Christian Discernment

Kerby Anderson

[Leia este artigo em português]

Introduction

Turn on a television or open a newspaper. You are immediately presented with a myriad of ethical issues. Daily we are confronted with ethical choices and moral complexity. Society is awash in controversial issues: abortion, euthanasia, cloning, race, drug abuse, homosexuality, gambling, pornography, and capital punishment. Life may have been simpler in a previous age, but now the rise of technology and the fall of ethical consensus have brought us to a society full of moral dilemmas.

Never has society needed biblical perspectives more to evaluate contemporary moral issues. And yet Christians seem less equipped to address these topics from a biblical perspective. The Barna Research Group conducted a national survey of adults and concluded that only four percent of adults have a biblical worldview as the basis of their decision-making. The survey also discovered that nine percent of born again Christians have such a perspective on life.{1}
It is worth noting that what George Barna defines as a biblical worldview would be considered by most people to be basic Christian doctrine. It doesn’t even include aspects of a biblical perspective on social and political issues.

Of even greater concern is the fact that most Christians do not base their beliefs on an absolute moral foundation. Biblical ethics rests on the belief in absolute truth. Yet surveys show that a minority of born again adults (forty-four percent) and an even smaller proportion of born again teenagers (nine percent) are certain of the existence of absolute moral truth.{2} By a three-to-one margin adults say truth is always relative to the person and their situation. This perspective is even more lopsided among teenagers who overwhelmingly believe moral truth depends on the circumstances.{3}

Social scientists as well as pollsters have been warning that American society is becoming more and more dominated by moral anarchy. Writing in the early 1990s, James Patterson and Peter Kim said in The Day America Told the Truth that there was no moral authority in America. “We choose which laws of God we believe in. There is absolutely no moral consensus in this country as there was in the 1950s, when all our institutions commanded more respect.”{4} Essentially we live in a world of moral anarchy.

So how do we begin to apply a Christian worldview to the complex social and political issues of the day? And how do we avoid falling for the latest fad or cultural trend that blows in the wind? The following are some key principles to apply and some dangerous pitfalls to avoid.
Biblical Principles

A key biblical principle that applies to the area of bioethics is the sanctity of human life. Such verses as Psalm 139:13-16 show that God’s care and concern extend to the womb. Other verses such as Jeremiah 1:5, Judges 13:7-8, Psalm 51:5 and Exodus 21:22–25 give additional perspective and framework to this principle. These principles can be applied to issues ranging from abortion to stem cell research to infanticide.

A related biblical principle involves the equality of human beings. The Bible teaches that God has made “of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:26). The Bible also teaches that it is wrong for a Christian to have feelings of superiority (Philippians 2). Believers are told not to make class distinctions between various people (James 2). Paul teaches the spiritual equality of all people in Christ (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). These principles apply to racial relations and our view of government.

A third principle is a biblical perspective on marriage. Marriage is God’s plan and provides intimate companionship for life (Genesis 2:18). Marriage provides a context for the procreation and nurture of children (Ephesians 6:1-2). And finally, marriage provides a godly outlet for sexual desire (1 Corinthians 7:2). These principles can be applied to such diverse issues as artificial reproduction (which often introduces a third party into the pregnancy) and cohabitation (living together).

Another biblical principle involves sexual ethics. The Bible teaches that sex is to be within the bounds of marriage, as a man and the woman become one flesh (Ephesians 5:31). Paul teaches that we should “avoid sexual immorality” and learn to control our own body in a way that is “holy and honorable” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5). He admonishes us to flee sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18). These principles apply to such issues as premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality.

A final principle concerns government and our obedience to civil authority. Government is ordained by God (Rom.13:1-7). We are to render service and obedience to the government (Matt. 22:21) and submit to civil authority (1 Pet. 2:13-17). Even though we are to obey government, there may be certain times when we might be forced to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). These principles apply to issues such as war, civil disobedience, politics, and government.

Biblical Discernment

So how do we sort out what is true and what is false? This is a difficult proposition in a world awash in data. It underscores the need for Christians to develop discernment. This is a word that appears fairly often in the Bible (1 Samuel 25:32-33; 1 Kings 3:10-11; 4:29; Psalm 119:66; Proverbs 2:3; Daniel 2:14; Philippians 1:9 [NASB]). And with so many facts, claims, and opinions being tossed about, we all need to be able to sort through what is true and what is false.
Colossians 2:8 says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” We need to develop discernment so that we are not taken captive by false ideas. Here are some things to watch for:

1. Equivocation — the use of vague terms. Someone can start off using language we think we understand and then veer off into a new meaning. Most of us are well aware of the fact that religious cults are often guilty of this. A cult member might say that he believes in salvation by grace. But what he really means is that you have to join his cult and work your way toward salvation. Make people define the vague terms they use.

This tactic is used frequently in bioethics. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research often will not acknowledge the distinction between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Those trying to legalize cloning will refer to it as “somatic cell nuclear transfer.” Unless you have a scientific background, you will not know that it is essentially the same thing.
2. Card stacking — the selective use of evidence. Don’t jump on the latest bandwagon and intellectual fad without checking the evidence. Many advocates are guilty of listing all the points in their favor while ignoring the serious points against it.

The major biology textbooks used in high school and college never provide students with evidence against evolution. Jonathan Wells, in his book Icons of Evolution, shows that the examples that are used in most textbooks are either wrong or misleading.{5} Some of the examples are known frauds (such as the Haeckel embryos) and continue to show up in textbooks decades after they were shown to be fraudulent.

Another example would be the Y2K fears. Anyone who was concerned about the potential catastrophe in 2000 need only read any of the technical computer journals in the 1990s to see that no computer expert was predicting what the Y2K fear mongers were predicting at the time.

3. Appeal to authority — relying on authority to the exclusion of logic and evidence. Just because an expert says it, that doesn’t necessarily make it true. We live in a culture that worships experts, but not all experts are right. Hiram’s Law says: “If you consult enough experts, you can confirm any opinion.”

Those who argue that global warming is caused by human activity often say that “the debate in the scientific community is over.” But an Internet search of critics of the theories behind global warming will show that there are many scientists with credentials in climatology or meteorology who have questions about the theory. It is not accurate to say that the debate is over when the debate still seems to be taking place.

4. Ad hominem — Latin for “against the man.” People using this tactic attack the person instead of dealing with the validity of their argument. Often the soundness of an argument is inversely proportional to the amount of ad hominem rhetoric. If there is evidence for the position, proponents usually argue the merits of the position. When evidence is lacking, they attack the critics.

Christians who want public libraries to filter pornography from minors are accused of censorship. Citizens who want to define marriage as between one man and one woman are called bigots. Scientists who criticize evolution are subjected to withering attacks on their character and scientific credentials. Scientists who question global warming are compared to holocaust deniers.

5. Straw man argument — making your opponent’s argument seem so ridiculous that it is easy to attack and knock down. Liberal commentators say that evangelical Christians want to implement a religious theocracy in America. That’s not true. But the hyperbole works to marginalize Christian activists who believe they have a responsibility to speak to social and political issues within society.

Those who stand for moral principles in the area of bioethics often see this tactic used against them. They hear from proponents of physician assisted suicide that pro-life advocates don’t care about the suffering of the terminally ill. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research level the same charge by saying that pro-life people don’t care that these new medical technologies could alleviate the suffering of many with intractable diseases. Nothing could be further from the truth.

6. Sidestepping — dodging the issue by changing the subject. Politicians do this in press conferences by not answering the question asked by the reporter, but instead answering a question they wish someone had asked. Professors sometimes do that when a student points out an inconsistency or a leap in logic.

Ask a proponent of abortion whether the fetus is human and you are likely to see this tactic in action. He or she might start talking about a woman’s right to choose or the right of women to control their own bodies. Perhaps you will hear a discourse on the need to tolerate various viewpoints in a pluralistic society. But you probably won’t get a straight answer to an important question.

7. Red herring — going off on a tangent (from the practice of luring hunting dogs off the trail with the scent of a herring fish). Proponents of embryonic stem cell research rarely will talk about the morality of destroying human embryos. Instead they will go off on a tangent and talk about the various diseases that could be treated and the thousands of people who could be helped with the research.

Be on the alert when someone in a debate changes the subject. They may want to argue their points on more familiar ground, or they may know they cannot win their argument on the relevant issue at hand.

In conclusion, we have discussed some of the key biblical principles we should apply to our consideration and debate about social and political issues. We have talked about the sanctity of human life and the equality of human beings. We have discussed a biblical perspective on marriage and on sexual ethics. And we have also talked about a biblical perspective on government and civil authority.

We have also spent some time talking about the importance of developing biblical discernment and looked at many of the logical fallacies that are frequently used in arguing against a biblical perspective on many of the social and political issues of our day.

Every day, it seems, we are confronted with ethical choices and moral complexity. As Christians it is important to consider these biblical principles and consistently apply them to these issues. It is also important that we develop discernment and learn to recognize these tactics. We are called to develop discernment as we tear down false arguments raised up against the knowledge of God. By doing this we will learn to take every thought captive to the obedience to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

Notes

1. "A Biblical Worldview Has a Radical Effect on a Person's Life," The Barna Update (Ventura, CA), 1 Dec. 2003.
2. "The Year's Most Intriguing Findings, From Barna Research Studies," The Barna Update (Ventura, CA), 12 Dec. 2000.
3. "Americans Are Most Likely to Base Truth on Feelings," The Barna Update (Ventura, CA), 12 Feb. 2002.
4. James Patterson and Peter Kim, The Day America Told the Truth (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991).
5. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2000).

© 2006 Probe Ministries

________________________________________

About the Author

Kerby Anderson is National Director of Probe Ministries International. He received his B.S. from Oregon State University, M.F.S. from Yale University, and M.A. from Georgetown University. He is the author of several books, including Genetic Engineering, Origin Science, Living Ethically in the 90s, Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope, Moral Dilemmas, and Christian Ethics in Plain Language. He also served as general editor for the Kregel Publications books Marriage, Family and Sexuality and Technology, Spirituality, & Social Trends. He is a nationally syndicated columnist whose editorials have appeared in the Dallas Morning News, the Miami Herald, the San Jose Mercury, and the Houston Post. He is the host of the "Probe" radio program, and frequently serves as host on "Point of View" (USA Radio Network).

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.

Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:
Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664
info@probe.org
www.probe.org

Truth, Lies, and the BBC

Chuck Missler
from the October 24, 2006 eNews issue

[Leia este artigo em português]

"There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it." - Comment made by a senior BBC executive

Executives at the British Broadcasting Corporation have finally been forced to admit what most of us have known for years - that the BBC's coverage of religious and political issues is inherently biased. A memo leaked to the media has revealed the details of a recent "impartiality" summit attended by senior figures at the BBC. Executives admitted that the BBC is responsible for promoting left-wing ideals and an anti-Christian sentiment.

The BBC is not impartial or neutral. According to news reports, "Most executives admitted that the corporation's representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, and that it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and anti-Americanism." BBC executives also admitted that they would be willing to broadcast images of a Bible being thrown away, but they would not do so for the Koran. This is due to the "fear of offending the British Muslim community."

The BBC is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world. It is also publicly funded - nearly 80 percent of the BBC's funding comes from television license fees. In the UK, the cost of a TV license is £131.50 per household per year (that is approximately $240.00 in US funds). That money goes directly to the BBC, enabling it to provide public service broadcasting that (according to its website) is "independent, impartial and honest."

Impartial and Honest?

The BBC often broadcasts a distorted view of the war against terrorism. The BBC’s coverage of the terrorist attacks on London is a good (although not the only) example. In the hours and days after their initial publication, the BBC removed the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" from several articles on its website, opting instead for more politically correct terminology.

Perhaps the BBC's most conspicuous shortcoming has been its biased reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2002, the BBC aired a now-infamous profile of Yasser Arafat which called him a "hero" and "an icon" and concluded that the corrupt Palestinian leader was "the stuff of legends." Israel has often complained about the BBC's often one-sided reporting. For a period of seven months in 2003, Israeli officials boycotted BBC news programs, declining interviews and excluding BBC reporters from briefings. The boycott was ended after the BBC appointed a panel to oversee its Middle East coverage and to ensure it would be unbiased. However in recent months there have been calls for the government to reinstitute the boycott, in large part due to the BBC's coverage of the recent war in Lebanon.

In April 2006 a report was released on the impartiality of the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian. The report was commissioned by the BBC board of governors and, not surprisingly, it concluded that there "was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias." However the period of time analyzed went from August 2005, the time of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, to January 2006, when Ariel Sharon had his stroke. During this period of time circumstances dictated that Israel should receive more sympathetic coverage. Moreover, the report excluded both the BBC World Service and the international TV channel BBC World.

Despite these factors, the report still found that there were "identifiable shortcomings" in the BBC's reporting. Furthermore, it concluded that the BBC "does not consistently give a full and fair account of the conflict. In some ways the picture is incomplete and, in that sense, misleading." Yet the average viewer is unlikely to notice, unless of course they have done their homework and are familiar with the various geopolitical aspects of the conflict. According to the report, "The evidence shows that most viewers and listeners, at least within the UK, regard the BBC as unbiased. But they say they do not understand the conflict and, perhaps for that reason, do not see it as important or interesting. Given how little history or context is routinely offered, it is easy to understand their bewilderment..."

What Are They Hiding?

Several other reports have been assembled in past years on the subject of the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However the BBC has refused to release the findings of those reports to the public. Last year a request was made under Britain's Freedom of Information Act to release the findings of those reports, but the BBC denied the request. A lawsuit was then filed against the BBC. It argued that since the BBC is publicly funded, taxpayers have the right to know if the BBC is being fair in its reporting. The courts have since ruled that the BBC should make the report available to the public, but the BBC has yet to comply and has decided to appeal the decision at Britain's High Court.

Discerning the Truth

As we are faced with an ever-increasing barrage information it is important to keep in mind that the media has its own agenda and takes pride in its ability to shape public opinion rather than to inform it. So what can we do about it? How do we find the truth?

Always keep in mind the underlying principle found in Acts 17:11. Don't believe everything you hear, do your own homework. Read and listen carefully, seeking to differentiate facts from opinions. There is no such thing as a truly unbiased source of information. Therefore it is important to pay attention to details, check facts, and rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment.

Chance and Intelligent Design 3

By James A. Choury, serving with WorldVenture in North Brazil

[leia este artigo em Português]

To answer the query concerning the probability of the universe and life coming into being by chance we need to understand how probability is defined and calculated.

Probability: The number of possible ways of attaining a result divided by the total number of possible outcomes. Probability is always a fraction between 0 and 1.

Examples: The chances of getting a head on any toss of a coin is ½ because there is only one way of getting a head and there are two possible outcomes of tossing a single coin; heads or tails. Therefore the probability is ½ or .50 or 50%.
The chances of rolling a die and getting a one is 1/6 because there is only one way to get a one on top and there are six different ways a die can land. So the probability is 1/6 or .16666666…. or 16.66 %.
The chance of getting a four in rolling two dice is 3/36 because you can get a 1-3 or a 3-1 or a 2-2 and the total number of possible outcomes is 36. So the probability is 3/36 or 1/12 or .0833333…. or 8.33333%.

We should notice that a greater number of possible outcomes results in a smaller probability of any one of them occurring. Any outcome of tossing a single coin (only two possible outcomes) has a greater probability than any possible outcome of tossing a die (six possible outcomes). We also note that tossing two dice creates many more possible outcomes (36) and hence the probability of any particular outcome is considerably reduced. In Mathematics, this last phenomenon is termed “joint occurrence”. Joint occurrence calculations give us the probability of event A and event B both occurring by chance.

We say two or more events are independent when the outcome of any particular one has nothing to do with the outcome of the others. Tossing one coin twice or tossing two coins at the same time are examples of independent events. To calculate the probability of joint, independent events we simply multiply the probability of one by the probability of the other or others. Since probability is always a fraction between 0 and 1 we always come up with smaller and smaller probabilities as the number of joint events increases (unless we are dealing with certainties). That means that getting all heads when tossing 5 coins is much less likely than getting all heads when only tossing one coin (3.125% as opposed to 50%).

What does this have to do with evidence of God’s existence? Let’s look at some examples:

Example #1. You walk into a room. There is a table in the room and among the normal clutter there are five coins on the table. All the coins are heads up. What do you conclude? The odds of five coins being all heads up on the table is 1/32. By chance there is only one way all the coins could end up all heads. There are 31 ways that they can end up not all heads up. (They must be either all heads up or not all heads up by the law of the excluded middle). What would a reasonable, unbiased, rational person conclude when finding himself in a room with a table with five coins on it all heads up? It is possible that it just happened by chance but it is much more probable and reasonable that someone was arranging things that way. It is 31 times more probable that someone was arranging things. Suppose there are fifteen coins on the table all heads up? In that case the odds of all fifteen coins being heads up is 1/32,768. There is still only one way you can get all heads. There are 32,767 ways of getting “not all heads”. From this example we see that the odds of fall drastically as the number of joint occurrences increases.

Example #2. Four students go out of town for the college football game knowing that on Monday they have a math exam. None of them prepare for the test and do not show for the exam. On Tuesday they all come wanting to take the test saying that they went to the game, had a flat tire, and didn’t get back in time to take the test on Monday. The professor agrees to give them the test immediately and has each student sit in one of the far corners of the room. He announces that there will be only one question on the test. Each student receives a blank sheet of paper and a pencil. The professor writes the following question on the board: “Which tire?” What are the odds that, without prior planning or collusion, they will all give the same answer? There are four ways they can all agree out of 256 possible outcomes. What if the number of students had been eight going to the game in a van? In that case the odds of all eight students agreeing which tire blew out, without planning or collusion would be 4 out of 65,536 or .00006103515625.

The odds drop off very quickly when we are looking at “joint occurrences”. Joint occurrences are cases where all four students must agree, for example. These examples use very simple circumstances (heads or tails, four students and four tires on the car, etc.) The real world is much more complex. When talking of the origins of the universe or of life it is universally acknowledged that many highly unlikely circumstances would have had to have occurred jointly for the universe and life to have come into being by chance. This joint occurrence makes the odds astronomical against such a thing happening. The probability of life and the universe coming into existence by chance is not easy to calculate but it is generally agreed that the odds are extremely small.* If it was not by chance then it must have been designed or arranged.

Observation: Some believe that even highly unlikely events will eventually take place given enough time. Is this true? For more on this see the study entitled “Chance and Intelligent Design Part 4 dealing with the difference between independent and dependent events and probability.

* Richard Dawkins, staunch evolutionist and popular writer calculates that the odds of the DNA code developing twice by chance is one in a million, million, million, million, million. A River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life by Richard Dawkins, p. 12.

Exercises:

Explain why the probability of joint occurrences drops off as the number of possible outcomes increases.

Come up with an example of your own showing the unlikelihood of joint occurrences.

If the probability of the DNA code developing independently twice is one in 1030, what would be the odds for it developing just once? Would you consider this a good probability?

What Is Light?

by Lambert Dolphin

Human vision is utterly amazing in its ability to receive and process a wealth of information concerning levels of light intensity, colors, motion, and stereoscopic depth of field. However, as wonderful as our eyesight is, we are able to see only electromagnetic waves between 400 and 700 nanometers (4 to 7 x 10-9 m) in wavelength.

Young Isaac Newton in 1666 used a prism to break visible white light into the rainbow colors of the spectrum, giving impetus to the development of what is now the vast science of optics. Discovery of the wave nature of light soon led to the realization that our universe is permeated with electromagnetic waves ranging in wavelength over at least 16 orders of magnitude - from ultra low-frequency radio waves, which are tens of kilometers in wavelength, to cosmic rays with wave crests and troughs only a millionth of a millionth (10-12 ) meter apart.

Just in our century, science has quickly extended the range of the eye for explorative purposes. Many different kinds of electronic sensing instruments now tell us vastly more about the cosmos than our eyes alone can tell us directly.

Light from the sun arrives at the top of the earth's atmosphere at a power level of about one kilowatt per square meter. It is this heat and light from a modest star (surface temperature only 5500 degrees C), that all life processes on earth are ultimately driven. Without the sun's constant energy input, our planet would quickly radiate away its latent heat and freeze us and everything else very solid in short order.

Heat and light from the sun are obvious, but we are unaware of cosmic rays penetrating our bodies at the rate of perhaps 10 per second. Nor do we realize that radio and television signals from a hundred stations fill our living rooms. Many of these "rays" pass through our bodies unimpeded. Light waves, radio waves, heat signals, X-rays, and the like, are electromagnetic (EM) radiation - all forms of which can transmit energy and carry useful information even across vast reaches of "empty" space. The signal speed of EM waves ranges upwards to a maximum value which is the current speed of light, ~3 x 108 meters/sec.

In this century has also come the realization that we can equally well describe light and other EM radiation as if it were corpuscular in nature. EM radiation is a result of moving electrical charges (currents), and all forms of EM radiation can be described mathematically as consisting of streaming photons. Each photon constituting a "particle" of light has an energy equal to Planck's constant times the speed of light divided by the wavelength. (Photons are very small, yet the human eye is sufficiently sensitive that we can sometimes detect even a single light photon with dark-adapted eyes).

Whether one uses a wave model or a particle model for light is largely a matter of convenience for the physicist. The concept of "wave-particle duality" is well established by experimental evidence and the excellent models of Quantum Mechanics.

Gravitational forces seem to us to be powerful, because it is gravity which holds us to the earth's surface and makes us work hard to lift and move things. But the force of gravity is actually some 42 orders of magnitude weaker (10-42) than the electrical forces which generate light waves and radio waves!

Because of this huge difference in energy levels, we actually know little about gravity. For instance, many scientists have tacitly assumed that gravity signals, and the force of gravity between masses, are communicated ("mediated") back and forth by streams of photons traveling at the velocity of light - some have assumed that gravity will be explained as arising from some type of EM wave. But as we saw in the March issue of Personal UPDATE, it is now more probable that gravitational forces are communicated by particles called gravitons, which are very much smaller than photons.1

Furthermore, the speed of gravitons is apparently some ten orders of magnitude higher than the current speed of light. This raises the possibility of space travel throughout the entire known universe in very reasonable time periods. From energy considerations (in the universe considered as a whole entity) it now appears that the speed of light initially had the same high value as gravity still has, but the speed of light has decreased whereas the speed of gravity has not. [Ed. note: Many competent scientists disagree with the theory that the speed of light has decreased.]

A great frontier lies before us now in better understanding gravity. For example, we cannot as yet be certain whether the hypothesized gravity waves are transverse in nature (as are EM waves), or compressional (like sound waves).

Suffice it to say that energy and information can be transmitted across the universe by means others than ordinary photons. That is, energy and information transmission in the physical world is probably not always electromagnetic in nature.

(And this is not taking into account how prayer and spiritual forces travel between God, men and the angels - about which we know next to nothing.)

On the First Day of creation week, having brought into existence space, time and matter, the second creative act of God was (I believe) the creation of light. Light was spoken into existence by the Second Person of the godhead, Jesus, the Logos or Word of God:
And God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light.

I like to think of this second event in God's work of creating everything as the making of a vast energy source. The Lord then incorporated potential and kinetic energy reservoirs in many forms into His universe as He constructed things during the six days of creation. These energy endowments would allow the universe to function indefinitely with built-in power supplies. (Before The Fall I think this energy supply also included means of replenishment of reserves to make up for dissipation and losses).

The statement "Let there be light" may mean (in my opinion) "Let there be energy of all wavelengths and in all forms." I believe it was from these four working substances created on Day One-(1) space, (2) time, (3) matter and (4) energy-that God constructed (and filled) the universe we live in.2In His work as Creator, the Son of God was the "master craftsman" of Proverbs 8.

The activity of creation week involved many separate actions by all the Persons of the godhead, as can be seen by the numerous action verbs in Chapter One which refer to God.
Many good people will probably not agree with my own interpretation of the opening verses of Genesis - so I won't be dogmatic about the model I have just suggested. Dozens of books and hundreds of scholarly theological papers have disputed exactly how to interpret these opening verses of Holy Writ and I don't claim to have the final word by any means. The important point is that light, as we know it and understand it in the physical world, was created by God on the First Day of creation.

The Bible says that "God is Light" and this is not the same as saying "Light is God." If we claimed that the Light shining forth on Day One of creation week was simply God Himself we would have major problems - because God is a Spirit and He does not directly emit protons or waves! Such a hypothesis as saying that the Light of Day One came from God Himself puts us on the fast road to pantheism, which we must refute. The God of the Bible is separate from, and transcends, His creation.

Because God is Light, a more profound problem appears when we consider other passages in the Bible which speak figuratively of light, and of spiritual light. Writing to Timothy, Paul the Apostle tells that God, "alone has immortality, [and that He] dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see." (1 Tim 6:16). Moses, who enjoyed a very intimate relationship with God, on one occasion asked God that He might see Him as he was:
And Moses said, "Please, show me Your glory."

Then God said, "I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

But God said, "You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live." And the LORD said, "Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock. So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen." (Exodus 33:18-23)

The whole point about God's being Light is that the splendor and radiance of His immediate presence is so intense it must be veiled in clouds of thick darkness. Otherwise mere mortals would be burned to a crisp if they came into the unveiled presence of His effulgent power.
Spiritual realities are more permanent and more substantial than the shadows they cast into our physical world. Jesus is likened to the rising Day Star and called by Malachi the "Sun of Righteousness" - symbols which suggest to us that His true splendor is greater than that of any star or any known source of light and power in our physical world.

Revelation describes the face of Jesus as shining like the sun in full strength (Rev 1:16).
Light is a common symbol in the Bible for truth as opposed to ignorance and error. "Enlightenment" means true understanding and comprehension in the inner man. It was Jesus who declared, to the consternation of his enemies, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12).

So in some way there is a connection in Scripture between spiritual light and life itself! The New Testament furthermore insists that the man Christ Jesus is the exact visible expression of God the invisible. It is by knowing Jesus that we who once were "sons of darkness" become "sons of light." Unlike Moses we are invited to look full into the face of Jesus:

...we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, all this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Cor 3:18)

God, were His Light unveiled, would fill and flood the entire universe with His presence to such a degree that there could be no ordinary night time anywhere. Therefore the spiritual world where He dwells, surrounding us on all sides, a world in which the material creation is embedded, is not only more solid than our world, it is also brighter - it is full of light in fact. Living as we do at present in a world still relatively dark, we await the coming of the Dawn.

Sources:
S.R. Filonovich, The Greatest Speed, 1983, Mir Publishers, 2 Pervy Rizhsky Pereulok, 1-110 GSP, Moscow, 129820. A good discussion of the physics of light at an elementary level.
Sobil, Michael L., Light, 1987, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bova, Ben, The Beauty of Light, 1988, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

This article was originally published in the
May 1998 Personal Update NewsJournal.

________________________________________
**NOTES**
________________________________________

1. Gravitons are probably on the order of a Planck length in size, L* = (hG/c3)0.5 = 1.6 x 10-33 cm. In current thinking on the nature of the vacuum, space has a granular structure and is composed of particles emerging from and vanishing back into the background sea of Zero Point Energy. The "Planck density" of these particles is at the present time about 4 x 1093 gms per cubic centimeter, incredibly greater than known particle densities encountered in the atomic nucleus which do not exceed 1014 g/cm3 , or water which is only 1 g/cm3 . As we noted in an earlier article, the Planck density would have been smaller still in the early history of the universe assuming a decreasing velocity of light over time. A good discussion of these issues is given by Gerardus D. Bouw on his web pages, www.baldwinw.edu/~gbouw/g/index.html. I recommend his discussion on the plenum aether whether or not one agrees with Dr. Bouw's views on Geocentricity.

2. I have tried to clarify the events of creation week in my current thinking in my article "The Uniqueness of Creation Week," available on my web pages. I reserve the right to learn and grow and change my views!

The Fall Feasts: Succoth

Chuck Missler
from the October 03, 2006 eNews issue

[Leia este artigo em Português]

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD... Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." - Leviticus 23:34, 42-43

The Feast of Tabernacles, or Succoth, begins on the 15th of Tishri and lasts for eight days. This year Succoth will begin on October 7th. The word Succoth (also spelled Sukkot) means "booths", and refers to the temporary dwellings which are built and inhabited during the festival. This feast commemorates the 40 years that the nation of Israel wandered in the desert before entering the Promised Land. The Feast of Tabernacles or the Feast of Booths, as it is sometimes called, is a joyous holiday and a time of feasting.

It is fascinating to visit Israel at this time and observe them build their temporary "booths" in the traditional way, leaving deliberate gaps in the branches to view the stars at night, and for the wind to blow through during the day. This is intended to remind them of the wilderness wanderings.

At the end of the eight days, they leave their temporary dwellings to return to their permanent homes. (This is one of the reasons some suspect that this feast, rather than the Feast of Trumpets, is suggestive of the Rapture of the Church.) This day, traditionally, is the day that Solomon dedicated the first Temple.

This feast also involved a daily processional to the Pool of Siloam to fetch water for the Temple. This ceremonial procession is the setting for the events of John 7, where Jesus offers them "living water." This procession involved four types of branches: the willow, the myrtle, the palm, and a citrus (Leviticus 23:40). The willow has no smell and no fruit. The myrtle has smell, but no fruit. The palm has no smell, but bears fruit. The citrus has both smell and bears fruit. This sounds reminiscent of the four soils of the first "kingdom parable" of Matthew 13, doesn't it? The prophetic implications of this climactic feast are many. Most scholars associate it with the establishment of the Millennial Kingdom in Israel. To learn more about the Jewish about this subject, listen to our briefing package titled The Feasts of Israel.

The Torah - the five books of Moses - describes seven feasts on the Hebrew calendar. Three feasts are in the spring, in the month of Nisan: Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the Feast of First Fruits. Most Bible scholars believe that the first three feasts are prophetic of the Lord's First Coming. Then fifty days later there is the Feast of Weeks, Shavout, also known as Pentecost. The feast of Pentecost is predictive of the Church. Pentecost is notably the only feast in which leavened bread is ordained. There are three remaining feasts in the fall, in the month of Tishri: the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. The fall feasts are prophetic of the Lord's Second Coming.

If you take the time to study the feasts of Israel I think you will be amazed by numerous prophetic parallels you'll uncover. At times the tasks and rituals described in the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Leviticus, may seem laborious or even inapplicable to Christians today. However it is important to remember that every number, every place name, every detail, every jot and tittle found in scripture is there for our learning, our discovery, and our amazement. Truly, our God is an awesome God!

[Editor's Note: This is the final installment of a three part series on the fall feasts of Israel.]

Existe Demônio Também na Política

Por Reinaldo Azevedo

Um cristão acredita em Deus, claro, mas sabe, como reafirmou o papa João Paulo 2º, que o demônio existe. O que é matéria de crença pode encontrar plena correspondência numa mentalidade agnóstica. Deus é a convicção, o princípio, o norte moral; o demônio é frouxidão da vontade, a ausência de limites, o relativismo sobre todas as coisas. Um cristão sabe que a manifestação mais clara do demônio — e, por favor, eliminem da imaginação aquela bobagens de possessão à moda do filme O Exorcista — é aquela que o leva a duvidar de si mesmo, dos seus valores; que põe uma névoa sobre os seus olhos e o impede de distinguir o certo do errado, porque, afinal, o certo de um sempre será o errado de outro, e vice-versa, e, enfim, tudo seria uma questão de ponto-de-vista.

Na política, também existe o demônio — para tristeza (ou felicidade, sei lá) de Marilena Chaui e de Emir Sader. Ele converte em fel todas as conquistas da democracia, que passam a ser encaradas, então, como marcos a serem superados em nome de um bem maior, que chamam a “redenção dos oprimidos”. Hoje li um texto de Sader, que me foi enviado por um amigo. Ali, um professor, alguém que carrega o título de cientista social, mente sem receios: diz que, se eleito, Alckmin vai privatizar a Petrobras e o Banco do Brasil. Infelizmente, trata-se de uma mentira. Infelizmente, o país sofrerá muito até que se evidencie essa necessidade. O homem aplaude todas as conquistas do governo Lula, com especial ênfase para o que considera a retomada do Mercosul. Penso nos crentes que o lêem, que acabam acreditando naquilo...

É o Mal. No texto de Sader, peça de resistência do petismo, de que Marta Suplicy já faz proselitismo nas ruas de São Paulo, todos os escândalos havidos são uma trama dos inimigos. Nada aconteceu. A história se passa num outro plano, que não este que reconhecemos. Haveria uma luta entre duas essencialidades: o projeto popular, que Lula encarnaria, e o outro, o das elites entreguistas, que querem subordinar o Brasil à lógica do capital — como se hoje vivêssemos à margem. É, claro!, um ponto-de-vista, mas que precisa se ancorar na farsa, em dados que não existem. Ou, então, não se sustenta. E que só encontra eco entre os admiradores porque certamente compartilham da ignorância que ele tem ou finge ter.

O mal é sempre sedutor. Aparecesse aos que são alvos da tentação com sua vestimenta real, não atrairia ninguém para o covil. Imaginem se Sader ou Marilena resolvessem lembrar os milhões de mortos de sua crença, de sua ideologia, para que eles pudessem chegar até aqui, em 2006, repetindo aqueles mesmos mantras. O interessante dessa gente é que eles não têm nunca um passado a oferecer como guia. Suas teses só têm futuro. O mundo que nos oferecem como alternativa nunca existiu, mas existirá um dia, desde que paguemos um preço.

Nós, os que acreditamos no individualismo radical; os que não suportamos que o demônio do Estado venha nos dizer o que fazer e o que não fazer; os que não acatamos as “imbecilidades coletivas” (by Olavo de Carvalho); os que não reconhecemos a autoridade da manada; os que não aceitamos o argumento da autoridade do social sobre a autoridade moral; os que não acatamos que leis democraticamente votadas sejam sacrificadas por causa da gritaria de minorias influentes, nós temos o dever de resistir, de ir para a guerra de valores, de acusar o golpismo dessa gente nefasta. E temos de mobilizar outros indivíduos como nós, neste exército sem quartel, nesta religião sem templo, que é a liberdade individual, que eles tentam sufocar, seja com a caridade que esmaga, seja com a patrulha que silencia.

Sim, é preciso ter em relação a essa gente uma ira verdadeiramente santa. Santa, pacífica e absolutamente intransigente. A ninguém foi dado, por Deus ou pelos homens (cada um segundo a sua escolha), de conquistar o Bem por meio do Mal. Se vocês repararem, eles reivindicam dois monopólios: tanto o de pecar como o de pedir perdão. Seja pecar contra Deus (para os crentes), seja pecar contra a cidadania. Eles têm de ir embora.

Se não agora, quando?

www.reinaldoazevedo.com.br/arquivos/2006_10_01_reinaldoazevedo_archive.html#116012378638244261

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict In Numbers

By Chuck missler
from the September 26, 2006 eNews issue
________________________________________

[Leia este artigo em português]

56% of Israelis support negotiating with the Palestinian Hamas-led government
75% of Israelis believe Israel is struggling for its survival
63% of Palestinians support adopting Hezbollah's methods of attacking Israeli towns with rockets
57% of Palestinian said they support the bombing of Israeli civilians
75% of Palestinians said they support the kidnapping Israel Defense Force soldiers
80% of Palestinians believe that Israel and Palestine cannot coexist

Number of Jews worldwide: approximately 14 million
Number of Jews in the US: approximately 6 million
Number of Jews in Israel: approximately 5 million
Number of Jews killed in the Holocaust: approximately 7 million

Palestinian Refugees seeking the "Right of Return" to Israel: over 4 million
Jewish Refugees expelled from Arab countries: over 1 million

Number of times Palestinians have been offered a state of their own and have refused: at least twice (in 1948 and 2000)

Number of Israel's neighbors' active armed forces: over 2 million
Number of Israel's active armed forces: 170,000

Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned by name in the Bible: 811
Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned by name in the Koran: 0

Number of terrorist attacks worldwide from August 1998 to August 2003 according to the Associated Press: 15
Number of terrorist attacks in Israel included in that list: 0
Number of terrorist attacks in Israel during that period: over 800

Length of time after the establishment of the United Nations before the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution: 50 years

Number of UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel: over 50
Number of UN Security Council resolutions condemning Palestinians: 0

Number of UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel: over 300
Number of UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Palestinians: 0

Chavez's Venezuela: No Laughing Matter

By Chuck Miseler
from the September 26, 2006, eNews issue

________________________________________

[Leia este artigo em português]

Over the past seven years Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has virtually destroyed what was once the most stable and prosperous democracy in South America. Over half of Chavez's constituents live in poverty. Inflation in Venezuela has risen to 15 percent and unemployment rates stand at 13 percent. In addition, violent crime, particularly in the capital city of Caracas, has risen exponentially in recent years. Venezuela now has the highest number of deaths by gunfire per capita in the world, the situation has been described as being "absolutely out of control."

Before Chavez came to power in 1998, oil-rich Venezuela was a wealthy nation and one of South America's oldest democracies. This wealth attracted a large influx of poor immigrants from neighboring Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and the Caribbean. The poor became increasingly resentful of the wealthy and middle class. Hugo Chavez, imprisoned for a failed coup in 1992 but was later released, became the champion of the poor during the 1998 elections.

Chavez, an avowed socialist, won the election with 56 percent of the vote. He immediately embraced Cuba's communist leader, Fidel Castro, as Venezuela's chief ally. He also called Iraq's Saddam Hussein his "brother" and aligned himself with Libya's Moammar Qadaffi. Chavez then formed alliances with North Korea's Kim Yong-Il and then Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Over the last year, foreign relations between the United States and Venezuela have steadily gotten worse. In a recent speech before the United Nations General Assembly Chavez referred to President Bush as "the devil" and "a tyrant." His comments provoked laughter among members of the General Assembly, and have become the topic of much media attention. He described the United States' as the "greatest threat looming over the world today," and said that "The United States empire is on the way down and it will be finished in the near future, for the good of all mankind."

Oil for Harlem

Just one day after Chavez's speech at the United Nations he appeared at a church in Harlem, where he continued his criticisms of the Bush administration and discussed the expansion of a heating oil initiative. Last year the Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo began a program to provide cheap fuel to low-income families in Boston, Chicago, and New York. The non-profit organization involved in distributing the fuel, Citizens Energy Corporation, was founded by Joseph Kennedy II, a liberal activist and son of the late senator Robert F. Kennedy.

The fact that someone like Chavez is taking an interest in helping America's underprivileged should raise red flags. After all, Chavez dealings with the United States have been anything but diplomatic. Make no mistake, this latest maneuver is not an act of charity. It is a calculated political maneuver to buy influence among members of congress. He has made similar deals in neighboring countries as a means of strengthening ties with those who share similar ideals. In Nicaragua, for example, Chavez has sold oil at below market price to political leaders with socialist leanings.

Speak No Evil

Despite growing inflation, unemployment, poverty, and crime, Hugo Chavez has retained a measured amount of popularity. Chavez has managed to survive several efforts to remove him from office, including an attempted coup and a national referendum. He has held on to power in large part because of an aggressive propaganda campaign that has shifted the blame for the people's problems on everyone from the nation's bureaucrats to the tyrannical empire that is the United States.

Chavez is up for re-election in December. In a bid to retain the presidency and thus "continue the revolution" Chavez has been tightening his grip on Venezuela's freedom of speech. Chavez has passed new laws regulating the media as well as a new penal code that criminalizes virtually any expression to which the government objects. The new laws state that "anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic" can be thrown into prison. The laws apply to comments made both publicly and privately. Journalists accused of receiving any type of foreign funding can be thrown into prison for up to 30 years and are not entitled to legal due process.

A Growing Threat

In the past year Venezuela's defense budget has increased by 31 percent, to over $2 billion. That number does not include a $2.2 billion defense deal recently made with Spain. Venezuela is buying helicopters, boats and military transport planes. They have also purchased 100,000 Russian-made Kalashnikov assault. Plans are also being made to buy submarines and Russian fighter jets. (In addition to its arms deals, Russia has also endorsed Venezuela's bid to join the UN Security Council.)

Venezuela is one of the founding members of OPEC and is strongly aligned with the Islamic oil producing nations of the Middle East. President Hugo Chavez has repeatedly defended Iran in its dispute with the United States and Europe over its nuclear program, saying Iran has a right to atomic energy. In recent months the trade volume between Iran and Venezuela has skyrocketed. When the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-member governing board voted to report Iran to the UN Security Council, only Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela voted against the resolution.

Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, providing assistance to Islamic radicals from the Middle East and other terrorists. Middle Eastern terrorist groups are operating cells in Venezuela, including support cells for organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Thousands of Venezuelan identity documents are being distributed to foreigners from Middle Eastern nations, including Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, and Lebanon.

The restriction of democratic freedoms in Venezuela and the infiltration of Islamic radicals into South America are serious concerns. Although the situation in Venezuela has been largely overshadowed by events in the Middle East, it still poses a serious threat to the interests and security of the United States.

The Deity of Christ

Written by Don Closson

[Leia este artigo em português]

Introduction

I recently received a letter from someone who argues that there is only one God, and that He is called many names and worshiped by many different people who hold to many different faiths. This kind of thinking about God is common today, but its popularity does not reduce the intellectual problems that may accompany it. For instance, does this notion of god include the god of the Aztecs who required child sacrifice? What about the warrior gods of Norse mythology: Odin, Thor, and Loki? How does the Mormon belief that we can all become Gods if we join their organization and conform to their system of good works fit into this theological framework? Even John Hick, an influential religious pluralist, believes that only some of the world's great religions qualify as having a valid view of God. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are valid, but Satanism and the religions of the Waco, Texas, variety are not. Belief that all religious systems worship one God raises difficult questions when we see how different groups portray God and seek to describe how we are to relate to Him.

The issue becomes even more acute when one religious tradition claims that God took on flesh becoming a man and walked on the earth. The Christian tradition has claimed for almost two thousand years that God did just that. The Gospel of John proclaims that, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John is, of course, talking about Jesus, and this claim presents an interesting challenge for a religious pluralist. If what John and the rest of the New Testament writers claim about Jesus is true, then we literally have God in the flesh walking with and teaching a small band of disciples. If Jesus was God incarnate as He walked the earth, we have a first hand account of what God is like in the biblical record. Truth claims about God that counter those given in the Bible must then be discounted. In other words, if Jesus was God in the flesh during His time on earth, other religious texts or traditions are wrong when they teach about God or about knowing God in ways that contradict the biblical record.

In this essay we will consider the evidence for the deity of Christ. Christianity's truth claims are dependent on this central teaching, and once accepted, this claim reduces greatly the viability of religious pluralism, of treating all religious beliefs as equally true. For if God truly became flesh and spoke directly to His disciples about such things as sin, redemption, a final judgment, false religions and true worship, then we have the God of the universe expressing intolerance towards other religious claims- -specifically claims that discount the reality of sin and remove the need for redemption or the reality of a final judgment. Some might not agree with God's religious intolerance, but then again, disagreeing with God is what the Bible calls sin.

Rather than begin with a response to attacks on Christ's deity by modern critics like the Jesus Seminar or New Age gnostics, our discussion will begin with Jesus' own self-consciousness, in other words, what did Jesus say and think about himself. From there we will consider the teachings of the Apostles and the early church. My goal is to establish that from its inception, Christianity has taught and believed that Jesus was God in the flesh, and that this belief was the result of the very words that Jesus spoke concerning His own essence.

Christ's Self-Perception

As we begin to examine evidence that supports the claim that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh or God incarnate, a good starting point is Jesus' own self concept. It must first be admitted that Jesus never defines His place in the Trinity in theological language. However, He made many statements about himself that would be not only inappropriate, but blasphemous if He was not God in the flesh. It is important to remember that Jesus' life was not spent doing theology or thinking and writing about theological issues. Instead, His life was focused on relationships, first with His disciples, and then with the Jewish people. The purpose of these relationships was to engender in these people a belief in Jesus as their savior or Messiah, as their only source of salvation. Jesus told the Pharisees, the Jewish religious leaders of His day, that they would die in their sins if they did not believe that He was who He claimed to be (John 8:24). And to one Pharisee, Nicodemus, Jesus said, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

Millard Erickson, in his book Christian Theology, does a nice job of laying out evidence that Jesus considered himself equal in essence with God.(1) Unless He was God, it would have been highly inappropriate for Jesus to say, as He does in Matthew 13:41, that both the angels and the kingdom are His. Elsewhere, angels are called "the angels of God" (Luke 12:8 9; 15:10) and the phrase Kingdom of God is found throughout the Scriptures. But Jesus says, "The Son of man will send His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and evildoers" (Matt. 13:41).

When the paralytic in Mark 2:5 was lowered through the roof by his friends, Jesus' first response was to say that the man's sins were forgiven. The scribes knew the implications of this statement, for only God could forgive sin. Their remarks clearly show that they understood Jesus to be exercising a divine privilege. Jesus had a wonderful opportunity to set the record straight here by denying that He had the authority to do what only God can do. Instead, His response only reinforces His claim to divinity. Jesus says, "Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, Rise, take up your pallet and walk'?" To confirm His authority to forgive sins, Jesus enabled the man to pick up his pallet and go home.

Two other areas that Jesus claimed authority over was the judging of sin and the observance of the Sabbath. Both were considered God's prerogative by the Jews. In John 5:22-23 Jesus says, "The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father." Jesus also claimed authority to change man's relationship to the Sabbath. Honoring the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments, and the Jews had been given strict instructions on how to observe it. In the book of Numbers, Moses is told by God to stone to death a man who collects wood on the Sabbath. However, in Matthew 12:8 Jesus says that "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

These examples show that Jesus made claims and performed miracles that reveal a self awareness of His own divinity. In our next section, we will continue in this vein.

Christ's Self-Perception, Part 2

At this point in our discussion we will offer even more examples of Jesus' self knowledge of His essential equality with God.

A number of comments that Jesus made about His relationship with the Father would be unusual if Jesus did not consider himself equal in essence with God. In John 10:30 He says that to see Him is to see the Father. Later in John 14:7-9 He adds that to know Him is to know the Father. Jesus also claimed to have existed prior to His incarnation on earth. In John 8:58 He says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Some believe that the words used here by Jesus constitute His strongest claim to deity. According to the Expositors Bible Commentary this passage might more literally be translated, "Before Abraham came into being, I continuously existed." The Jews recognized the phrase "I am" as one referring to God because God used it (1) to describe himself when He commissioned Moses to demand the release of His people from Pharaoh (Exodus 3:14), and (2) to identify himself in the theistic proclamations in the second half of Isaiah. Jesus also declares that His work is coterminous with the Father. He proclaims that "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (John 14:23). The Jews hearing Jesus understood the nature of these claims. After His comment about pre-existing Abraham, they immediately picked up stones to kill Him for blasphemy because they understood that He had declared himself God.

In Jesus' trial He makes a clear declaration of who He is. The Jews argued before Pilate in John 19:7, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God." Matthew 26 records that at Jesus' trial, the high priest tells Jesus, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus replies, "You have said it yourself, . . . But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." This would have been a wonderful opportunity for Jesus to save himself by clearing up any misconceptions concerning His relationship with the Father. Instead, He places himself in a position of equality and of unique power and authority. Again, the Jews understand what Jesus is saying. The high priest proclaims, "He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy." He calls for a vote of the council, and they demand His death (Matt. 26:65-66).

Another indicator of how Jesus perceived himself is in His use of Old Testament Scripture and the way He made His own proclamations of truth. In a number of cases, Jesus began a sentence with "You have heard that it was said, . . . but I say to you. . . ." (Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28). Jesus was giving His words the same authority as the Scriptures. Even the prophets, when speaking for God, would begin their statements with: "The word of the Lord came to me," but Jesus begins with: "I say to you."

There are other indications of how Jesus saw himself. For example, Christ's claim to have authority over life itself in John 5:21 and 11:25, and His use of the self referential "Son of God" title point to unique power and authority and His essential equality with God.

The Apostles' Teaching

We will turn now to look at what Jesus' followers said of Him. The Gospel of John begins with a remarkable declaration of both Christ's deity and full humanity. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." Later in verse fourteen John remarks that this "Word" became flesh and walked among them and points to Jesus as this "Word" become flesh. What did John mean by this remarkable passage?

The first phrase might literally be translated: "When the beginning began, the Word was already there." In other words, the "Word" co-existed with God and predates time and creation. The second phrase "The Word was with God" indicates both equality and distinction of identity. A more literal translation might be "face to face with God," implying personality and relational coexistence. Some groups, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, make a great deal of the fact that the word "God" in the third phrase "The Word was God" lacks an article. This, they argue, allows the noun God to be translated as an indefinite noun, perhaps referring to "a God" but not "the" almighty God. Actually, the lack of an article for the noun makes the case for the deity of the "Word" more clearly. The Greek phrase, theos en ho logos describes the nature of the "Word," not the nature of God. The article ho before the word logos shows that the sentence describes the nature of the Word; He is of the same nature and essence as the noun in the predicate; that is, the Word is divine. It is interesting to note that verses 6, 12, 13, and 18 of the same chapter refer unambiguously to God the Father and use an anarthrous noun, i.e., a noun without the article.(2) Yet strangely the Jehovah's Witnesses do not dispute the meaning of these passages.

The author of Hebrews writes plainly of Christ's deity. The first chapter states that, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word." The passage also states that Jesus is not an angel nor is He just a priest. In Colossians 1:15-16 Paul adds that, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Although Paul clearly attributes godlike qualities to Jesus, the use of the word firstborn often causes confusion. The word can be a reference to priority in time or supremacy in rank. Since Jesus is described as the Creator of all things, the notion of supremacy seems more appropriate. Philippians 2:5-11 also talks of Jesus existing in the form of God. The Greek term used for form is morphe, denoting an outward manifestation of an inner essence.

Mention should also be made of the use by New Testament writers of the word Lord for Jesus. The same Greek word was used in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, as the translated word for the Hebrew words Yahweh and Adonai, two special names given to God the Father. The Apostles meant to apply the highest sense of this term when referring to Jesus.

The Early Church

Thus far we have been examining the Christian claim of Christ's divinity, first considering Jesus' own self-concept and then the thoughts of those who wrote the New Testament. It is not within the scope of this essay to argue that the words attributed to Jesus by the writers of the New Testament are indeed His. Instead, we have argued that the words attributed to Jesus do claim an essential equality with God the Father. The traditional view of the Christian faith has been that God has revealed himself to us as three separate persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--who shared a common essence.

Belief in Jesus' essential equality with God the Father was communicated by the Apostles to the church fathers to whom they handed the task of leading the church. Even though these early leaders often struggled with how to describe the notion of the Trinity with theological accuracy, they knew that their faith was in a person who was both man and God.

Clement of Rome is a good example of this faith. Writing to the church at Corinth Clement implies Jesus' equality with God the Father when he says "Have we not one God, and one Christ and one Spirit of grace poured upon us." Later, in his second letter, Clement tells his readers to "think of Jesus as of God, as the judge of the living and dead." Clement also wrote of Jesus as the preexistent Son of God; in other words, Christ existed before He took on human flesh. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of Christ's nature in his letter to the Ephesians, "There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God." A little later, Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 140-202.) had to stress the humanity of Christ because of Gnostic heresy that argued that Jesus was only a divine emanation. Irenaeus wrote, "There is therefore . . . one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus our Lord, who . . . gathered together all things in himself. But in every respect, too, he is man, the formation of God: and thus he took up man into himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in himself" (Against Heresies III, 16). During the same time period, Tertullian of Carthage (ca. A.D. 155-240) wrote of Christ's nature that "what is born in the flesh is flesh and what is born in the Spirit is spirit. Flesh does not become spirit nor spirit flesh. Evidently they can (both) be in one (person). Of these Jesus is composed, of flesh as man and of spirit as God" (Against Praxeas, 14). Later he added, "We see His double state, not intermixed but conjoined in one person, Jesus, God and man" (Against Praxeas, 27).

By A.D. 325 the church had begun to systematize Christianity's response to various heretical views of Christ. The Nicene Creed stated, "We believe in God the Father All-sovereign, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things came into being."(3).

The belief in Jesus Christ being of the same essence as God the Father began with Jesus himself, was taught to His Apostles, who in turn handed down this belief to the early church Fathers and apologists. Christ's deity is the foundation upon which the Christian faith rests.

Notes

1. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1985), pp. 684-90.

2. Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), pp. 28-29.

3. Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 26.

©1997 Probe Ministries.

About the Author

Don Closson received the B.S. in education from Southern Illinois University, the M.S. in educational administration from Illinois State University, and the M.A. in Biblical Studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. He served as a public school teacher and administrator before joining Probe Ministries as a research associate in the field of education. He is the general editor of Kids, Classrooms, and Contemporary Education.

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site.

Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:

Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664
info@probe.org
www.probe.org

Chance and Intelligent Design (part 2)

By James A. Choury, serving with WorldVenture in North Brazil

[Leia este artigo em português]

What do Logic and the laws of probability have to do with evidence of God’s existence? The first verse of the Bible states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Psalm 19.1-4 and Romans 1.20 tell us that the creation proclaims God’s existence and His invisible attributes and that that proclamation is intelligible to mankind to such an extent that not heeding it leads to man’s condemnation.

How does the creation proclaim God’s existence and invisible attributes to such an extent as to leave any one who does not recognize Him without excuse?

At least a part of the answer is to be found in the probability calculus. In the study of probability we learn that complex and interrelated phenomenon very seldom happen simply by chance. When we find something complex and interrelated the rational inclination is to assume that it was designed or prearranged. So the proclamation of God’s existence, power and divine nature are revealed by creation’s order and complexity because experience and an understanding of mathematics tell us that complex and interrelated things come about through design. Discussions about God’s existence naturally (and, as we shall see later, necessarily) revolve around the issue of chance or design.←

Let’s return to the Law of the Excluded Middle described in Part I. Logically we can affirm that life and the universe came about by chance or they came about by “not chance”. It was either chance or not chance and it must have been one or the other. If it was chance then we are automatically driven into the area of Mathematics and the Probability Calculus. If it was chance it is logical to ask “what are the odds?” “Are they good odds?”* Is chance a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe and of life?

If we consider the only other logical alternative, “not chance”, what are we driven to there? When we say something resulted from “not chance” we are talking about design or some kind of intelligent intervention.

We are caught between two options by the law of the excluded middle. Chance or not chance. Can we agree that “not chance” is just another way of saying “design”? If so, we are talking about chance or design. Can there be design without intelligence? If not, we are talking about chance or intelligent design. No other options. That’s the Law! The Law of the Excluded Middle.

Now, some astute thinker may propose a third alternative: “It may have been partly by chance and partly by design”. Good thinking! But this option only leads us back to the former genuine dilemma. If part was by chance we need to know which part? If some part was by chance we need to ask what are the odds? If part was by design we need to ask who or what was the designer? No, there is no escape along that avenue. The Law of the Excluded Middle is only strengthened by that third, proposed alternative.

We have demonstrated that the Law of the Excluded Middle, when applied to the existence of life and the universe, leaves us with only two rational options: “chance” or “not chance”. If we chose “chance” we are faced with some hard questions about the probability of such chance. If we chose “not chance” we fall logically into affirming that life and the universe are a result of design and are faced with the question of the designer’s existence and identity.

Exercises:

1. Write a short essay on the thoughts found in Genesis 1.1, Psalm 19.1-4 and Romans 1.20.
2. Try to come up with a third possibility for the existence of life and the universe not included in the above options of “chance” or “not chance”.

A Polêmica do Papa

Jornal da Globo

Os protestos em países muçulmanos contra um discurso acadêmico pronunciado por Bento XVI tornaram-se ainda mais fortes, apesar do Papa ter dito “lamentar as reações”, no domingo.
O presidente da conferência episcopal italiana, Camilo Ruini, chamou de “inqualificáveis” as ameaças ao Papa vindas do mundo muçulmano. O cardeal ofereceu a Bento XVI total solidariedade.

O presidente da França, Jacques Chirac, lançou um apelo para que seja evitado tudo o que pode alimentar tensão entre povos e religiões.
Nesta segunda-feira, o país islâmico mais intransigente foi o Irã, que não aceitou a retratação do Papa. Lideres moderados, do Egito e da Jordânia, também não se satisfizeram com a explicação do Papa, e querem um pedido de desculpas claro e sem equívocos.
Novas ameaças foram feitas ao pontífice e à Igreja, por iraquianos extremistas ligados ao grupo al Qaeda.

Longe dos muros sagrados, em Castel Gandolfo, Bento XVI acompanha os protestos. No vaticano, se prepara um encontro com autoridades católicas, muçulmanas e judaicas. Recomeçar diálogo entre as religiões é a aposta da Santa Sé para o fim da crise entre a Igreja e o Islã
A declaração

Bento XVI é um intelectual de pensamento muito sofisticado e elaborado. E boa parte das reações negativas ao que ele disse parecem ser fruto de pouca informação.
As palavras pronunciadas pelo Papa constam da aula magna que ele deu na semana passada na universidade de Regensburg, no sul da Alemanha, onde fora professor de teologia. O título da aula era “Fé e razão – e como é possível, através da razão, entender Deus”.

Para explicar porque a fé e a razão excluem a violência como forma de se propagar uma religião, o papa reproduz diálogos travados há mais de 600 anos entre um imperador bizantino, Manuel II Palaeologo, e um prelado persa de nome desconhecido. Era um diálogo sobre a relação que cristianismo e o Islã mantém com fé e razão.

Naquela época, por volta do ano 1400, Constantinopla, a capital do império Bizantino, estava cercada por exércitos muçulmanos – que acabariam conquistando a cidade 53 anos depois, uma das datas mais traumáticas para a cristandade.

“O imperador conhecia perfeitamente as definições, contidas no Corão, sobre a guerra sagrada", diz o Papa. "E ele se dirige a seu interlocutor de forma muito brusca, com a questão central por excelência da relação entre religião e violência, e diz: ‘mostre-me o que o profeta Maomé trouxe de novo (na questão da Guerra Santa) e você só vai encontrar coisas ruins e desumanas, como a crença, que ele propagou, que a fé dele tem de ser espalhada através da espada’".
“É uma palestra muito mais acadêmica que religiosa. É fácil descontextualizar esta frase e instrumentalizar esta frase. Mas essa instrumentalização também é entendível, por parte dos muçulmanos, porque a fala aconteceu no dia 12 de setembro, um dia depois da comemoração dos atentados contra o World Trade Center”, avalia Frank Usarski, professor de Ciências da Religião da PUC-SP. “E ainda, esse discurso público no mundo Ocidental inteiro, repercutiu na alma, na consciência coletiva dos muçulmanos”.

Segunda-feira, 18 de Setembro de 2006

Waiting the 12th Imam

By Chuck Missler, from KHouse

________________________________________

[Leia este artigo em português]

"Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, Speaking on the virtues of suicide bombing

Iran's nuclear program has long been the subject of debate. It is viewed by most as one of the greatest threats to international security. Yet some have condemned efforts to stem Iran's nuclear ambitions as hypocritical. One such commentator wrote, "The US government cannot make a reasonable case as to why it's OK for Israel to have a stockpile of nuclear warheads but it's not OK for any other nation in the Middle East to pursue nuclear weapons technology." Such sentiments may seem reasonable to some. However they do not take into account some of the key dynamics behind the Middle East conflict.

Unlike Iran, Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and, as such, technically does not have to abide by nuclear anti-proliferation conventions. Over the past five decades Israel has developed a nuclear-weapons program but has neither denied nor admitted the existence of its nuclear arsenal. Israelis call this policy "strategic ambiguity." Israel is surrounded on all sides by enemies bent on bringing about its destruction. Israel, therefore, developed its nuclear program to serve as a deterrent. Israel's nuclear arsenal is one of the primary reason nations like Iran have not yet succeeded in their plans to wipe Israel "off the map."

Iran is governed by Shiite Muslim clerics committed to a stern interpretation of Islamic law. Hatred of the United States has been a key component of Iranian foreign policy since the 1978 Islamic revolution, and Iran's leaders often refer to the United States as the "Great Satan." Iran's distaste for the United States is surpassed only by their utter loathing of Israel. Iran's political and religious leaders have repeatedly called for Israel's complete destruction.

The State Department calls the Islamic Republic of Iran the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism." Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere. Iran mostly backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s) and such Palestinian terrorist groups as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran uses such groups to carry out a proxy war on Israel and the West. It is therefore folly to allow Iran, and consequently its terrorist allies, to obtain nuclear technology.

The Dark Horse

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected in June of 2005 with more than 60 percent of the vote. He is Iran's sixth president since the 1979 revolution. He ran on a populist economic platform and beat former president Hashemi Rafsanjani - who was hugely wealthy and purportedly very corrupt. Unlike Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad appealed to the people. He is seen as an honest and simple man. According to reports, he lives so modestly that his personal assets include only a 30-year-old car, an even older house, and an empty bank account. Ahmadinejad projects the image of a humble and devout man. He is motivated, not by wealth or power, but by his conservative Islamic ideals.

Ahmadinejad is a controversial figure in the international community, but he has the support of the Iranian people and the backing of Supreme Leader Ali Ayatollah Khamenei. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad graduated from college with a degree in civil engineering and joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps during the Iran-Iraq war. During the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Ahmadinejad was a member of the radical student group that took control of the US embassy. Ahmadinejad reportedly played a central role in the hostage crisis, which included interrogating captives.

Prior to running for president, Ahmadinejad was the mayor of Tehran, Iran's capitol city. He was appointed mayor in the spring of 2003 by the city council. Before becoming mayor, Ahmadinejad was a relatively unknown figure in Iranian politics. In fact, the city council members that appointed him came to power in an election that could only boast of a 12 percent voter turnout.

The Return of the 12th Imam

When Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly in October of 2005, he ended his speech with a prayer imploring God to hasten the return of the 12th Imam. Ahmadinejad refers to the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi, in almost all his major speeches. In the Islamic faith, the Mahdi is the ultimate savior of mankind. His appearance will usher in an era of Islamic justice and bring about the conversion of the heathen amidst flame and fire. The Mahdi will establish Islam as the global religion and will reign for seven years before bringing about the end of the world.

In a speech last November, Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying: "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. Therefore, Iran should become a powerful, developed and model Islamic society. Today, we should define our economic, cultural and political policies based on the policy of Imam Mahdi's return. We should avoid copying the West's policies and systems."

The beliefs of Sunni and Shiite Muslims differ on the identity of the Mahdi. Sunnis either believe that he is yet to be born, or that he was born recently and has yet to emerge. Shiites hold that the Mahdi is Muhammad ibn Hasan, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad born in the 9th century and the 12th and final Shiite Imam. As a devout Shiite, Ahmadinejad believes that the 12th Imam was hidden away by Allah at a young age and will someday emerge to bring justice and peace by establishing Islam throughout the world. After taking office Ahmadinejad allocated $20 million for the expansion of the Jamkaran mosque, a religious pilgrimage site where Shiites can drop messages to the "Hidden Imam" in a holy well.

Ahmadinejad ardently believes in the imminent return of 12th Imam, which he anticipates will happen in the next two years. He believes he has a personal role in ushering in the return of the Mahdi and is preparing Iran for Judgment Day. Understanding this perspective is vital to understanding the Iranian threat.

Chance or Intelligent Design ? (part 1)

By James Andrew Choury, serving with WorldVenture in North Brazil September, 2005

[Leia este artigo em português]

Logic and Mathematics. What have these disciplines to do with evidence of God’s existence?

The Law of the Non Contradiction is a fundamental law of logic. The law states that a proposition and its contradictory can never both be true. In symbols we write [ ~ (A & -A)] where the & symbol means that both A and ~A are true and the tilde (~) means “not”. This phrase is logically equivalent to (A v ~ A) which tells us that one or the other (A or ~A) must be true without exceptions (this by the way is called the Law of the Excluded Middle). In short, the Law of Non Contradiction tells us that a proposition and its contradictory are never both true and the Law of the Excluded Middle tells us that one of them must be true. A more classical way of describing contradictories is that one is the negation of the other and they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. Logical conversation about any subject must observe these basic laws of deduction.

Examples of the Law of Non Contradiction/Law of the Excluded Middle: *

This table is rectangular or this table is not rectangular.
Two plus two is four or two plus two is not four.
The Bible was inspired by God or the Bible was not inspired by God.
Christ rose from the dead or Christ did not rise from the dead.
My name is James or my name is not James.

In order to more fully understand this important concept let’s imagine a typical closet. We will very likely find shoes, shirts, trousers, umbrellas, coats, hats, baseball bats, gloves, table games on the shelves and many other odds and ends. Let’s have the closet represent any given collection of things. We can go through the closet and sort out everything in it. We can divide everything into two categories, say shoes and not shoes. In another sorting we can do trousers and not trousers. Stuff to throw out and stuff not to throw out. In any given sorting everything in the closet will fall into one of two categories. In every case we will end up with two piles (one pile may not have anything in it and that, in mathematics, is called the empty set). That is what the Law of the Excluded Middle tells us. Nothing will be both a shoe and not a shoe. Every item will be either a shoe or not a shoe.

Of course we must first define our terms and eliminate any ambiguities. But, when all has been clarified, any rational conversation must recognize and respect the Laws of the Excluded Middle and Non Contradiction. Let’s always remember that it is impossible for a proposition and its contradictory to both be true. It is logically necessary that either a proposition or its contradictory be true, i.e., one of them must be true!

Still unconvinced? Try to disprove the Law. Think of any collection of things (in mathematics called a set) and try to come up with something within the set that is both X and not X where X is some unambiguous quality or quantity. Don’t forget that X must be defined unambiguously.

More examples:

The set of all animals can be sorted into mammals and non-mammals.
The set of all vehicles can be sorted into front wheel drive and not front wheel drive vehicles.
The set of all athletes can be sorted into Olympic Gold Medal winners and not Olympic Gold Medal winners.
The set called “furniture” can be sorted into chairs and non chairs.
The set of all beings can be sorted into the categories of divine and not divine.

Remember that a very important part of logical debate and conversation is clear definition. When things are clearly defined we will never find a case where a proposition and its contradictory are both true. We will always find that one of them must be true.

* Aristotle correctly codified these basic laws of deduction together with the Law of Identity and for well over a thousand years they were believed to be the fundamental “laws of thought”. With the development of modern symbolic logic one plainly sees that these three statements are logically equivalent and express the same truth in three different ways. Although they may not deserve the elevated position attributed to them by the ancients they are very definitely inescapable and true.

Note: Some objections have been raised asserting that the Law of the Excluded Middle makes everything either black or white. This is a misunderstanding of the Law. The Law of the Excluded middle actually makes everything either black or not black, round or not round, tall or not tall, etc. when, of course, these terms are well defined.

Exercises:

1. See if you can formulate the Law of Identity for yourself or do some research and find it formulated.
2. Come up with five more examples of the Law of the Excluded Middle.
3. Define the following items or concepts leaving as little ambiguity as possible:
A. a tree
B. a book
C. a box
D. imperialism
E. rectangular
4. Check your definition against that of a good dictionary. How did you do? How did the dictionary do?

Can Israel Trust the UN?

By Chuck Missler

________________________________________

[Leia este artigo em português]

The United Nations has managed to pass a ceasefire agreement meant to end the violence in Southern Lebanon. The UN Security Council resolution calls for the Lebanese government to exert its sovereignty over Southern Lebanon, which is controlled by Hezbollah. Those who hope this latest attempt at peace will succeed where others have failed so many times in the past will most likely be disappointed. The Security Council has passed seven resolutions going back 28 years that have demanded the same thing - none have been successfully put into action. The fact that Kofi Annan has been given the task of implementing this latest plan does nothing to inspire our confidence in the endeavor. Within days of the resolution, Hezbollah declared that it will not disarm, and so far the only action taken by the Lebanese government has done little but to ensure that everything will return to the way it was.

The fighting is officially over, although no clear winner has emerged. Make no mistake, Hezbollah's forces have suffered enormous losses. However Israel did not accomplish its stated goals, and has yet to recover its kidnapped soldiers. Hezbollah has taken a significant blow, but rearmament and rebuilding have already begun. Hezbollah will regroup, and may even return stronger than ever.

The UN peacekeeping force that was promised has not materialized. France was expected to lead the peacekeeping effort, but to date has only pledged a measly 200 troops. Not surprisingly, assistance from the rest of Europe has not been forthcoming. At any rate, Israel has little reason to put their faith in UN peacekeepers. How can Israel be expected to trust the UN, when only a few weeks ago UN peacekeepers were knowingly aiding Israel's enemies?

In an article in the Weekly Standard, Lori Lowenthal Marcus wrote, "During the recent month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, UN peacekeeping forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon. UNIFIL - the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978 - is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old. Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces..."

This betrayal is only one example of the UN's lopsided loyalties. The United Nations is an organization plagued by scandal, favoritism, and financial mismanagement. The United Nations was created to maintain international peace and help solve the world’s economic and humanitarian troubles, but the UN has failed time and time again to achieve its primary objectives.

As Doutrinas dos Batistas

por Glendon grober

A doutrina fundamental dos batistas é da autoridade das Escrituras. O único credo das igrejas batistas é o Novo Testamento. Há interpretações dele que são distintivaas dos batistas. Mesmo entre essas pode haver alguma diferença de batista para batista:
1. Cristo é o Senhor da Igreja e dos crentes. O objetivo de toda a atividade é glorificar o nome de Jesus. Ele é o Senhor pessoal e a cabeça da Igreja.

2. A autoridade suficiente das Escrituras. A Bíblia é a única autoridade acima de qualquer outra. A regra de fé das igrejas batistas é o Novo Testamento. Os batistas crêem na inspiração da Bíblia toda, mas reconhecem que a orientação da Igreja está no Novo Testamento.

3. O batismo é a imersão de um crente como ato de obediência. Não são únicos nesta crença, mas bem firmes na posição.

4. A liberdade religiosa. Os batistas crêem no princípio de separação entre a Igreja e o Estado. São contra uma igreja estatal ou ligada ao governo. Crêem, dentro deste princípio, na liberdade de consciência. O homem tem que procurar a Deus d livre vontade, porque quer; nunca pode ser forçado ou obrigado a crer. Deus mesmo não obriga o homem a comungar com Ele, muito menos deveria o homem impor sobre seu semelhante aquilo que Deus recusa fazer. O princípio de liberdade religiosa é o "troféu dos batistas".

5. A perseverança dos crentes. Crêem os batistas que a salvação é uma vez para sempre. Deus guarda o salvo pelo poder divino. Os crentes hão de perseverar na graça, não perdendo a salvação. É da antureza da fé salvadora se manter firme até o dia de Cristo.

6. A igreja é autônoma. Crêem os batistas na política congregacional. Nenhuma igreja está submissa à outra. Os batistas praticam a cooperação entre as igrejas em amor, nunca por constrangimento.

7. A salvação é pela fé em Jesus Cristo. Ele é o único caminho. Seu o único nome entre os homens que o homem pode invocar para ser salvo. Os batistas rejeitam, como meio de salvação a lei, a igreja, as ordenanças (sacramentos) e as obras. A salvação é um dom que Deus concede àquele que pessoalmente põe sua fé em Jesus Cristo.