Coffman, 1974, p. 105). When the president sends staff members to speak around the world on his behalf, he is the one responsible for the decisions rendered in his absence. In the same way, the centurion sent others to talk to Jesus on behalf of one of his servants. Matthew simply used a common form of speech where one attributes a certain act to a person— an act that is performed not by him, but by his authority (see Boles, 1952, p. 188).

One also must admit that it is possible Matthew and Luke wrote about two different accounts. Although I tend to believe that they were writing about the same incident, it is possible that Jesus had a very similar situation arise in the same town with another centurion, or the same centurion with another servant. Remember, John stated that “there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 are in no way contradictory. By understanding that Luke simply was more specific than Matthew and that Matthew used a common form of speech (which we still use today), it is clear that the two accounts are harmonious.

REFERENCES

Boles, H. Leo (1952), A Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Coffman, James Burton (1974), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Authority, Reliability, and Truth by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1824&b=Jeremiah

Authority, Reliability, and Truth
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Are questions about the Bible’s reliability all that important? Are they so serious that they warrant discussion on our Web site on a regular basis? Couldn’t our time be better spent on some other subject?

It certainly is true that Christians have a responsibility to consider many serious subjects. Studies regarding acceptable worship, stewardship, evangelism, church organization, etc., are all topics on which Christians should meditate frequently. However, by acknowledging that a proper understanding of these topics (and many more) rests ultimately on the authority of Scripture, then attacks on the trustworthiness of Scripture is no trivial matter. Skeptics are very well aware of the fact that if they can undermine the reliability of the Bible, then they can undermine the very foundation of Christianity. Unfortunately, with prominent positions in public schools, universities, and the media, the Bible’s critics have become much more powerful and influential in recent times, and can be heard throughout the world on radio, television, and the Internet.

In the May/June 2006 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Michael D. Coogan wrote an article titled “Question Authority!” in which he linked the issue of authority (or lack thereof) with Bible (in)consistency.

“The Bible says” is often regarded as decisive in contemporary debates about such issues as abortion, assisted suicide, the status of women, same-sex relations, capital punishment and war and peace. The problem is that the Bible is often inconsistent.... [T]he Bible does not speak with one voice.

Just because something is written...in the Bible...doesn’t mean that it’s the only possible view or even that it’s true (2006, 32[3]:24, emp. added).

What example did Professor Coogan give to “prove” his point about the Bible’s inconsistency and unreliability? Supposedly, since the Bible teaches that God “punishes children for the sins of their parents to the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9),” yet also states “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son” (Ezekiel 18:20; cf. Jeremiah 31:30), then “the Bible does not speak with one voice,” but is “inconsistent.” Is he right?

In reality, the Bible’s teaching on sin, suffering the consequences of sin, and bearing the guilt of one’s own sin is very consistent. Ever since Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, man has suffered the consequences of sin. A person frequently suffers because of his own sins (cf. 1 Peter 4:15). Many times, however, man suffers because of the sins of his forefathers (including parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.). Today, children may suffer because a father is thrown in jail for drunk driving, and thus is unable to provide sustenance for his family. A starving civilization may suffer partially because their forefathers set in place a belief system where eating animals like cows is taboo (since the animal might be a reincarnated ancestor).

God informed the Israelites that the sin of idolatry (and the fruit of such sin) is so heinous and bitter that children (even to the third and fourth generation) would suffer as a result. The children of idolatrous parents sometimes suffered death because their parents sacrificed them to Baal (Jeremiah 19:5). Others, such as those living during the time of the judges, were afflicted time and again with poverty, disease, and slavery, because they, like their parents, “forsook the Lord and served Baal and the Ashtoreths” (Judges 2:13). It may be that even in America, the righteous remnant will suffer because of God’s decision to punish a “God-fearing nation” that presently is expunging Him and embracing sin at every turn.

But, even though innocent descendants may suffer the consequences of their forefathers’ sins, they do not “bear the guilt” of their forefathers’ sinful actions (Ezekiel 18:20). That is, they do not inherit their parents’ sins. The Bible never suggests that children are guilty of idolatry simply because their parents were idolatrous. Children are innocent; so much so that Jesus said, “of such is the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). Ultimately, being held responsible for sin and bearing the guilt of sin is altogether different from suffering the physical consequences of the actions of others.

In the conclusion of his article in Biblical Archaeology Review, Coogan wrote: “Just because something is written...doesn’t mean that it’s the only possible view or even that it’s true” (2006, 32[3]:24, emp. added). In reality, it is Coogan’s article that lacks truth, and it is the authority of his article (not the Bible!) that should be questioned.

REFERENCES

Coogan, Michael D. (2006), “Question Authority!” Biblical Archaeology Review, 32[3]:24, May/June.

From Richard Mansel... The Book was Better

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/better.html

The Book was Better

When a film is made from a novel, people who have read the novel often exclaim, "The book was better!"
One reason, I think, is that we interact with books and we see them visually. We form our own images of the characters. The film-maker can never recreate the pictures in our heads. Even worse, film-makers often presume to make significant changes to the story. Therefore, disappointment occurs when the screen version does not match the template in our head.
In religion we have a similar situation. People rarely read the Bible anymore, except in brief devotional snippets. So, when they hear something about the Bible they don't know whether it is true or not. Thus, they can be lead astray very easily. The message can be changed and because of ignorance, the listener thinks it is actually in the Bible.
When we study the Bible we interact with it and absorb it so that it becomes very real to us, like a great novel. Then, when we hear men talk about it, we can check their words by making a comparison with Scripture. We can "Test the spirits to see whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1).
This knowledge enables us to listen to men with discretion. When their teachings are not consistent with Scripture we can fall back on truth and refute their errors.
We can say, "Your teaching may be interesting, but I like the Book better." Because only in the Book do we find Jesus from whom all blessings flow (John 14:6).
Richard Mansel


Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

From Gary... As simple as "ABC"

Swinging the alphabet

https://vimeo.com/96712071

This morning as I was perusing Facebook, I spotted this "Three Stooges" video that Ben Columbia posted. It brought both a smile and some laughter to my morning, Thanks Ben!!!  Then, I wondered- Does God bring laughter into my life???

And the Scripture said...  

Genesis, Chapter 21 (WEB)

  ¹ Yahweh visited Sarah as he had said, and Yahweh did to Sarah as he had spoken.  ² Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.  ³ Abraham called his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac.   ⁴ Abraham circumcised his son, Isaac, when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him.  ⁵ Abraham was one hundred years old when his son, Isaac, was born to him.  ⁶ Sarah said, “God has made me laugh. Everyone who hears will laugh with me.” (Emp. added GDR) ⁷ She said, “Who would have said to Abraham, that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne him a son in his old age.” 

The answer "YES" is really no surprise, for God's sense of humor is all around us, from the Ostrich to the Giraffe and beyond. Take a moment to reflect upon how HE works within our lives (like the Sarah comment above) and then TRY NOT TO SMILE!!!  

So,smile today. Laugh, sing, tell a joke- give someone a hug who really needs it. God loves you and wants you to be happy- so share your happiness!!!

Life is just too short to do anything else!!!!