Earlier this week Warren pointed me to Scott Adams blog, and there has been some very interesting debate going on there. He began by writing two blogs on Atheism and Pascal’s Wager. In these blogs he presented very simple arguments against Atheism along with some interesting theories concerning which religion is true. All is well and good. However his posts were quite offensive to Austin Cline over at Ask.com, and Austin wrote up quite a fiery response. Scott answered with this post and is now waiting for a response. This is turning into quite an interesting affair.

I have always enjoyed the Dilbert cartoons, but never realizes Scott Adams had a blog. After reading quite a bit of his writing I have found it is very enjoyable reading and quite thought provoking. Here is another Scott Adams post, suggesting that maybe the problem in Iraq is that there are not enough Guns. He says that you cannot test his theory, but I say that it has already been tested and proven, right here in America. Hence the second amendment which states that you can never have too many guns (it might use different words then that).

There are two parts to this piece with Dennis Prager: here and here.  Take a few minutes and listen to both.

Pope Benedict XVI recently came out with a statement that the only true church is the Roman Catholic Church. An initial tendency might be to be upset at a statement like that because it is declaring that Protestants Churches are invalid.

However Al Mohler makes a great point that a statement like this is a good thing because it makes more clear the lines that were blurred by Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict’s statement is much more dogmatic then anything Pope John Paul would have said, since he was almost ready to embrace all religions as being equally valid.

In a world that is increasingly adopting post-modernism it is encouraging to see the RCC taking a step away from it, even if their absolutist position is erroneous.

Here is a good quote from Al Mohler:

… I am not offended because this new document actually brings attention to the crucial issues of ecclesiology, and thus it presents us with an opportunity.

…

Evangelicals should appreciate the candor reflected in this document. There is no effort here to confuse the issues. To the contrary, the document is an obvious attempt to set the record straight. The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is working redemptively through Protestant and evangelical churches, but it does deny that these churches which deny the authority of the papacy are true churches in the most important sense. The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are “ecclesial Communities,” not churches “in the proper sense.”

I appreciate the document’s clarity on this issue. It all comes down to this — the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.

So now that this crucial difference between the RCC and protestants is defined, this issue can be addressed theologically head on.

It has been one whole year since my first post to thebradlands, December 15th, 2005. I would like to thank my mom and dad, for bringing me into this world. Also my producer/ providor/ spellchecker/ factchecker Warren Myers. Of course I’d like to thank Jillian who has stuck with me through thick and thin and has helped me with my Spanish. And lastly all my fans who have made it fun for me to write knowing that you care enough to check by and read. Blogging has been a great way to vent my excitement in lots of different areas. Hopefully reading has energized you, and thebradlands has been an instrument to get you excited about life.

Wow, this blogger is doing something really far out, and he is making the news for it. He is actually reading the Bible. He is Jewish so he is only reading the Old Testament, but his blog concerning his daily readings is causing quite a stir and opening a lot of eyes as to what the Bible is really about. Here is an article in Reuters about it, and here is a link to his blog. I haven’t read much of what he’s written but from what I have read he is basically giving his own commentary on the story, which is sometimes pretty crazy.

So what is he discovering? He is discovering that the Bible isn’t a book about “how to be good.” In fact the Bible is packed full of stories of sinful people who are exactly the opposite of “good.” The bible isn’t about being good, the Bible is about man’s inability to be good, and about how God overcame that by sending Jesus, who was perfect, to accept the punishment for man’s sin. God also sent the promise that those who commit their lives to Him will have their sinfulness hidden and will be given the power of the Holy Spirit to live as God originally intended. The entire old testament points to man’s need for Jesus and points to his comming. The gospels give us the story of his comming. The epistles give us the implications for our lives of his having come. The bible isn’t about being good or learning how to be good. Its about God and his love and provision for man.

I earlier posted on environmentalism and the perspective we as Christians should have on it. Here is a post in the blog The Evangelical Ecologist that hits the nail right on the head.

UPDATE: I just want to emphasize the importance of knowing who to vote for before you go. Even if you know you want to vote straight republican or democrat, judges are not alligned with one party or another. All you will see are a names and you will need to know which ones are going to be best for the country. If you are voting republican in NC then you can print out this list and take it to the polls with you. If you are from another state just do an internet search for your state’s party website and they will have things like that available.

———————————————————————————————————

Do you have a couple extra minutes today? Do a quick internet search for where you need to show up to vote tomorrow. Maybe look up some of the candidates and see who you want to vote for. Don’t be indifferent, this is such an important election! Don’t just say “I’ll get around to it tomorrow,” plan voting into your schedule tomorrow and know what you are doing. Voting is a privaledge won for us with the lives of young men. Our government is designed so that if you are unhappy with it then you can make a difference.

What is my argument for why you as a Christian should vote? When man sinned then everyone assumed a sinful nature. In order to keep that sinful nature in check, God put social structures on the earth. The family, the church, the job, the school, and the government are all social structures. Each social structure has its level of priority. We believe that the family is the most important social structure, and that it should be our first priority. The government, although it is not as high a priority as the family, ought to make and keep law and order within the country. A good government will not intrude on the higher priority social structures which exist within it, such as the family and the church.

We live in a democratic nation, and each citizen is a member of our government. It is every citizen’s responsibility to make sure that our government respects the other social structures in place within the nation, and at the same time fulfills its duties to make and uphold law and order within our country. Embrace your privaledge and responsibility as a Christian and as a member of our government, and get out there to vote tomorrow!

So here is a question: If one Christian has a huge amount of faith, and one Christian has only a little bit of faith, which is more likely to go to heaven? The post modernist would say that the more faith you have, the stronger your belief, the more likely you will be saved. The proper answer however should be that it doesn’t matter how much faith a person has, what matters is what their faith is in. If Christianity isn’t real then neither person will be saved, no matter how much faith they have. If Christianity is real then it doesn’t matter if your faith is weak, so long as you have put your faith where it should be.

The difference in thinking marks the difference in how the post modern generation views truth. According to the postmodern generation, each individual person is responsible for coming up with his own philosophy, law, and meaning for life, and each person’s self sculpted truth is equally respected as being valid. Post modernism completely bypasses the idea that there is one ultimate transcending truth, and thus the idea of many individuals each having equally valid contradictory truths does not defy the meaning of truth.

The only self truth which is forbidden is a truth which states “my truth is exclusive.” The statement “if my truth is right, then anything contradicting it is wrong,” might make sense logically, and yet postmodernists forbid this truth from being held. Your truth might be right for you, but it might equally be wrong for someone else, because your truth is based on you, not on a transcendent reality. Therein lies the problem with the modern definition of truth. Apart from those truths proven by science, no truth may be believed to be transcendent.

So what is the problem with this modern thinking? If most normal people look at the world around them, they are going to come up with similar self truths as others doing the same. If everyone respects each others truths as being equally valid then there could be peace on earth. Each individual would live his own life according to his own philosophy, and there would be no argument, no conflict, no problem.

If life consisted of sitting at a round table debating philosophy, then it is true that there would be no conflict. Each person would be very happy with his own chosen truth, and would have no problem with anyone else’s. However problems come up when two people’s self truths intersect during day to day life. When ones persons truth is “I can take whatever I want,” and another persons truth “I can keep whatever I want,” then when the first person comes across the second persons beautiful new Nissan 350Z, then they are going to have problems deciding who gets it. You say “well everyone’s truth should include a respect for each other and each other’s property.” Are you daring to propose a transcendent truth which I must conform to? Where did you come up with that truth? What makes you think you can force it upon me?

Deep down, everyone knows that all truth is transcendant. They know that on earth there is an order for things. There is a proper behavior that is expected of others, and a proper behavior that is expected of you. Much of this transcendent truth is accepted by modern man as being true (although they might not accept that it is transcendent.) So if transcendent truths are accepted by each man to be self truth, then what is the problem? The problem is that not all transcendent truths are accepted by all men. Some truths are rejected because of the inconvenience or guilt which they would place upon the holders. In addition, some make up their own truths which contradict transcendent truth, such as “I might take my neighbors Nissan 350Z out for a turn whenever I desire thus.” The unfortunate neighbor holds to the transcendent truth (as does most everyone) that my property can’t be messed with by anyone else except if i give permission, and so the “two” truths butt heads.

So lets concede that there is a set of transcendent truths which all men must conform to. A good question might be “well how do we know what these truths are?” Well here is what inspired the whole postmodern perspective in the first place. Modernists (prepostmodernists) decided that each truth must be examined by science for a determination. Ultimate truth was determinable if enough study was done. However not all truth is contained within the realm of science, so science could not come up with very good answers concerning nonscientific truths. Science quickly verifies truths such as gravity. However science is not so black and white on issues like abortion, marriage faithfulness, drugs, homosexuality, child rearing, and other moral issues. Since modernists had set science up as the determiner of transcendent truths, then these issues were determined to be unknowable. On issues in which science does not rule black and white it was decided that there is no transcendent truth. Each man must form his own opinion.

Now on the surface this might not seem like that bad a concept. On issues which are not known for certain then each person must have his own conviction. What is wrong, however, is the postmodern belief that each mans conviction is equally true. What has been forgotten is the idea that even though we might not be certain as to what the transcendent reality is, there is still a transcendent reality out there. Some who believe one thing are in accordance with that reality, while others who believe something else are in fact wrong.

So The thing that’s wrong with the postmodern definition of truth is the belief that “truth is the conviction of an individual.” This goes all the way back to what I was saying in the beginning. The modern belief is that if you hold a conviction then that conviction is “your truth.” The stronger you hold that conviction, the truer that thing is for you. What is forgotten is that there is a transcendent truth which holds each individuals “truth” accountable. An individual’s convictions are not truth unless they match transcendent reality.

The question then is “who determined transcendent truth?” Christians believe that when God created the world he created a transcendent truth which all men know in their hearts, although they may fight against it. There are many other religions which define truth differently then Christianity. Some believe that we can only know truth through science and that science gives no evidence that there is anything beyond this world. The fact remains though, that at the end of the day, when each of us die, or this world ends, there is one truth which will consume us all. Either we will be annihilated, or we will be judged by the Christian’s God, or we will be re-incarnated in a new body here on earth, or we will become gods ruling our own kingdoms in space. Whatever the one transcendent truth may be, it will be applied to Hindus, atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Mormons, and “just do gooders” alike, no matter how firmly they held their belief.

This is scary! This casts us into a state of chaos, never knowing for sure what will happen in the end! It doesn’t have to. What it ought to do is press on each one of us the importance of seeking out the truth. There is a truth out there and many believe it can be found. This is another reason why I think starting a study concerning the evidences for Christianity would be so good. The historical, scientific, philosophical evidence for Christianity is out there, waiting for us to find. Do I know that it is the transcendent truth reigning the universe? I have faith, based on all the evidence I have seen, to commit myself to Christianity. In the end all will be proven.

Yay, this is the longest post ever ever ever ever ever!

Ravi Zacharias gives a very good explanation as to why he is not an atheist. It is available in two parts that you can listen to online for free. I especially liked his explanation as to the three levels of philosophical discussion that he gives at the beginning of the first part. That will be really helpful for future discussions. Also his two quotes at the end of the second part are incredibly poignant. Each one is only like 20 minutes, so you can definitely listen to both in one sitting. Check it out. Here is a link to part 1 and part 2.