Just Another Animal?

We have “evolved”. Really? Purely by accident we have supposedly “adapted naturally to our environment”. This poses some questions that should be obvious. If the argument from Naturalism is that we “used to be” [this], and we have evolved into [this]. We came from cave man, even apes, both of which “lived outside”…in nature. Lets look at how every other “animal” has completed this transformation and see if there is a difference…see if we too are “just another animal”

The most common theme I see in the arguments for Naturalism are that everything evolved to become better suited for life “outside”. Thing is,  now we can’t survive outside, or in many instances without clothing, shelter, and “unnatural heat”.  We die from “exposure to the elements”, or exposure to “outside”. I will be the first to notice the irony of the fact that this argument can also be used for Naturalism. So many will agree that it is dependant upon one’s point of view, biases they hold, and their belief system. <—-This, however can not be said about any of the other “animals” in nature.

Another argument from Naturalism is that morality can be “seen” in the animal world. This is an ongoing debate about subjective morality vs objective morality, and that morality and empathy are one and the same. According to scripture we have been given a soul by a creator, which none of the other animals have. They are said to have a spirit, but not a soul. Approaching this argument from this perspective is a sure stalemate. Is there any obvious, noticeable differences in man and animal? Too many to list, but lets look at this morality vs empathy from a different angle.

Man hunts other animals for sport.

Name another animal that seems to “want to” kill “other animals”, and even his own peers for enjoyment. Is this the same moral code of ethics we see in “animals”? Are there any psychopathic serial killer penguins roaming the Arctic with a law enforcement agency representative penguin hot on its tale? Do we see animals telling their peers lies to swindle them out of their “stash”? Any practical joking ants, grasshoppers? The comedian wasp? Yea, they’ve been known to be quite hilarious=)

Man’s morality goes a bit further than animal empathy. They are not even close to being the same thing. If morality comes from the need to survive as a group, then where are all the laws for that group, the lawless, the rebels, and the long journey to distant lands to war with the others of their own species? How can Naturalism explain the difference in opinions, or even better, show that animals have opinions? Do all animals have a hive mentality? Do all animals care for their young until they are old enough to survive on their own?  The answer to most questions like this is no, so…why not?

Why do some animals “teach” their young, and some abandon them at conception (egg layers even before birth)?

If the “goal” of a naturally evolving organism is to reach the most efficient state of developement for the survival of the species, then why do some achieve this and some become extinct, when they have the exact same resources starting out? Does management come into play in this? Did man gain the usage of knowledge and choices through powers of reason, allowing him to simply “decide to manage” the fate of everything else in existence…by “evolving”? Or, is this also “managed” by reason and knowledge, and choice? No other animal has this morality, or “mentality”.

So if we are “just another animal”, why are we not like any of them?

Social Media Atheist

If you are a Christian and post frequently on social media, you will no doubt run into the social media atheist. I blog a lot about how to deal with these atheist, and this post is an actual discussion I posted on one of the many “Theist vs Atheist” debate groups on Facebook. If you do run into these atheist and they are posting that God is a tyrant God, that says to worship Him or He will toss you in with the french fries, then you should explain to them their error. This is the actual post, and feel free to post it yourself on your favorite social media hangout where atheist pop in and out with these ideas. Remember, they got these ideas from religious fanatic fundamentalist.

Here is something to keep in mind. If indeed Christ has visited mankind, and assured some of us of Himself and life in general (which if Christ indeed exist now, He would be perfectly capable of doing), then it would be also true that to preach against this “good news” of His would also be an indoctrination; and this indoctrination would be without foundation of any rational known truth that it is based on, full stop. Here are a few quotes to consider from the op:

“So teaching children that myths are true is OK with you”
Does this look like a statement from known truth, or an assumption?

“I think electric shock treatment may be a little more humane… give the kid a shock collar.” Whut?

“This whole “wait until they’re adults and can choose for themselves” always sounds a little silly to me. Think about it, teaching your children no religion, is teaching them an irreligious worldview.”

These comments show the two worldviews, and the ideology behind the them. I understand the reasons for the division, and I think herein lies the problem. Many Atheist assume that the teachings of fundamentalist religious fanatics (that are no more spiritual than the Atheist themselves) are representative of spirituality, or “true religion”. (Please, no ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy comments. Popular to contrary belief, not all situations qualify for a fallacy just because someone thinks the words in a sentence are in some sort of correct position, and yes, I wrote that in the position I wanted it 😀 ). The following statement is NOT at all true…

“I can’t think of anything more evil than brainwashing an innocent child to live in constant fear of eternal damnation, can you?”

Although the idea may true and I agree with it, it is not consistent with the Christian doctrine. Christ, His teachings, and the message of the Gospel tells an entirely different story. According to Scripture, man’s “common ancestor”, Adam, by his own free will and choice did something that caused the spiritual blindness and death of our entire race, which is literally the “death and hell” mentioned in Scripture. If you look at this passage, you will see that hell, and the lake of fire are not even the same thing, and also a second death that corresponds with the phrase “being born again” (which is literally born again of the spirit, and the reason for the division and blindness between theses two worldviews)

“And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death” (Rev.20:14 KJV).

So this hell is something we are all headed for, as many say, “by an inheritance of the natural evolution of Adam’s choice”. I’m sure nobody can argue this, lol (dreaming now). Christ came to redeem us from this natural curse of spiritual blindness and death, and offers a hand out of the pit, simple as that. There are many passages of Scripture dealing with the veil that is in place to blind mankind, and Christ lifting it allowing anyone to see the spiritual world clearly, again which if He exist now He would be capable of doing. God did not put us in this situation, our “common ancestor” did.

Another comment from the op…”This whole “wait until they’re adults and can choose for themselves” always sounds a little silly to me. Think about it, teaching your children no religion, is teaching them an irreligious worldview.”

Now I’m sure that some here are quite happy with the state of affairs as is, and there is a ‘dug in’ ideology that …”it just is this way, and that’s just the dim truth of life”. This couldn’t be further from the truth, and this same Christ has healed the spiritual blindness of all who have accepted His offer so far. So you can keep your “just is” death is certain ideology if you wish, the choices Adam faced are still very much available, and still very real, no matter what you “believe”…trust God, or take your own chances under your own power, which is what it is, and I do wish you well if you do.

This blog post is a good analogy of what is actually the Gospel message. Please don’t think I’m trying to acquire converts, another fundi occupation. If you want to jump off a cliff, knock yourself out. I think it’s sad, but I can’t hold anybody’s hand here, and wouldn’t if I could. I am simply relating a truth that many of us know to be absolutely true. We are also aware that some represent this knowledge as “blind hope”. It may have been hope at one point that led us to search for the truth, but once found, the truth has made us free from hope and uncertainty, and you can do whatever you want to with this information.

-Peace

Below is the blog post I attached to this post in the group. Below that is another that is really relevent to this, and a must read for any Christian that wants to increase their faith.
https://twocent2c2.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/a-morning-fable-the-greatest-pitfall/
https://twocent2c2.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/potholes-pits/

Something to help those that debate atheist on social sites

This is an explanation of the argument you are up against, and a simple answer to it. May it get you kicked out of as many social media debate groups as it has me. =) But remember, our job is to deliver the message, and that you should expect it, if indeed you have done your job. Nothing screams “win” in a debate group formed by atheist more than being kicked off their site. After all, they can’t have someone around that makes their argument look as foolish as they are.

“A fool hath said in his heart, there is no God” (Psalms 14:1 KJV)

“Believers” ?

This will be short.

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic)

This is the fallacy that undermines all debates between theist, and athiest. The term, “believers” is misleading. Atheist assume people can only believe there is a God, but can’t possibly know there is a God. This assumption, and it’s fallacy is described here:

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument.
www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20logicam

I do not “believe” in gravity. I have knowledge of gravity. The fallacy is committed when the atheist assumes there is no evidence, when in fact there are other evidences they have not, or will not consider, or more importantly, are unaware of.
So they argue with the assumption that the evidence does not exist.

I most often describe this logical fallacy as “If God showed up at your house, but will not show up at my house, then God does not exist”. This is usually followed by the only argument I have ever seen from any atheist, which is,” There is no evidence. If you say there is, then hand it over”.

This is also a logical fallacy, in that while inanimate objects ideed can be “handed over”, God has the ability to make choices.

The argument that God can be forced to show up at your house, or lab of your choice…or even forced to pose for a photo, is not logical either. The request that God be handed over, is not logical. The request for the evidence you have, is a request for God to show up in front of them immediately. This request can only be made to God, the only one that is capable of delivering the evidence. The assumption that God can’t exist because He can’t be handed over, is the Argumentum ad logicam… the assumption is made that no evidence is available, when in fact, God has delivered it to many.
-Peace

Substance, Evidence, Faith. A Comprehensive Study Of Hebrews 11

Anyone that has been involved in debates with Atheist has heard this statement.”There is no empirical evidence that supports the belief in the existence of any God” This is simply not true. It has always amazed me how anyone could think anyone would believe in God, and never receive any evidence.

A short study of Hebrews 11:1

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”

I have many blogs on faith, and a series on building faith @ WordPress.com https://twocent2c2.wordpress.com/category/building-your-faith-a-series/

Here, I just want to clear up a common misconception.

The misconception is that faith is supposed to be “believing without seeing”, or in other words, “blind faith”.

Note for CSF students: Refer to the discussion posted on your page # G+ group discussions/exercises. (CSF students please refrain from posting in this thread until the exercise is completed)

[Lets start with a quote from another member in one of the discussions here. This attitude is shared by the majority of atheist and Christians alike. In fact, that’s where the atheist got the idea from…the Christians]

“Faith is hope and trust at best, blind belief at worst.” [End quote]

Christians are in a war, and have been since their rebirth. It is a war of principalities, or “powers in the air”, as scripture states; or in other words, “wickedness in high places”. [Ephesians 6:12]

Television evangelist and pastors all over the world preach Hebrews 11:1 as a blind faith in God, and a trust without the convenience of seeing the evidence, or proof of the things you believe. This is often further confused by the statement Jesus made to Thomas,  “because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29 KJV)

The false teaching that Christians must have faith without ever seeing any evidence that supports their belief…….?

This is actually the exact opposite of faith.

Question: The people that do believe before they see; how do you supposed they are blessed, if indeed they are, as Jesus says they will be?

The only possible blessing would be to receive confirmation of your hope in Jesus, and the fulfillment of His promises…not later, but now, in this world.

Answer this question truthfully

Is it a logical assumption that so many people would believe in something of this magnitude, for thousands of years, without ever seeing any evidence of it being true?

Faith is evidence based, and this false teaching is a perversion of the original.

To see this, all we have to do is break the sentence (Hebrews 11:1) down into it’s most simple form. If you do that, it looks something like this, and leaves no room for error when interpreting the simple English sentence. This is Hebrews 11:1 broken down into it’s simplest form:

Faith is substance.

Faith is evidence.

This is simple English.

Now read this sentence again

“Now [faith is the substance] of things hoped for, [it is the evidence of] things not seen”

To demonstrate this, I have an analogy, or short story.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and not seen…

Here is another breakdown of Hebrews 11:1

I see a bicycle. It’s real. I want a bicycle like that one. (hope)
I do not now have a bicycle. (not seen)
I ask God for a bicycle like that one (substance).
God sends me a bicycle like that one (evidence).

Not to get the cart before the horse here; my faith comes from seeing the bicycle, then getting one…and riding it, not the hope of seeing it. I will also throw this out there…a bicycle is empirical evidence for anyone that has one, period

My faith comes from seeing the things I did not see, and then did…after I asked for them

My faith is not the hope of anything.

                        Ask…that your joy may be full! (John 16:24)

I have faith that my buddy Barry will drop whatever he is doing, and come and pick me up when my car breaks down. Why? Because of several things.

I have developed a relationship, and friendship with Barry.

I have heard Barry say, “if you ever need me for anything, I’ll be there for you”.

I have needed Barry in the past, and he has kept his promise every single time so far.

Barry is a good example of faith. I can, and do have faith in Barry, because his track record is solid. What does this mean?
It means that if my car breaks down, I can have faith that he will come to help me, or send immediate help.

I don’t hope he will, I know he will… because of the evidence I have collected of him proving he would honor his promise in the past

At first, I could only hope Barry would show up, but I did not know. The second time? Still hoping, but not sure.

The evidences of more than one thing (in the case of Barry) gives me knowledge.

Seeing how happy it made Barry to be able to help.

Seeing his facial expressions as he saw mine.

Understanding that this is an extension of the statement he made to me, “I will be there”, and his own reassurance of that promise.

Now, I no longer “hope” I have a friend that would drop everything, no matter what, and come to help me…I know I do.

This is a simple conversation between two people, and my conversations with God have the exact same outcome. I now have faith in Barry, because I have the evidence to back up my belief that Barry will show up. I also have faith in God for the exact same reason.

Just like the bicycle, Hebrews 11:1 says that faith comes “from” substance, and evidence, or seeing the thing hoped for, (unseen at the time of hope), and evidence, (seeing the thing, not the hope of seeing it.)

Hope is just hope. It is not faith.

So faith comes from the substance of things hoped for, not seen, then seeing the things asked for,  or “evidence” of the hoped for thing.

Faith is not the hope of anything. It’s the knowledge you have that God will honor his promise.

Faith is knowledge.
Peace