We had an interesting discussion during our Lifegroup meeting last week about the nature of evidence for God's existence. I made the somewhat controversial statement that went something like, "For a person who has set their heart and mind on satisfying their own agenda and against looking for the truth, it's impossible for God to reach them anymore." My editor in chief explained afterword (and I agree), that it would have better to phrase it from the person's perspective, i.e. "that person would be unable to accept the Gospel message anymore". Because as we know, "nothing is impossible for God."
The point I was trying to make was that, at the very heart of the Christian faith is an attitude of deficiency. If we approach God with an attitude of humility, seeking the truth, and willingness to die to our own selfish desires - the revelation of Jesus can fall on fertile ground. On the other hand, if a person has set his heart and mind to resist the truth, how can they ever accept the one called The Truth?
As Dr. Ravi Zacharias had pointed out in his video lecture earlier that evening, "The problem with the unbeliever is not the absence of evidence, rather the suppression of it."
Monday, October 13, 2008
Rule #2
My first post was called Rule #1, which basically said that sometimes I end up disagreeing with my former self and that I reserved the right to delete, edit, undo, etc any previous comments made by these fingers. Thankfully, that has not happened yet, partly because there haven't been any posts in the recent months. Which leads me to Rule #2.
Rule #2:
This is my blog, and I'll write in it whenever I feel like it!
Rule #2:
This is my blog, and I'll write in it whenever I feel like it!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
A good reminder
Consider this artcile in today's Tennessean. The story is about a group of church members filing a lawsuit against their church leadership over finanicial records. And this relates to loving God and loving each other (commandments 1 & 2) how exactly? It seems like these members care more about the legacy of a building than glorifying God. This is a good reminder that we must never love the instituion more than the Lord Jesus and our fellow brothers in Christ.
Around the turn of the century, the London Times invited several eminent authors to write essays on the theme "What's Wrong with the World?" G.K. Chesterton's contribution took the form of a letter:
Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G. K. Chesterton
In the same way, I can't help but wonder that if the question was asked, "What's wrong with the church today?" - could the answer be:
Dear Sirs,
We are.
Sincerely yours,
The Body of Christ
Around the turn of the century, the London Times invited several eminent authors to write essays on the theme "What's Wrong with the World?" G.K. Chesterton's contribution took the form of a letter:
Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G. K. Chesterton
In the same way, I can't help but wonder that if the question was asked, "What's wrong with the church today?" - could the answer be:
Dear Sirs,
We are.
Sincerely yours,
The Body of Christ
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The Meaning of Life
Maybe you are like me and remember looking out your bedroom window as a kid and letting your mind ponder the deepest questions of life. "Isn't it strange that there would be a thing called "Earth" and that living things called "humans" would "live" on it?" On one hand, I knew all the Churchanese answers as to why we were all down here on earth - because God created us to be in fellowship with Him, etc... But I couldn't help but ask myself "Why?"
Why would a God who has existed for all eternity (try to fathom that) decide to create us? I suppose its a lot like asking why a circle is round. While I guess there is not a way to answer this question (because we're not God), I wonder how often we really think about the meaning of life. Our society likes to jokingly reference "the meaning of life" when talking about heavy subjects. But how should we answer this question - both in our own mind and in the mind of the skeptics we encounter everyday?
Ravi Zacharias points out that there are four aspects to the question of meaning in life. Wonder, truth, love and security, and that these four aspects are all contained in the worship of God. A sense of wonder that says there is something out there that ought to be revered, a perpetual novelty that overcomes the boredom of adulthood; a knowledge of the truth about who we are and who God is; the infinite love experienced through the grace of Jesus which in turn gives expression to every earthly relationship; and the security of knowing that death has been conquered and we will spend eternity with God our creator. All of these amazing truths are wrapped inside the worship of God, so that worship is not fragmented capsules in time (ala Sunday morning music), but a moment by moment outpouring in the life of a Christ-follower.
The world can offer the occasional sense of wonder, a nugget of truth here and there, loving relationships with our family and friends, and security in our own piles of cash. But how awesome to know that there is a God who fulfills our deepest need for meaning by giving us the desires of our heart - wonder, truth, love and security.
Why would a God who has existed for all eternity (try to fathom that) decide to create us? I suppose its a lot like asking why a circle is round. While I guess there is not a way to answer this question (because we're not God), I wonder how often we really think about the meaning of life. Our society likes to jokingly reference "the meaning of life" when talking about heavy subjects. But how should we answer this question - both in our own mind and in the mind of the skeptics we encounter everyday?
Ravi Zacharias points out that there are four aspects to the question of meaning in life. Wonder, truth, love and security, and that these four aspects are all contained in the worship of God. A sense of wonder that says there is something out there that ought to be revered, a perpetual novelty that overcomes the boredom of adulthood; a knowledge of the truth about who we are and who God is; the infinite love experienced through the grace of Jesus which in turn gives expression to every earthly relationship; and the security of knowing that death has been conquered and we will spend eternity with God our creator. All of these amazing truths are wrapped inside the worship of God, so that worship is not fragmented capsules in time (ala Sunday morning music), but a moment by moment outpouring in the life of a Christ-follower.
The world can offer the occasional sense of wonder, a nugget of truth here and there, loving relationships with our family and friends, and security in our own piles of cash. But how awesome to know that there is a God who fulfills our deepest need for meaning by giving us the desires of our heart - wonder, truth, love and security.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
A Parable for the Modern Church
Two men stumble across a wary traveler and realize that he is very thirsty. The traveler readily admits his thirst and his overwhelming desire to drink water. Both men have a large canteen of fresh water they can give the thirsty traveler.
The first man is about to share his water when a terrifying thought occurs to him. The water in his canteen is very warm and while perfectly safe to drink, it may have a slight odor or aftertaste associated with it. Then a brilliant thought occurs to him. There is an outpost only 1 mile down the road that has cold, crisp fresh water - in fact the very water that first filled his own canteen! If only the tired thirsty traveler could experience this water! Excitedly, the first man decides to invite the traveler to the outpost - he'll even pick him up and take him there and pay for all the water once they arrive.
As the first man is wrestling with his decision, the second man is also weighing his options. Like the first man, the water in his canteen is originally from the same outpost. But also like the first man, he recognizes that his water has grown warm and slightly stale during their many travels. On one hand, he knows that the thirsty traveler would greatly enjoy the cold crisp water which is offered at the outpost, certainly more so than the canteen water - so long as the traveler wasn't dying of thirst. But suddenly it occurs to him, "the traveler is dying of thirst! And after all," he asks himself, "when you are very thirsty, isn't it true that warm water is actually better for you than cold water because it is more easily accepted by the body?" Thrilled at this truth, the second man pours his canteen into the thirsty man's hands and saves the traveler's life.
Many thanks go out to my brilliant wife who first made this analogy tonight (although in a different form.) Let us never forget that there is a time and a place for cold crisp water and a time and a place for warm organic water.
Next week - the parable of the traveler who is so far gone, he does not even realize he's thirsty. Which of the two men is better equipped to save his life? (thanks again honey...)
The first man is about to share his water when a terrifying thought occurs to him. The water in his canteen is very warm and while perfectly safe to drink, it may have a slight odor or aftertaste associated with it. Then a brilliant thought occurs to him. There is an outpost only 1 mile down the road that has cold, crisp fresh water - in fact the very water that first filled his own canteen! If only the tired thirsty traveler could experience this water! Excitedly, the first man decides to invite the traveler to the outpost - he'll even pick him up and take him there and pay for all the water once they arrive.
As the first man is wrestling with his decision, the second man is also weighing his options. Like the first man, the water in his canteen is originally from the same outpost. But also like the first man, he recognizes that his water has grown warm and slightly stale during their many travels. On one hand, he knows that the thirsty traveler would greatly enjoy the cold crisp water which is offered at the outpost, certainly more so than the canteen water - so long as the traveler wasn't dying of thirst. But suddenly it occurs to him, "the traveler is dying of thirst! And after all," he asks himself, "when you are very thirsty, isn't it true that warm water is actually better for you than cold water because it is more easily accepted by the body?" Thrilled at this truth, the second man pours his canteen into the thirsty man's hands and saves the traveler's life.
Many thanks go out to my brilliant wife who first made this analogy tonight (although in a different form.) Let us never forget that there is a time and a place for cold crisp water and a time and a place for warm organic water.
Next week - the parable of the traveler who is so far gone, he does not even realize he's thirsty. Which of the two men is better equipped to save his life? (thanks again honey...)
Thursday, March 13, 2008
TAG, you're it
In my opinion, the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG for short) provides one of the most compelling reasons to reject Naturalism and embrace Theism. Back in the mid 1980's, Gorden Stein an atheist debated the existence of God with Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Below is a small excerpt from the Bahnsen/Stein debate in which Bahnsen brilliantly articulates TAG. You can find the entire text of the debate here.
"The transcendental argument for the existence of God then, which Dr. Stein has yet to touch, and which I don’t believe he can surmount is that without the existence of God it’s impossible to prove anything; and that’s because in the atheistic world, you cannot justify and cannot account for laws in general (laws of thought in particular), laws of nature cannot account for the human mind, and the fact that it’s more than electrochemical complexes and events, and cannot give us moral absolutes. That is to say, in the atheist conception of the world, there’s really no reason to debate, because in the end as Dr. Stein has said, all these laws are conventional. All these laws are not really law-like in their nature, they’re just… well if you’re an atheist, and a materialist, you’d have to say they’re just something that happens inside the brain. But you see, what happens inside your brain is not the same as what happens inside my brain, and so what happens inside of your brain is not a law. It doesn’t necessarily correspond to what happens in mine. In fact you can’t be identical with what is inside of my mind or brain, because we don’t have the same brains. If the laws of logic come down to being materialistic entities, then they no longer have their law-like character.
If they are only social conventions, then of course what we might do tonight to win the debate is just define a new set of laws and we’ll say that all those that want the convention that says atheism must be true or theism must be true, and we have the following laws which we conventionally adopt to prove it, you see we’ll be satisfied.
But no one is satisfied. That’s not a rational procedure to follow. Laws of logic cannot be avoided. Laws of logic cannot be accounted for in a materialistic universe, therefore the laws of logic are one of many evidences that without God, you can’t prove anything at all."
Or as CS Lewis states, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
"The transcendental argument for the existence of God then, which Dr. Stein has yet to touch, and which I don’t believe he can surmount is that without the existence of God it’s impossible to prove anything; and that’s because in the atheistic world, you cannot justify and cannot account for laws in general (laws of thought in particular), laws of nature cannot account for the human mind, and the fact that it’s more than electrochemical complexes and events, and cannot give us moral absolutes. That is to say, in the atheist conception of the world, there’s really no reason to debate, because in the end as Dr. Stein has said, all these laws are conventional. All these laws are not really law-like in their nature, they’re just… well if you’re an atheist, and a materialist, you’d have to say they’re just something that happens inside the brain. But you see, what happens inside your brain is not the same as what happens inside my brain, and so what happens inside of your brain is not a law. It doesn’t necessarily correspond to what happens in mine. In fact you can’t be identical with what is inside of my mind or brain, because we don’t have the same brains. If the laws of logic come down to being materialistic entities, then they no longer have their law-like character.
If they are only social conventions, then of course what we might do tonight to win the debate is just define a new set of laws and we’ll say that all those that want the convention that says atheism must be true or theism must be true, and we have the following laws which we conventionally adopt to prove it, you see we’ll be satisfied.
But no one is satisfied. That’s not a rational procedure to follow. Laws of logic cannot be avoided. Laws of logic cannot be accounted for in a materialistic universe, therefore the laws of logic are one of many evidences that without God, you can’t prove anything at all."
Or as CS Lewis states, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
Monday, February 25, 2008
Engineering Week
National Engieneers Week was last week, so I thought I'd honor my profession and have a little fun in the process.
"Arguing with an engineer is a lot like wrestling in the mud with a pig. After a few hours, you realize that he likes it."
Great Engineering Quotes
"Engineers aren't boring people, we just get excited over boring things.""Arguing with an engineer is a lot like wrestling in the mud with a pig. After a few hours, you realize that he likes it."
AutoCAD Monkey
A tourist walked into a pet shop and was looking at the animals on display. While he was there, another customer walked in and said to the shopkeeper, "I'll have an AutoCAD monkey please." The shopkeeper nodded, went over to a cage at the side of the shop and took out a monkey. He fitted a collar and leash, handed it to the customer, saying, "That'll be $5000." The customer paid and walked out with his monkey.
Startled, the tourist went over to the shopkeeper and said, "That was a very expensive monkey. Most of them are only few hundred dollars. Why did that one cost so much?"
The Shopkeeper answered, "Ah, that monkey can draw in AutoCAD - very fast, clear layouts, no mistakes, well worth the money."
The tourist looked at a monkey in another cage. "That one's even more expensive! $10,000! What does it do?"
"Oh, that one's a Design monkey; it can design systems, layout projects, mark-up drawings, write specifications, some even calculate. All the really useful stuff," said the shopkeeper.
The tourist looked around for a little longer and saw a third monkey in its own cage. The price tag around its neck read $50,000. He gasped to the shopkeeper, "That one costs more than all the others put together! What on earth does it do?"
The shopkeeper replied, "Well, I haven't actually seen it do anything, but it says it's an Engineer."
Blind Golfers
A priest, a doctor, and an engineer were waiting one morning for a particularly slow group of golfers.
Engineer: What's with these guys? We must have been waiting for 15 minutes!
Doctor: I don't know, but I've never seen such ineptitude.
Priest: Hey, here comes the greens keeper. Let's have a word with him.
Priest: Hi George. Say, George, what's with that group ahead of us? They're rather slow today, aren't they?
George: Oh yes, that's a group of blind firefighters. They lost their sight while saving our clubhouse last year, so we let them play here anytime free of charge.
SILENCE.
Priest: That's so sad, I think I will say a special prayer for them tonight.
Doctor: Good idea. I'm going to contact my ophthalmologist buddy and see if there is anything we can do for them.
Engineer: Why can't these guys play at night?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)