Category Archives: Apologetics

Ken Ham addresses Bill Nye

Posted on by

I bet all of you saw the video of Bill Nye slamming the belief in creationism. He accuses opponents of evolution of holding back society and teaching inappropriate material to children. Listen for yourself.

Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis offers a rebuttal to Bill Nye.

http://youtu.be/JxX11c1cSWU

Here are some creation scientists pointing out some glaring flaws with Bill Nye’s position.

http://youtu.be/r-AyDtD6sPA

I hope you can think critically about the presuppositions behind the science you hold. Does it really correspond with reality? I hope these videos made you think.

-Adam

Five Myths About Bible Translation

Posted on by

biblesHere is a very interesting read concerning Bible translations. If you are concerned with the reliability of the Word of God and how it has come to us then you have dealt some of these specific questions. Click the link and read in detail about this interesting (and important) topic, written by Dan Wallace, a premiere Greek Scholar and translator.

Five Myths About Bible Translation

In summary:

Myth 1: The Bible has been translated so many times we can’t possibly get back to the original.

Myth 2: Words in red indicate the exact words spoken by Jesus of Nazareth.

Myth 3: Heretics have severely corrupted the text.

Myth 4: Orthodox scribes have severely corrupted the text.

Myth 5: The deity of Christ was invented by emperor Constantine.

Louie Giglio Withdraws His Acceptance to Pray at the Presidential Inauguration

Posted on by

giglioPastor Louis Giglio has removed his prior acceptance of the offer of giving the benediction at President Obama’s second inauguration.

Check out his letter of resignation. It has the typo of 2014, not 2013, but clearly states that he and his ministry don’t want to wade into an embattled issue that is not beneficial to the goals of their ministry.

January 10, 2014 [sic]

I am honored to be invited by the President to give the benediction at the upcoming inaugural on January 21. Though the President and I do not agree on every issue, we have fashioned a friendship around common goals and ideals, most notably, ending slavery in all its forms.

Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.

Neither I, nor our team, feel it best serves the core message and goals we are seeking to accomplish to be in a fight on an issue not of our choosing, thus I respectfully withdraw my acceptance of the President’s invitation. I will continue to pray regularly for the President, and urge the nation to do so. I will most certainly pray for him on Inauguration Day.

Our nation is deeply divided and hurting, and more than ever need God’s grace and mercy in our time of need.

The media has breathed a sigh of bitter relief it seems. The Washington Post published this blatantly one-sided and opinionated article titled, Louie Giglio out from Inaugural: Good. Before it was official, Instinct Magazine published an article titled, Worse Than Rick Warren? President Obama Gives Inaugural Benediction To Another Anti-Gay Pastor, that quotes from Giglio’s sermon complete with sub-headings to help guide the rage of the Gay community. Apparently it had its desired effect.

Wow. Talk about stirring up a hornet’s nest.

It is to bad that Giglio felt so much pressure that he needed to withdraw from such an honor. I think it is interesting that in his resignation letter we find no hint of backing down on his former stance. He is exactly right in how he calls the nation to prayer for our leaders, even if a segment of our nation has clamored against his selection. I believe Giglio is sincere in his words and should be commended on how he has handled this unfortunate development.

Keep up the good work Louie, keep making much of Jesus Christ through every platform available to you.

 

TIME Sounds the Alarm: The Pro-Life Cause is Winning

Posted on by

TIME Sounds the Alarm: The Pro-Life Cause is Winning

by Trevin Wax

On the cover of TIME this week is this headline:  “40 Years Ago, Abortion-Rights Advocates Won an Epic Victory with Roe v. Wade. They’ve Been Losing Ever Since.”

The story – “What Choice?” – is written by Kate Pickert. The main point of the article is that Roe v. Wade hurt the pro-choice cause by delivering the movement’s main goal and by energizing a generation of pro-life activism.

Not surprisingly, the story is biased against the pro-life cause. Though the issue of “personhood” and “life” is alluded to (see below), Pickert never explores the reasons for a surge in pro-life activity. Had she sought to explain the pro-life perspective, she would have shown how this debate is really a showdown between reproductive rights and human rights, and which rights are foundational to freedom.

Still, I commend Pickert for using the terminology of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” throughout the article. (She doesn’t use these terms consistently, but it’s nice to see the terms both sides prefer utilized in a journalistic piece.)

Summary of the Article

The story gives us an inside-glimpse of an abortion clinic and its director, Tammi Kromenaker. Pickert shows how it is increasingly difficult to obtain an abortion in certain areas of the country, due primarily to statewide legislation regulating abortion:

In 2011, 92 abortion-regulating provisions–a record number–passed in 24 states after Republicans gained new and larger majorities in 2010 in many legislatures across the country. These laws make it harder every year to exercise a right heralded as a crowning achievement of the 20th century women’s movement.

Surveying the landscape of pro-life legislation, Pickert paints a stark picture for pro-choice advocates:

While the right to have an abortion is federal law, exactly who can access the service and under what circumstances is the purview of states. And at the state level, abortion-rights activists are unequivocally losing.

Why is this the case? Pickert pulls no punches. Pro-choice advocates are losing the debate:

Part of the reason is that the public is siding more and more with their opponents. Even though three-quarters of Americans believe abortion should be legal under some or all circumstances, just 41% identified themselves as pro-choice in a Gallup survey conducted in May 2012…

If abortion-rights activists don’t come together to adapt to shifting public opinion on the issue of reproductive rights, abortion access in America will almost certainly continue to erode.

Even after the reelection of President Obama and the defeat of a pro-life candidate like Richard Mourdock (who got into hot water with their controversial comments on rape and pregnancy), Pickert points out that the winning Democrat is also pro-life.

Throughout the article, Pickert laments the shrinking of abortion rights and explains the reduction by pointing to the relegation of abortion to specialized clinics, new government regulations on the practice, and generational differences in the pro-choice camp. Though Pickert describes an abortive procedure in clinical, unemotional terms, she deserves credit for taking us behind the closed doors of a clinic to see what happens:

On this Wednesday it’s Dr. Kathryn Eggleston, who informs the woman that she’s reviewed her chart and asks, “Are you confident in your decision to have an abortion today?” If the woman says yes, the abortion begins; the whirring of the vacuum aspirator used to extract the fetus can be heard in the hallway. Within 15 minutes, Eggleston emerges from the room and enters another where the removed contents are examined and photographed for the medical record.

To be more specific, the fetus (baby) is extracted (by dismemberment), and the removed contents (body parts, actually) are examined (usually pieced back together) and photographed for the record. But hey, this is TIME, after all. We can’t expect them to show us a picture of what’s really happening, can we?

Nevertheless, it should be noted that Pickert is helpful in explaining the scientific advances that have helped the pro-life cause:

The antiabortion cause has been aided by scientific advances that have complicated American attitudes about abortion. Prenatal ultrasound, which has allowed the general public to see fetuses inside the womb and understand that they have a human shape beginning around eight weeks into pregnancy, became widespread in the 1980s, and some babies born as early as 24 weeks can now survive.

The scientific advances are demonstrating what pro-life advocates have been saying all along. There’s a human being in there, and an abortion stops the heart and takes a life.Unfortunately, the humanity of the unborn is never really discussed, although Pickert quotes Frances Kissling (longtime abortion activist), who clearly affirms that abortion terminates human life:

Kissling opposes the specific state laws pushed by pro-life activists but says the pro-choice movement’s effort to “normalize abortion” is counterproductive. “When people hear us say abortion is just another medical procedure, they react with shock,” she says. “Abortion is not like having your tooth pulled or having your appendix out. It involves the termination of an early form of human life. That deserves some gravitas.”

After a quote like that, you wonder if this article might actually delve into the central issue surrounding this debate: What is the unborn? At what point does an unborn child get human rights? But no, we return to the abortion clinic and the beleaguered, shrinking number of OB/GYN doctors willing to perform abortions. The article ends this way:

In theory, a lower rate of abortion might be something for both sides of the abortion debate to share credit for and even celebrate. But it also illustrates the ultimate challenge for pro-choice advocates. Their most pressing goal, 40 years after Roe, is to widen access to a procedure most Americans believe should be restricted–and no one wants to ever need.

Despite the many setbacks the pro-life cause has faced and will continue to confront, TIME recognizes which movement is gaining strength and which movement is fading. And that’s worth celebrating!

Do You Know Which Worldview You Really Hold?

Posted on by

biblebelt

The southern region of the United States is known as the bible-belt. It is common for most people here (as I write in TN) to associate with some type of christian label. But does everyone who claims to be a christian really hold a christian worldview?

The short answer is no. But worldviews are complex.

What is a worldview you ask? A worldview is the filter through which you interpret the data of life. This filter is made up of your presuppositions, values, and answers to life’s most basic questions. We all have a worldview, the question is whether we intentionally established it, or allowed to haphazardly develop through time.

I believe many people call themselves “christian” because it is a culturally acceptable term (common, but not limited to the bible-belt), but if their belief system was truly examined another label may actually describe them better. This worldview flow chart is helpful to identify some of your own core beliefs to better understand which worldview you hold.

Track through this flow chart for a while and discover which worldview you operate under, as well as see how others may answer some of life’s most important questions. Click the chart to see a larger version. I hope this is helpful and informative. Let me know in the comments.   – Adam

Worldview-675

 

10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media – by Trevin Wax

Posted on by

Debate moderators and reporters love to ask pro-life candidates hard questions about abortion. Curiously, they don’t do the same for pro-choice candidates. Trevin Wax provides some eye-opening questions. (see the original article here.)

Here are 10 questions you never hear a pro-choice candidate asked by the media:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

Mormons in America

Posted on by

 

In light of the front running presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, being Mormon, I thought I’d post this informative graphic that really puts some numbers behind this religion. While less than 2% of America identifies themselves as Mormon, their presence and influence is surly on the rise. 

World of Religion – Infographic

Posted on by

 

This graphic gives a visual understanding of the size of religious groups on the earth. Pretty cool stuff. Click anywhere on the graphic to zoom in and read the text.

Study Shows Protestant Decline Below 50% in the U.S. – My Thoughts on Why.

Posted on by

For the first time in U.S. history Protestantism (aka: anyone in the Christian tradition who is not Catholic) has fallen below 50%. The primary reason for this shift is the increase in those who claim no religion.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released an analytic study today titled, Nones on the Rise. It shows findings now that almost one in five Americans (19.3%) claim no religious identity. This is an increase from 15 percent in the last five years.

“Part of what’s going on here is that the stigma associated with not being part of any religious community has declined,” said John Green, a specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, who advised Pew on the survey. “In some parts of the country, there is still a stigma. But overall, it’s not the way it used to be.”

Here is an info graphic that uses a picture to show the breakdown of religious identity in America.

 

So why is this happening?

That is the big question. If I had a definitive answer I could write a best-selliing book and change the world. But until that happens, let me just postulate some brief observations from my ministry experience.

  1. Insincere faith will not pass down through the generations.  –  Teenagers and children know when something is really important to their parents. They can read between the lines and see the real motive of the heart. If church is just another activity in the week, or just a social outing, the children in that family will begin to take on that value system for themselves. God understood this and placed the responsibility firmly on the parents for a sincere faith. Deut. 6:4-7 says: 4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.
  2. The next Generation does not understand the tenets of biblical faith.  –  If people think Christianity boils down to a list of rules (that didn’t really matter to their parents) they will discard it  as another social construct meant for control.  If they never grasp the reality of our spiritual condition and the hope of the Gospel and the life of purpose that flows from giving control to God, of course they will try to find a way on their own. If the bible was taken seriously this generation would see that it truly is a guide for life that works in today’s culture!
  3. Churches may become more concerned with entertaining it’s members rather than teaching the Gospel.  –  While I already submit that parents have the ultimate responsibility for passing on a sincere faith to their children, churches are there to support this process. In student ministry, the wrong assumption is that we are all about pizza and games. If that becomes the focus, you raise up a uninformed, spiritually weak generation. As that generation of church goers has become the leaders in churches, the emphasis is taken away from the Gospel and placed on being “cool”. When a rocking band and a preacher with tattoos (while these things in themselves are not wrong) are more important than solid doctrine, you can expect people to see through this shallow version of faith and either (1.) give up, claiming no religion, or (2.) church hop from one place to the next looking for the best entertainment.

May all of us; children, parents, and church members, reconnect with the truths of scripture and make it the authority in our lives. May our faith be sincere and evident to everyone who sees us. Only then would we begin to see a change in the negative spiritual trend now on us. God bring revival! Wake us up! But whatever happens, God be glorified. Remember the words of Habakkuk.

Habakkuk 3:17-19

17 Though the fig tree does not bud
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls,
18 yet I will rejoice in the Lord,
I will be joyful in God my Savior.

19 The Sovereign Lord is my strength;

    He makes my feet like the feet of a deer,
He enables me to tread on the heights.

God has a plan and we must trust in Him. Stay focused my friends. Your fellow worker in the field,  Adam.

 

Scientology – The Unbelievable Facts

Posted on by

We have all heard a little about Scientology. No, we are not talking about a crazy teacher in a 10th grade science class. I’m talking about the “religion” of Scientology. Yeah, that thing Tom Cruise is (or was) giddy about. Check out the info below in this revealing graphic. (if you don’t believe me, check out the some of these popular sites: Wikipedia, Yahoo, CNN, NPR.)