In July of 2013, evangelist Ray Comfort made waves when he released Evolution vs God, a documentary that shows Darwinian Evolution to be unscientific. While some people give this movie praise, many atheists and evolutionists have been angered by the movie, and have claimed that Ray Comfort and his team did some dishonest editing in the production room to make the interview subjects in the film seem more stupid and unintelligent than they are. There are Christians who look at the film and have problems with the aggressive approach that Comfort took, and there are other Christians who seem to have completely missed the point of the film.
While we could go on forever about the fall-out of Comfort's movie, there is a more pressing question that the majority of people seem to be overlooking: Are the claims made by Ray Comfort true? In Evolution vs God, the claim was that Darwinian Evolution (The evolution of one Kind into another Kind) had no evidence to back it up, and that people who believe that Darwinian Evolution is true have blind faith in it.
Having seen Comfort's movie, I have taken it upon myself to figure out if Ray Comfort knew what he was talking about when he made his claims, or if he really was the lying, dishonest charlatan that he's been accused of being. However, before we start looking at the evidence for the claims, it's important to define some terms first.
Scientific Terms:
In many online publications, people accused Ray Comfort of throwing out the word "Kind" without explaining what it means. Because of that, I will give a definition of that word. First off, when people today say the word "Kind," they are usually referring to the term "Family." According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, a Family is "a class or group of animals, people, objects, etc., classified on the basis of common traits."
According to that same dictionary, a Genus is "a taxonomic category ranking below a family and above a species and generally consisting of a group of species exhibiting similar characteristics." What that means is while we have a group of Kinds/Families, within each Kind/Family is a group of Genera; within each Genus is a group of species. The next question then is, what is a species?
According to Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, a species is "a fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding."
To put it in perspective, we have a bunch of different species, groups of which fall into a certain Genus. We have multiple Genera, groups of which fall under a certain Kind/Family.
Next, in order to understand the theory of Darwinian Evolution better, it's best to go back to the beginning. We have to go to the foundations of Darwinian Evolution and see what Charles Darwin had to say. The reason why we have to do this is that all the other theories of evolution that we have today (Mutation, Migration, Genetic Drift, etc) are built upon the foundation of Darwin's original theory. If the foundation is faulty, then everything that has been added on top will fall apart as well.
Definition of Darwinian Evolution:
Based on his study of Finches on the Galapagos Islands, Charles Darwin asserted that Natural Selection is the cause of evolution. According to Darwin, nature chooses species whose traits are best adapted to the environmental conditions to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Following this logic, Darwin believed that the traits necessary to survive in a particular environment already existed in each species, and that all nature was doing was selecting the species with the best traits for surviving in each environment.
In short, Darwin took this theory that he developed from his study of Finches on the Galapagos Islands, and applied it over millions of years to show that one Kind/Family could evolve into another, including that humans evolved from apes.
Problems With Darwinian Evolution:
If Darwinian Evolution is true, and all the existing species in the world evolved from each other, then we should have a plethora of transitional forms in the fossil record. However, such is not the case:
"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." (Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," in Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.)
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology [the study of fossils] does not provide them." (David Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory" in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467.)
A more pressing question is, why are there distinct boundaries between the different species classifications? You would think that if Darwinian Evolution was true, that there wouldn't be such distinct boundaries between the species:
"Why should we be able to classify plants and animals into types or species at all? In a fascinating editorial feature in Natural History, Stephen Gould writes that biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living works into distinct and discrete species. Furthermore, our modern, scientific classifications often agree in minute detail with the 'folk classifications' of so-called primitive peoples, and the same criteria apply as well to fossils. In other words, says Gould, there is a recognizable reality and distinct boundaries between types at all times and all places...
'But,' says Gould, 'how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?' For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries." (Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 121-122.)
"If a line of organisms can steadily modify its structure in various directions, why are there any lines stable enough and distinct enough to be called species at all? Why is the world not full of intermediate forms of every conceivable kind?." (G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.)
"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary speculation and wrote: `As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?'" (H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139.)
Darwin himself gave a way to disprove his theory in his book On The Origin of Species. Here is what Darwin said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Although he didn't specifically use the term irreducible complexity, Darwin defined it perfectly. By the definition that Darwin provided, the DNA of a single cell disproves the entire theory of Darwinian Evolution. To put it simply, there is too much specific information and design inside the DNA of a single cell that could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive modifications, disproving Darwinian Evolution according to Charles Darwin.
It's important to remember that in Darwin's day, their microscopes were far less powerful than ours; Darwin couldn't see the DNA of a single cell in anywhere near the minute detail that our powerful modern microscopes can show. If Darwin could look at the DNA of a single cell through one of our modern micrscopes, and if he was being genuine when he said the above quote from On The Origin of Species, he would likely renounce his own theory of Darwinian Evolution.
Logical Consequences of Darwinian Evolution:
Obviously, the biggest draw about Darwinian Evolution is that it is a theory about the origin of life that does not require a god to be involved. As a result of this, Darwin began to struggle with epistemological nihilism, which is essentially the belief that we can't know anything about anything. In a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881, Darwin said the following:
"Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
What Darwin is saying is that if we don't trust the thoughts of monkeys, and humans have evolved from monkeys, then how can we trust the thoughts of humans? To put it simply, if Darwinian Evolution is true, we can't know anything with any degree of certainty.
Going back to the Evolution vs God movie, Ray Comfort had this to say in response to atheists getting angry over the movie:
"The anger is very real because those who hold to the belief in evolution see it as a hill to die on. This is because the conviction that Darwin was right gives them an open door to guilt-free fornication, pornography, homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy and whatever their heart desires. If there’s no God, then there’s no absolute morality, and that means there’s no Judgment Day and definitely no hell."
Comfort's logic makes sense. If there is no god, then there is nobody that we are accountable to when it comes to our moral and sexual behavior; we can do whatever we want. That's right in line with an atheistic world view, and Darwinian Evolution allows atheists to justify their world view.
The biggest logical problem that Darwinian Evolution has occurs when explaining the origin of life. The biggest draw of Darwinian Evolution is that it does not invoke the existence of a God in order to explain the origin of life, which is a huge draw to Atheists. Richard Dawkins, a scientist who is the poster-boy of Darwinian Evolution and arguably the most famous atheist in the world, had this to say in a debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury in February of 2012:
“What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”
That is correct: you just saw one of the smartest men on the planet make the claim that all life ultimately comes from nothing.
That claim is so unscientific and illogical, anyone could debunk his claim. This man does a better job of explaining what's wrong with Dawkins' claim than I can, but what I can tell you is that it basically comes down to this: There is not one single observation of life coming from non-life in this universe. Plant life comes from plant life; Animal life comes from animal life, and human life comes from human life. We don't ever see life come from non-life, but what Dawkins and other atheists/evolutionists are essentially saying to us is, "you're right, but at one point millions of years ago, life came from non-life, and even though it has never been observed and blatantly violates the scientific method, we persist in believing that life comes from non-life."
Conclusion:
The evidence is that Ray Comfort was not blowing smoke when he claimed that Darwinian Evolution has no evidence to back it up, and that people who believe that Darwinian Evolution is true have blind faith in it. While I wish Comfort had brought up Darwin's quote about irreducible complexity or explored the issue of the boundaries between the different species in his documentary, he was correct in his claim that there is no evidence of Darwinian Evolution taking place because there is no evidence in the fossil record, and there is not a single scientific observation of life coming from non-life. Comfort deserves a lot of respect and credit for trying to make a thought-provoking documentary that will allow people to actually think critically about what they're being taught in the classroom.
While the issues with the theory are bad enough to deal with, the logical consequences of Darwinian Evolution are more problematic. If Darwinian Evolution is true, then we can't know anything in any field of knowledge with any degree of certainty, and we can do whatever we want morally because there is nobody to be morally accountable to. Don't fall for this illogical belief system that masquerades as intellectual, factual truth: Evolutionists cannot prove that their world view is true, and the evidence for Darwinian Evolution is so much less than the evidence for Jesus Christ (a topic for another day) that it requires blind, gullible faith to believe in it.
Romans 1:18-23 directly addresses this issue:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Having pointed all these things out, there is still hope for evolutionists who pretend that God doesn't exist. they can still be saved and go to Heaven, but their path is a little different. The first thing they have to do is look at the evidence that points to the existence of God (another topic for another day) and acknowledge his existence; if they don't acknowledge that God exists, then the biblical description of salvation is nothing but nonsense. After they take that first step, they have to put their faith in Jesus Christ by way of a personal relationship with him, repent of all their sins, and accept salvation as a free gift from God, just like everyone else.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Postmodernism: Half-way Committed to Truth...
Before we get into explaining what the title means, it's important to know what the definition of Postmodernism is.
In his book Why It Matters: Avoiding Shipwreck at Cape Dissapointment, Dr. Jim Jenkins quoted the definition of Postmodernism from an article from PBS.org, an article that was later taken down. In his analysis of the definition, Jenkins said that Postmodernism was primarily a reaction (to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality) that constructs reality in the mind rather than relying on objective truth, and reality only comes into being through human interpretation, which means that personal experience trumps propositional truth (Jenkins 75-76).
How does that play out in reality? To answer that question, we'll take a look at how Postmodernism has affected four specific religions: Mormonism, Catholicism, Atheism, and Christianity.
Mormonism:
When we look at Mormonism, the mainstream Mormons are considered to be the "True" Mormons because of their renunciation of Polygamy in 1890, and their acceptance of African Americans into the Mormon priesthood in 1978 in the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement. Their ability to do away with fundamental doctrines when pressured to do so by the culture around them makes them a favorite religion of our Postmodern society. On the flip side, the fundamentalist Mormons would tell you that they're the true Mormons because they practice everything that Joseph Smith taught and practiced, which is why they split off from the Mainstream Mormons in 1890 after the LDS Church renounced the doctrine of Polygamy.
In order to figure out who's right, it's important to look at what Brigham Young, former Mormon President and founder of Brigham Young University, had to say about it:
"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866)
"Now if any of you will DENY THE PLURALITY OF WIVES and continue to do so, I promise that you will be DAMNED; and I will go still further, and say that this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord had given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that YOU WILL BE DAMNED!" (Deseret News, Brigham Young, Nov. 14, 1855)
By Brigham Young's definition, the mainstream Mormons who renounced Polygamy in 1890, and everyone who follows mainstream Mormon doctrine, will be damned to Outer Darkness, and the Fundamentalist Mormons who hold to everything Joseph Smith said and taught, will go to the Celestial Kingdom. That means that the Fundamentalist Mormons are in fact THE true Mormons. Despite all this, the Fundamentalist Mormons are by and large considered to be just an extremist sect of Mormonism.
Catholicism:
When we look at Catholicism in our Postmodern society, Catholics will tell us that they don't really worship the Virgin Mary, but that she has a special place of honor above all the angels in heaven, and that the one thing that proves that they don't worship Mary is that they don't offer sacrifices to her. While that sounds good on the surface, when you take the time to look into what the official catholic doctrine says about Mary, it becomes clear that Catholicism is worshiping Mary. In short, Catholics say one thing publicly, but when you look at their official doctrines, it becomes clear that they're not telling the truth about their doctrines, whether they're doing it intentionally or in ignorance.
The current Pope, Pope Francis, became popular when upon taking office, he made a push for the uniting of all the world religions. There was one other thing that Pope Francis said that really caused a stir: Pope Francis declared that Atheists could go to heaven. In terms of describing exactly how that would happen, Pope Francis said the following in a letter to the founder of La Repubblica:
"First of all, you ask me if the God of Christians forgives one who doesn’t believe and doesn’t seek the faith. Premise that – and it’s the fundamental thing – the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart; the question for one who doesn’t believe in God lies in obeying one’s conscience. Sin, also for those who don’t have faith, exists when one goes against one’s conscience. To listen to and to obey it means, in fact, to decide in face of what is perceived as good or evil. And on this decision pivots the goodness or malice of our action."
The above quote is EVERYTHING in the letter that Pope Francis has to say about exactly how atheists can get to heaven; nothing is being withheld here. What Pope Francis is essentially saying is that the atheist first has to decide in his own mind a completely subjective moral standard that he is going to live by (he defines good and evil in his own head). Then, if the atheist does something that goes against his completely subjective moral standard, that is a sin. Finally, when God looks at the atheist at the end of his life and the atheist is sorry about the times that he violated his own completely subjective moral standard, God will forgive the atheist of all the times that the atheist violated his own subjective moral standard, and he will allow the atheist into heaven.
Not only is what Pope Francis said completely unbiblical, it's not even correct according to Catholic doctrine. According to catholic doctrine, a person has to believe in the gospels and everything the catholic church has to say (Catechism of Catholic Church 1814), be baptized by a priest (Catechism of Catholic Church 1257), and perform good works the rest of their lives (Catechism of Catholic Church 2010) in order to go to heaven.
So while we have modern Catholics denying that they worship Mary, and Pope Francis declaring that essentially everyone (including Atheists) is going to heaven, the fact of the matter is that they are not true Catholics because they deny or hide the doctrines of their religion. sadly, our postmodern society holds up such Catholics and Pope Francis as good Catholics.
Atheism:
Although they don't like being called a religion, Atheism is yet another religion that caves in to the winds of Postmodernism. Before we explore exactly how that is so, it's important to know exactly what Atheism is. While different atheists say it in different ways, what it comes down to is that Atheists believe that God doesn't exist.
If atheism is correct, and in reality there is no God, what are the logical consequences? Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the most famous Atheist philosophers who ever lived, said it brilliantly:
"When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. Christianity is a system, a consistently thought out and complete view of things. If one breaks out of it a fundamental idea, the belief in God, one thereby breaks the whole thing to pieces: one has nothing of any consequence left in one’s hands. Christian morality is a command: its origin is transcendental, it possesses truth only if God is truth-it stands or falls with belief in God."
To put it simply, if there is no God, there is no mind prior to the human mind to define what is right or wrong, which means that the human mind defines what is right and wrong; that means that morality is completely relative, depending on which individual and/or society you talk to.
While there are some Atheists who are comfortable with the idea that there is no such thing as an objective moral, many atheists simply cannot accept that, and try to explain how there can be an objective moral without a need for God. Unfortunately, such arguments break down very quickly under some basic scrutiny.
When you look at modern American atheists, their loudest claim is that they are more than capable of doing good works in their day to day lives, and they tend to emphasize that they don't need to believe in a god to do it. While it is absolutely true that you don't need to believe in a god to do good works, how does the atheist know that the works they're doing are good? Who defines good? The individual, or a society/culture? Whichever choice you pick, it's all completely subjective. No matter how you slice it, if there is no God, there is no such thing as an absolute right and wrong, which was the whole point that Nietzsche was making.
In the end, the atheists who are held up the most in our postmodern society are atheists who cling to some form of objective truth and believe in such things as right and wrong. The truth about such people is that they are being intellectually inconsistent; their world view tells them that there is no such thing as objective truth, but they act like objective truth is real. Nevertheless, our postmodern society holds them up as great atheists.
Christianity:
When you look at Christianity, it becomes very clear (more so than in Mormonism, Catholicism, and Atheism) that Postmodernism's half-commitment approach has sunk its talons into the faith. We could go multiple different directions, but for the sake of this blog, we'll stick with two: Christians judging others, and Jesus being the only way to heaven.
One symptom of Postmodernism that can be seen is this idea that Christians should not judge people. This idea is not only permeated by non-Christians who hate having their sin exposed, but sadly this idea is also permeated by Christians who mangle scripture and take them out of context to make the case that Christians aren't supposed to judge people.
Unfortunately for such Christians, Jesus never taught that. Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
When most people quote this part of Matthew to say that Christians shouldn't be judging people, they ignore what verses 3-5 say. As we can clearly see, Jesus is condemning hypocritical judging, and in verse five, even explains how to avoid hypocritically judging others. Jesus expands on this in John 7:19-24:
"'Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?'
'You are demon-possessed,' the crowd answered. 'Who is trying to kill you?'
Jesus said to them, 'I did one miracle, and you are all amazed. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs),you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.'”
When it comes to the Christian claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven, there are many people, both non-Christian and Christian alike, who insist that Jesus Christ is not the only way to heaven, that you can be a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, Atheist, etc., and still go to heaven. Unfortunately for them, Jesus Christ made a very specific claim in John 14: 6-7:
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.'”
Jesus is clearly claiming that he is the only way to heaven, and by default, that means that the people who reject him, which is the majority of the world, will spend eternity in Hell, something that Jesus confirmed in Matthew 7:13-14:
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
The bottom line with Christianity is that our Postmodern society holds up Christians who reject Jesus's exclusive claims and adopt more inclusive, unbiblical doctrines as good Christians, and they regard Christians who believe and cling to the words and teachings of Jesus Christ as intolerant, judgmental bigots who are a threat to world peace.
Conclusion:
When I look at Postmodernism, i see a consistent message:
"We don't mind your religion, so long as you are only half-way committed to it."
When I think of how this half-way commitment approach shows up in the different religions, I think of what the Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3: 1-5:
"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents,ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people."
When Paul uses the word "Godliness," he is specifically referring to living a good and holy life that springs from having a deep reverence for God. When Paul says "having a form of godliness, but denying its power," what he means is that people try to look like they're living a good and Holy life by trying to do good deeds, but on the inside, they do not have any reverence for God, which makes their good deeds worthless before God, according to Isaiah 64:6:
"All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away."
When I look at the half-way commitment approach that Postmodernism has brought into religion, I ask myself: What is the point of doing it? The most reasonable conclusion I can come to is that such people want to go to heaven, but they don't want to do it on God's terms. They seem to think that they can bribe God with their good works. Isaiah 64:6 makes it clear that God is so holy and righteous that he cannot be bribed by good works.
If we can't get to heaven by our good deeds, then how can we get to heaven? It's very simply, yet profound. We have to put our faith in Jesus Christ, repent of all our sins, and accept salvation as the free gift of God that it is. Here are some bible verses that support that idea:
John 3:16-18: "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. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
2 Corinthians 7:10: "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death."
Ephesians 2: 8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."
As a born-again disciple of Jesus Christ, I beg you the reader to not fall into step with the Postmodern society around you. All Postmodernism does is allow people to justify their own evil, and those who promote Postmodern thinking do not care about your soul or where you will spend eternity. I don't want to see anyone in Hell, so I beg you to come celebrate and live in truth with Truth Incarnate, Jesus Christ. There is such a thing as objective truth, and Jesus clearly believed that when he said the following in John 18:37:
"...The reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
In his book Why It Matters: Avoiding Shipwreck at Cape Dissapointment, Dr. Jim Jenkins quoted the definition of Postmodernism from an article from PBS.org, an article that was later taken down. In his analysis of the definition, Jenkins said that Postmodernism was primarily a reaction (to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality) that constructs reality in the mind rather than relying on objective truth, and reality only comes into being through human interpretation, which means that personal experience trumps propositional truth (Jenkins 75-76).
How does that play out in reality? To answer that question, we'll take a look at how Postmodernism has affected four specific religions: Mormonism, Catholicism, Atheism, and Christianity.
Mormonism:
When we look at Mormonism, the mainstream Mormons are considered to be the "True" Mormons because of their renunciation of Polygamy in 1890, and their acceptance of African Americans into the Mormon priesthood in 1978 in the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement. Their ability to do away with fundamental doctrines when pressured to do so by the culture around them makes them a favorite religion of our Postmodern society. On the flip side, the fundamentalist Mormons would tell you that they're the true Mormons because they practice everything that Joseph Smith taught and practiced, which is why they split off from the Mainstream Mormons in 1890 after the LDS Church renounced the doctrine of Polygamy.
In order to figure out who's right, it's important to look at what Brigham Young, former Mormon President and founder of Brigham Young University, had to say about it:
"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866)
"Now if any of you will DENY THE PLURALITY OF WIVES and continue to do so, I promise that you will be DAMNED; and I will go still further, and say that this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord had given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that YOU WILL BE DAMNED!" (Deseret News, Brigham Young, Nov. 14, 1855)
By Brigham Young's definition, the mainstream Mormons who renounced Polygamy in 1890, and everyone who follows mainstream Mormon doctrine, will be damned to Outer Darkness, and the Fundamentalist Mormons who hold to everything Joseph Smith said and taught, will go to the Celestial Kingdom. That means that the Fundamentalist Mormons are in fact THE true Mormons. Despite all this, the Fundamentalist Mormons are by and large considered to be just an extremist sect of Mormonism.
Catholicism:
When we look at Catholicism in our Postmodern society, Catholics will tell us that they don't really worship the Virgin Mary, but that she has a special place of honor above all the angels in heaven, and that the one thing that proves that they don't worship Mary is that they don't offer sacrifices to her. While that sounds good on the surface, when you take the time to look into what the official catholic doctrine says about Mary, it becomes clear that Catholicism is worshiping Mary. In short, Catholics say one thing publicly, but when you look at their official doctrines, it becomes clear that they're not telling the truth about their doctrines, whether they're doing it intentionally or in ignorance.
The current Pope, Pope Francis, became popular when upon taking office, he made a push for the uniting of all the world religions. There was one other thing that Pope Francis said that really caused a stir: Pope Francis declared that Atheists could go to heaven. In terms of describing exactly how that would happen, Pope Francis said the following in a letter to the founder of La Repubblica:
"First of all, you ask me if the God of Christians forgives one who doesn’t believe and doesn’t seek the faith. Premise that – and it’s the fundamental thing – the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart; the question for one who doesn’t believe in God lies in obeying one’s conscience. Sin, also for those who don’t have faith, exists when one goes against one’s conscience. To listen to and to obey it means, in fact, to decide in face of what is perceived as good or evil. And on this decision pivots the goodness or malice of our action."
The above quote is EVERYTHING in the letter that Pope Francis has to say about exactly how atheists can get to heaven; nothing is being withheld here. What Pope Francis is essentially saying is that the atheist first has to decide in his own mind a completely subjective moral standard that he is going to live by (he defines good and evil in his own head). Then, if the atheist does something that goes against his completely subjective moral standard, that is a sin. Finally, when God looks at the atheist at the end of his life and the atheist is sorry about the times that he violated his own completely subjective moral standard, God will forgive the atheist of all the times that the atheist violated his own subjective moral standard, and he will allow the atheist into heaven.
Not only is what Pope Francis said completely unbiblical, it's not even correct according to Catholic doctrine. According to catholic doctrine, a person has to believe in the gospels and everything the catholic church has to say (Catechism of Catholic Church 1814), be baptized by a priest (Catechism of Catholic Church 1257), and perform good works the rest of their lives (Catechism of Catholic Church 2010) in order to go to heaven.
So while we have modern Catholics denying that they worship Mary, and Pope Francis declaring that essentially everyone (including Atheists) is going to heaven, the fact of the matter is that they are not true Catholics because they deny or hide the doctrines of their religion. sadly, our postmodern society holds up such Catholics and Pope Francis as good Catholics.
Atheism:
Although they don't like being called a religion, Atheism is yet another religion that caves in to the winds of Postmodernism. Before we explore exactly how that is so, it's important to know exactly what Atheism is. While different atheists say it in different ways, what it comes down to is that Atheists believe that God doesn't exist.
If atheism is correct, and in reality there is no God, what are the logical consequences? Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the most famous Atheist philosophers who ever lived, said it brilliantly:
"When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. Christianity is a system, a consistently thought out and complete view of things. If one breaks out of it a fundamental idea, the belief in God, one thereby breaks the whole thing to pieces: one has nothing of any consequence left in one’s hands. Christian morality is a command: its origin is transcendental, it possesses truth only if God is truth-it stands or falls with belief in God."
To put it simply, if there is no God, there is no mind prior to the human mind to define what is right or wrong, which means that the human mind defines what is right and wrong; that means that morality is completely relative, depending on which individual and/or society you talk to.
While there are some Atheists who are comfortable with the idea that there is no such thing as an objective moral, many atheists simply cannot accept that, and try to explain how there can be an objective moral without a need for God. Unfortunately, such arguments break down very quickly under some basic scrutiny.
When you look at modern American atheists, their loudest claim is that they are more than capable of doing good works in their day to day lives, and they tend to emphasize that they don't need to believe in a god to do it. While it is absolutely true that you don't need to believe in a god to do good works, how does the atheist know that the works they're doing are good? Who defines good? The individual, or a society/culture? Whichever choice you pick, it's all completely subjective. No matter how you slice it, if there is no God, there is no such thing as an absolute right and wrong, which was the whole point that Nietzsche was making.
In the end, the atheists who are held up the most in our postmodern society are atheists who cling to some form of objective truth and believe in such things as right and wrong. The truth about such people is that they are being intellectually inconsistent; their world view tells them that there is no such thing as objective truth, but they act like objective truth is real. Nevertheless, our postmodern society holds them up as great atheists.
Christianity:
When you look at Christianity, it becomes very clear (more so than in Mormonism, Catholicism, and Atheism) that Postmodernism's half-commitment approach has sunk its talons into the faith. We could go multiple different directions, but for the sake of this blog, we'll stick with two: Christians judging others, and Jesus being the only way to heaven.
One symptom of Postmodernism that can be seen is this idea that Christians should not judge people. This idea is not only permeated by non-Christians who hate having their sin exposed, but sadly this idea is also permeated by Christians who mangle scripture and take them out of context to make the case that Christians aren't supposed to judge people.
Unfortunately for such Christians, Jesus never taught that. Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
When most people quote this part of Matthew to say that Christians shouldn't be judging people, they ignore what verses 3-5 say. As we can clearly see, Jesus is condemning hypocritical judging, and in verse five, even explains how to avoid hypocritically judging others. Jesus expands on this in John 7:19-24:
"'Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?'
'You are demon-possessed,' the crowd answered. 'Who is trying to kill you?'
Jesus said to them, 'I did one miracle, and you are all amazed. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs),you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.'”
When it comes to the Christian claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven, there are many people, both non-Christian and Christian alike, who insist that Jesus Christ is not the only way to heaven, that you can be a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, Atheist, etc., and still go to heaven. Unfortunately for them, Jesus Christ made a very specific claim in John 14: 6-7:
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.'”
Jesus is clearly claiming that he is the only way to heaven, and by default, that means that the people who reject him, which is the majority of the world, will spend eternity in Hell, something that Jesus confirmed in Matthew 7:13-14:
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
The bottom line with Christianity is that our Postmodern society holds up Christians who reject Jesus's exclusive claims and adopt more inclusive, unbiblical doctrines as good Christians, and they regard Christians who believe and cling to the words and teachings of Jesus Christ as intolerant, judgmental bigots who are a threat to world peace.
Conclusion:
When I look at Postmodernism, i see a consistent message:
"We don't mind your religion, so long as you are only half-way committed to it."
When I think of how this half-way commitment approach shows up in the different religions, I think of what the Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3: 1-5:
"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents,ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people."
When Paul uses the word "Godliness," he is specifically referring to living a good and holy life that springs from having a deep reverence for God. When Paul says "having a form of godliness, but denying its power," what he means is that people try to look like they're living a good and Holy life by trying to do good deeds, but on the inside, they do not have any reverence for God, which makes their good deeds worthless before God, according to Isaiah 64:6:
"All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away."
When I look at the half-way commitment approach that Postmodernism has brought into religion, I ask myself: What is the point of doing it? The most reasonable conclusion I can come to is that such people want to go to heaven, but they don't want to do it on God's terms. They seem to think that they can bribe God with their good works. Isaiah 64:6 makes it clear that God is so holy and righteous that he cannot be bribed by good works.
If we can't get to heaven by our good deeds, then how can we get to heaven? It's very simply, yet profound. We have to put our faith in Jesus Christ, repent of all our sins, and accept salvation as the free gift of God that it is. Here are some bible verses that support that idea:
John 3:16-18: "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. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
2 Corinthians 7:10: "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death."
Ephesians 2: 8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."
As a born-again disciple of Jesus Christ, I beg you the reader to not fall into step with the Postmodern society around you. All Postmodernism does is allow people to justify their own evil, and those who promote Postmodern thinking do not care about your soul or where you will spend eternity. I don't want to see anyone in Hell, so I beg you to come celebrate and live in truth with Truth Incarnate, Jesus Christ. There is such a thing as objective truth, and Jesus clearly believed that when he said the following in John 18:37:
"...The reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
Monday, September 23, 2013
Welcome!
This is Justin Derby, the creator of this new blog! In Truth: The Objective Reality, we will be looking at a lot of the big issues and topics in life, such as Moral Relativism, Objective Morality, Abortion, Homosexuality, Mormonism, Catholicism, Atheism, and other topics. After these topics are introduced, they will be analyzed in accordance with a biblical world view.
Along with the written posts, there will also be videos dealing with the topics. Some videos will be just me talking, some may be pastors talking about the subject, and with some topics, you may get the privilege of their advocates speaking on camera.
As some of you read these blog posts, you may get offended by what the bible has to say about those topics. Some of you may wonder why I'm preaching such a narrow-minded, bigoted world view that has no place in our enlightened, evolved postmodern society. Some of you may say that I'm being judgmental and putting myself over other people.
As a born-again follower of Jesus Christ with whom I have a personal relationship, I have no choice but to proclaim the truth, and Jesus Christ was Truth Incarnate; I must proclaim his teachings and commands. This is what Jesus himself and the apostle Paul had to say about the matter:
Matthew 28: 18-20: Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Romans 10: 11-15: As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
Now that the introductions have been made, I shall begin working on the first topic of the blog, which shall be about the way that our postmodern society praises people who appear religious, but are in reality only half-way committed to their religion. Stay tuned!
Along with the written posts, there will also be videos dealing with the topics. Some videos will be just me talking, some may be pastors talking about the subject, and with some topics, you may get the privilege of their advocates speaking on camera.
As some of you read these blog posts, you may get offended by what the bible has to say about those topics. Some of you may wonder why I'm preaching such a narrow-minded, bigoted world view that has no place in our enlightened, evolved postmodern society. Some of you may say that I'm being judgmental and putting myself over other people.
As a born-again follower of Jesus Christ with whom I have a personal relationship, I have no choice but to proclaim the truth, and Jesus Christ was Truth Incarnate; I must proclaim his teachings and commands. This is what Jesus himself and the apostle Paul had to say about the matter:
Matthew 28: 18-20: Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Romans 10: 11-15: As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
Now that the introductions have been made, I shall begin working on the first topic of the blog, which shall be about the way that our postmodern society praises people who appear religious, but are in reality only half-way committed to their religion. Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)