My Wise Generation

The enemy would have modern Christians believe faith in Jesus Christ is both illogical and ignorant.  Satan knows faith is the most powerful defense the modern Christian has against him, and he will stop at nothing to vanquish it.  Those who can be shaken by the pseudo-intellectual lies crafted by the enemy will find themselves subject to his influence.

As America braced herself for the inevitable economic recession.  She found herself in desperate need of a savior.  Instead of turning to the one true savior, they turned to the power and wisdom of man.  Obama and congress' intentions are, in respect to their burden of expectations, well intended, but their solutions are blind.  The world, in it's lust for a man-made savior, will be surprised at the outcome.  Those who do not turn to man alone for a solution will not be.  

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."  - Galatians 6:7-8

The modern Christian movement has placed much effort in the rebuke of fools.  Fools, in this sense, is not a derogatory term but are those who ignore the truths of reality in the realm of cause and consequence to perpetuate their lifestyle.  Instead, their wisdom is found in the world of sensual pleasure and self-exalted philosophy.  

With the financial strain on more and more individuals these days, God has opened a great opportunity for Christians around the world to proclaim their love.  We often look at the world in the ways that it can benefit us.  When everything is going well in our lives, it is easy to continue on in life without the necessity of dealing with God.  As history has shown, God is aware of this problem, and often uses pain to solve it.

In a world filled with intellectuals, defense of the Christian faith and principles can become both a difficult and emotionally exhausting task. This is especially true when Christians are attacked with what are known as 'Straw Man' or 'Ad Hominem' arguments that aim to do three things: place the original arguer in a ridiculous position never taken, attack that position, and destroy the character of the arguer.

It is likely many individuals use the straw man or the ad hominem arguments by incident, and it is without a doubt that I have used them without even realizing it. This is why it is important to understand the structure of these arguments so they can be captured and corrected before the argument turns into an attack on each arguers character rather than addressing the true substance of the argument.

The straw man argument is the single most commonly used argument against the Christian faith and apologist. It is second to the ad hominem and is defined as:

"To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted." - (wikipedia.org)

For example:

Arguer 1:
Proposition I: The Christian faith can be defended by legal-historical evidences
Proposition II: Logical Evidences A, B and C defends their position.
Proposition III: Therefore the Christian faith can be defended by legal-historical evidences.

Arguer 2:
Proposition I: Those who argue the Christian faith can be defended cannot prove the existence of God using the scientific method.
Proposition II: Logical evidences D and E are often used to attempt to prove God using the scientific method.
Proposition III: Logical evidences D and E are clearly invalid because of logical evidence F and G
Proposition IV: Therefore, The Christian faith cannot be defended by legal-historical evidences.

As one can see, in the straw man argument, the second arguer often times completely ignores the logical evidences or arguments put forth by the initial arguer and instead discuss an entirely different argument. In this case the second arguer brings up logical evidences D and E, which were not argued by the initial arguer, he then dis-proves an argument never made, then concludes the initial argument made is false.

Many times, the argument the second arguer places the first arguer into is easily refutable and emotionally based. Doing this places the readers or viewers of the argument emotionally against the first arguer so they are more inclined to disagree with the original argument.

For example, an initial arguer may state they believe God exists due to the complexity of the universe and cite their evidences of unexplainable complexities. The second arguer may, in response, argue those who believe in God must also prove there is no 'flying spaghetti monster' or no 'Zeus', they then set up the argument from the position of those who believe in God to dis-prove a 'flying spaghetti monster' and prove 'Jesus Christ'. Finally, with the scientific method, they illustrate how this argument is false, and therefore conclude the other individuals belief in God must be invalid.

As one can see, the initial arguer cited evidences of unexplainable complexities, but these logical evidences were completely ignored. The second arguer then placed the first arguer into an argument he did not make and proceeded to defeat that argument. It looks great from those doing the reading and looks great for the second arguer, but it does not address the real substance of the initial argument.

The ad hominem argument is defined as:

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject." (wikipedia.org)

For example:

Arguer 1:
Proposition I: Homosexuality is a behavioral choice.
Proposition II: Logical evidences A, B and C defends their position.
Proposition III: Therefore homosexuality is a behavioral choice.

Arguer 2:
Proposition I: Christians also believe homosexuals should "burn in hell".
Proposition II: Cases A and B illustrate instances where this is true.
Proposition III: Logical evidences why cases A and B are harming other people.
Proposition IV: Therefore any argument put forth by Christians are rubbish.

The ad hominem is much easier to spot. When these come up it often illustrates a vilification of the initial arguer or the group the initial arguer may be a part of. In this case it was Christians. The second arguer used extreme cases to emotionally draw the readers or viewers into their position. Finally, they proceeded to attack the initial arguer as if they had been a part of the extreme cases cited, then concluded the initial arguer lacks credibility to establish any logical evidences.

The ad hominem is one of the most commonly used arguments against those who defend the Christian faith. One will find many times they are being vilified as if they committed acts or atrocities performed by Christians they have both never met and would never had been a part of. After they are accused of these atrocities, they will find themselves discredited as a reliable source of logical evidences.

As stated above, there are likely cases where I have done this without the realization of doing so. Many times the ad hominem and straw man are used as a defense mechanism when others test or question principles one holds dear. It is likely that many times the use of them is unintentional, but the aim is to remove them as much as possible to clear the way for a logical and reasonable debate of ideas. Modern society has entered the war of ideas, it is important that Christians are properly equipped with the logical tools necessary to defend their faith.

Craig Chamberlin





Related Articles:
3 Reasons Christians Don't Need Scientific "Proof" of God
Modern Man has "Educated Himself into Imbecility"
Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value
Video: Proof of Christianity: Challenging Skeptics
Truth is Artfully Etched in the Hearts of Mankind

Many have probably given some thought to Jesus Christ's commandment to "love your neighbor as you love yourself". When looked at in detail, this is a profound and almost impossible commandment to live up too - Jesus Christ's sacrifice illustrated this love in it's purest form.

Each and every one of us has a tendancy to live our entire lives providing for ourselves, giving ourselves food and clothing, treating ourselves to nights on the town. The commandment Jesus gives us is not an easy one, nor does it appear it was meant to be. It is quite interesting to think about this in further detail. If we are to love others as we love ourselves it means that we are to put them at the place of highest importance because we give ourselves that very same treatment.

Jesus Christ was the perfect example of this, after all, his sacrifice for the atonement of sin was the ultimate act of selflessness and love. Dying for the world illustrated that Jesus Christ was acting as he had preached - he did for us what he expects us to do for others.

The sacrifice made by Jesus and his commandment to love others as we love ourselves is often one of the most difficult issues I struggle with as a Christian. It is very difficult to put others at a higher importance than ourselves, and the few times one does succeed, it is a tremendously wonderful feeling. I, like any other Christian, contantly fail to live up to such a standard.

The standard exists none-the-less, and Jesus Christ's Sacrifice really puts into perspective to us that the small sacrifices we make to put ourselves into the position of others is really not as difficult as it must have been for Christ himself.

It is important to remember that loving others as we love ourselves is not a justification for ignoring when those who we love are putting themselves in harms way. Many times confronting individuals humbly, compassionately and with fear and reverance is the sacrifice necessary to show that we truly love them. It is painful, yes, but we would hope those that we love would do the same to bring us out of harming ourselves.

Let us also not forget that Jesus Christ's first and foremost commandment was to "Love the lord your God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul." (Matthew 22:37 - 40)

Craig Chamberlin





Related Articles:
When the Christian Heart Fails in Sinful Temptation
When the Christian Heart Fails to Love the World
The Beautiful Fear of God
The Blessing When God Seems Distant
The Mind Cannot Change The Heart

If individuals have not had a chance to view the short debate between Atheist Richard Dawkins and Christian Bill O'Reilly between belief or simple dis-belief they can view it here. There are some interesting conclusions one can draw from the short discussion these two individuals had.

Bill O'Reilly held his own in this discussion with who is known as one of the biggest names in atheism Richard Dawkins. In fact, both did quite well. It is important to take a closer look into this discussion as it went by quicker than the average person could possibly absorb and it is a huge issue that merits far more than only five minutes of air time.

(0:41 O'Reilly) "I think it takes more faith to be like you an Atheist than like me a believer and its because of nature. You know, I just don't think we could have lucked out to have the tides come in, the tides come out, the sun go up, the sun go down... Don't think it could have happened."

(0:54 Dawkins) "We have a very full understanding of why the "tides go in, the tides go out", about why the continents drift about, of why life is there. Science is evermore piling on the evidence, piling on the understanding."

Commentary: O'Reilly's point here is not clear - he does clarify it after Dawkins responds. It appears that O'Reilly takes the position that sheer 'chance' as the creator and designer of man is unlikely - but he parallels it with an awkward illustration of tides and the sun, leaving him at a position of needing to correct himself when Dawkins illustrates that we clearly understand why tides go in and tides go out. While it is true that science is piling on information and understanding, his response was to a poorly executed argument made by O'Reilly.

(1:07 O'Reilly) "But how did it get there? I understand... the physiology of it if you will... but it had to come from somewhere and that is the leap of faith you guys make, that it just happened.

(1:21 Dawkins) "Well, a leap of faith, you don't actually need a leap of faith, you're the one who needs a leap of faith because ... the [requirement] is on you to say why you believe in something. There is an infinite number of Gods you could believe in. I take it you don't believe in Zeus or Apollo or Thor, you believe in presumably the Christian God, Jesus."

Commentary: O'Reilly's position here is now clarified. What he is suggesting is that it doesn't quite make much sense as to how intelligence and all the beauty of nature could have come into existence by sheer chance. Everything appears to have a designer behind it, and suggesting that the universe, as complex as it is, just simply came to be is not a convincing argument. He then posits that Dawkin's must have much larger faith to believe that the sophistication of the world came by sheer chance than by a designer. Now this point does hold logically and evidently true, after all, any engineer or software designer will tell you design and sophisticated systems cannot just simply come into existence without some form of intelligent intercessor there to formulate and establish the necessary coherence to make it function. There has yet to be any evidence of an intelligent system simply being established from sheer chance, it goes against the first two laws of thermodynamics to suggest as such.

Dawkin's response here suggests that O'Reilly requires proof of the existence of God to establish what he believes in. This is an uninformed argument, as Christianity possesses one of the most powerful backgrounds of legal-historical proof of all the faiths in existence. Suggesting there are not evidences of both the existence of Christ and his miracles is simply an irresponsible statement to make and it illustrates Dawkin's lack of historical understanding of the Christian faith.

(1:40 O'Reilly) "Jesus was a real guy, I could see him. You know I know what he did and so I am not positive that Jesus is God but I'm throwing in with Jesus rather than throwing in with you guys because you guys can't tell me how it all got here. You guys don't know."

(1:54 Dawkins) "We're working on it physicists are..."

(1:56 O'Reilly) "Well when you get it then maybe I'll listen"

(1:57 Dawkins) "Yes well, I mean if you look at the history of science over the centuries, the amount that's gained in knowledge each century is stupendous. In the beginning of the 21st century we don't know everything, we have to be humble, we have to in humility say that there is a lot we still don't know."

(2:12 O'Reilly) "You know, being humble is a Christian virtue."

(2:15 Dawkins) "Well, I suppose it is."

(2:17 O'Reilly) "Alright, when you guys figure it out come back here and tell me because until that time I'm sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy and my religion of Roman Catholicism because it helps me as a person."

Commentary: This is one of the most revealing portions of the discussion between the two gentlemen. Dawkins had stated above "..you don't actually need a leap of faith, you're the one who needs a leap of faith because ... the [requirement] is on you to say why you believe in something. There is an infinite number of Gods you could believe in." As one can see, Dawkin's contradicted himself - on one hand he is saying that Christians must provide the evidences necessary to establish the validity of their faith in what they believe, on the other hand when confronted with the reality that science cannot answer such a profound question of the origins of the universe his response is simply "We are working on it." Well, if it is being worked on then until the evidences are found, belief in the idea of intelligent systems coming into existence by sheer chance without the evidences necessary to establish how it occurred requires a leap of faith.

Dawkins cannot in one hand demand that Christians provide evidences for what they believe in and on the other dodge the reality that science lacks the evidences necessary to defend what he believes in. Using his test of the validity of faith, his own standing on the origins of the universe requires just as much of a leap of faith as any other. Actually, given the strength of the legal-historical evidences of the Christian faith as well as the lack of any intelligent systems spawning from non-intelligence by sheer chance, it possibly requires more faith to believe Dawkin's position than the Christians.

(2:29 Dawkins) "Now that's different, if it helps you as a person that doesn't mean it's true."

(2:31 O'Reilly) "Well it's true for me, see I believe it."

(2:33 Dawkins) "You mean true for you is different from true for anyone else. How can something be true for you, something has either got to be true or not.

(2:40 O'Reilly) "No no, I can't prove to you that Jesus is God so that truth is mine and mine alone, but you can't prove to me that Jesus is not. So you have to stay in your little belief system."

(2:50 Dawkins) "You cannot prove that Zeus is not, you cannot prove that Apollo is not -"

Commentary: This was one of the most disappointing positions O'Reilly took in this entire debate. Dawkin's holds a much more valid argument, if truth is absolute then it must hold true to all people not just the individual. It is likely that O'Reilly simply wasn't prepared for this type of debate and intermixed an argument of 'perspectives' of truths with 'absolute' truths. When dealing with perspectives O'Reilly makes the point that he will likely not be able to convince Dawkin's that his position is correct - but convincing someone of the truth and the existence of absolute truth are two different things entirely.

The reality is that if O'Reilly embraces the Christian faith he must embrace that it is the absolute truth and that Jesus Christ is God. If Jesus Christ is really God then it cannot be true to only O'Reilly, it must be a universal truth that applies to all men. Truth cannot be relative, it must be absolute - and this is a position one ought to agree with Dawkin's on.

Dawkins again, however, discusses that there is no difference between the 'evidences' of Zeus and Jesus. This is a blatantly irresponsible argument - the legal-historical evidences of the existence of Christ and his works are so well documented that they hold more validity than many other historical documents. In fact, the New Testament was even used as an accurate historical perspective when looking into the History of the Roman Empire and many other A.D. historical documents. Archeologists use it as one of the primary tools in referencing historical contexts as well. Christianity is not a faith based upon no "evidences" and it possess quite a strong foothold in both philosophical and historical contexts.

(2:54 O'Reilly) "I saw Apollo man, and he was down there and he was not looking good. Now, we also differ in the sense that you feel that religion has been a bane... to civilization and I feel atheism has. I will point to the worst mass murderer in... modern times: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Palpot, all confirmed atheists. All people who wanted to wipe out religion. Now I know you can point to the crusades and you can point to Al'qaeda right now. I mean it's there, theres no question but I say, I'm throwing in with the founding fathers of the United States [who] saw religion and spirituality as a moderating influence, as a good thing if people embrace the true tenants"

(3:35 Dawkins) "The Founding Fathers of the United States were secularists above all, some of them were religious, some of them were not but they were above all secularists who believed in keeping church and state separate."

(3:44 O'Reilly) "They had too because of the oppression in Europe."

(3:45 Dawkins) "... Precisely, I mean but - "

(3:48 O'Reilly) "Almost all of them, they all said a prayer before their deliberations. In their letters, and I have almost all their letters they all reference the Deity, our declaration of Independence references heavily but they saw it as a moderating influence because the federal government at that point couldn't control the country - "

(4:04 Dawkins) "Yeah."

Commentary: An interesting bias shows from both gentlemen during these few statements. It is clear that both want to illustrate that the founding fathers were bias in one direction or another so it can verify the position they are going to take on what they really intended for society. What one may find interesting is that the founding fathers consisted of both secularists and believers - but what O'Reilly says here is indeed true, that the majority of them did hold a belief in a Diety of some form or another.

However, the perspectives of the founding fathers is a debate that has transcended and existed since they found the United States - and it is a debate that will likely continue. It would have been more interesting to see the debate continue in the actual discussion of belief as opposed to disbelief in God.

The purpose of O'Reilly bringing up the position of the founding fathers was to illustrate the importance of religion in society and that the founding fathers agreed with him on this issue. He is taking a critical view to Dawkin's perspective that religion has been more of a hindrance on society than a benefit. As as honest opinion, the idea of all religion being harmful and detrimental to society both historically and modernly is not only a ridiculous notion, but one that barely even merits acknowledgment. The amount of lives transformed for the better through faith in Jesus Christ alone are astounding - to suggest religion as a whole is detrimental is an irresponsible and uninformed position to take.

(4:04 O'Reilly) "- and they said you know if people follow Jesus, then the country is gonna be better."

(4:09 Dawkins) "It may well be a moderating influence, as for Hitler and Stalin I mean, of course. Hiter by the way was a Roman Catholic."

(4:15 O'Reilly) "No he never was, he was raised in that home, but he rejected it early on."

Commentary: Hitler a Roman Catholic? It would do Dawkins some good to read a history book or at least obtain a basic understanding of the requirements to be a Catholic and a Christian. One could be raised "Catholic" and never ever practice the faith, go to Church or accept the truths of Christ - does that mean they are a Catholic or Christian? Not by the definition of course. If people are considered Christians by association and not by their practicing of the Christian faith or their actual proclamation that they believe in the lord Jesus Christ then one could pretty much label anyone, including Dawkins, a Christian if they so much as had a conversation or some other association with one.

(4:18 Dawkins) "We can dispute that.. Stalin was an atheist, no question... but, Stalin did the bad things that he did not because he was an atheist. I mean, Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.

Commentary: Comparing mustaches to a philosophy that drives a moral framework is both irresponsible and reflective of Dawkin's lack of understanding of how philosophy, morality and ethics correlate. O'Reilly also did a poor job with his illustration that Hitler and Mao were both atheists. The reason this is important is because the atrocities that were performed by Hitler and Mao can be 'justified' because they were atheists. If there is no absolute judge of right and wrong then the deeds Hitler and Mao committed can be morally justified. One cannot tell them they were being evil if there is no absolute good that they had violated.

However, contrast that with the 'Crusades'. Those who had committed the atrocities under the banner of Christianity did so violating the very laws and moral rules set forth by Jesus Christ. Through atheism, genocide can be justified because each person can establish their own laws of moral right and wrong, it needs only be justified by the person committing the acts - through belief in a God, right and wrong must first be established by God and the acts performed by individuals must be judged by God's standard. As a result, the Crusades were horrid, yes, but they were acted out against the laws of Jesus Christ. The holocaust, however, if there is no God and no absolute right and wrong can be justified because Hitler believed it to be justified.

Dawkins then makes the statement that Hitler and his kin were evil. Well, if they were evil then they must have violated some form of absolute good. If they violated some form of absolute good then a law of good and evil must exist. If a law of good and evil must exist then there must be a governor of that law, it cannot simply come from nowhere. If there is a governer of that law then as the moral lawgiver and ultimate judge of right and wrong said judge must take the form of God - of whom Dawkin's adamantly disbelieves in.

(4:30 O'Reilly) "I don't think they had any moral foundation, any of those guys -"

(4:33 Dawkins) "I don't either."

(4:34 O'Reilly) "I will say, your book is fascinating and congratulations on your success and thanks for coming in here."

Craig Chamberlin







Related Articles:
3 Reasons Christians Don't Need Scientific "Proof" of God
Science Assumes the Natural, Therefore Concludes the Natural
In 1943, Former Atheist Illustrates the Moral Law
How Can God Exist When There is Evil?
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed vs Evolution
Oprah's New Age Religion Contradicts Christianity
Bill Cosby's Philosophy Transcends Race and Gender

If individuals have missed the recent YouTube video portraying Oprah discussing her ideas of the New Age religion you can view it here. There are some interesting points that she makes that ought to be discussed in more detail that contradict Christianity, and one ought to remember to address these points respectfully.

(Oprah: 1:00) "One of the mistakes that human beings make is that there is only one way to live, and that we don't accept that there are diverse ways of being in the world and there are millions of ways to be a human being and many paths to what you call God. That her path might be something else and when she gets there she might call it the light."

There is truth to the initial portion of Oprah's statement. Christians today do indeed struggle with acceptance of other's viewpoints, but it does not necessarily imply that their viewpoint is incorrect. Two different issues are at hand here, how does one balance what they believe to be true with the reality that it implies others do not hold that same truth? It is doubtful that Oprah doesn't believe what she is discussing is truth as well, and if someone approached her new age religious perspective with the idea that there was only one way to heaven then she would undoubtedly struggle to accept their viewpoint just as Christians struggle with the same issues when someone else approaches them with 'another way' to God.

Oprah is trying to be open-minded with her new age perspective about all religions and opening all paths but in doing so at the same time she cannot be open minded to those who hold the belief that there are not multiple paths to God. One cannot have their cake and eat it too, if she embraces the idea that there are multiple paths then she must argue those who believe there are not are incorrect, and the minute she does as such she is no longer open-minded of all viewpoints. For if the God she suggests exist, then that God would undoubtedly punish those who defy the reality that he designed within his plan multiple paths that lead to himself. Those who hold the only one way viewpoint, therefore, will not be looked upon as favorable to the God she suggests exists.

(Oprah: 1:12)"But her loving and her kindness and her generosity if it brings her to the same point that it brings you it doesn't matter if she called it God along the way or not."

It would be interested to know exactly what is meant by bringing individuals to 'the same point'. There is, however, a firm difference between doing the will of God and doing ones own will. Oprah's new age illustration is that the path to salvation and acceptance with God is through 'good works' and in being kind, generous and virtuous they will find favor with God when they stand before him.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " (John 3:16)

"I am the way, the truth and the life, no one can get to the father except through me." (John 14:6)

There are some definite contradictions in the Biblical context in regards to the ideas Oprah is suggesting. While at the same time attesting to the belief in Christianity she wishes to embrace other religions as being another way to God. There is, however, a dilemma, as the Bible illustrates that salvation is not a result of good works, but good works are an inevitable result of salvation. In other words, belief in Christ comes first to obtain salvation, and through that salvation and communion with Christ the individual can find God's purpose in their lives and live their life through God's will - these are the good works that follow belief in Christ.

Good works, in this respect, are an after-effect of salvation, and they are only 'good works' if they fall under the banner of God's purpose in the individual's life. It is not implied in the Bible that good works lead to God, it is that Jesus Christ leads to God, and the result of believing in him is 'good works', which are defined as God's will instead of our own will. We can't, however, do God's will without a relationship with him through his son Jesus Christ.

(Kelly: 2:52) "[The recommended reading by Oprah] really opened my eyes to new way of thinking, a new form of spirituality that doesn't always align with the teachings of Christianity, so my question is to you Oprah, how do you reconcile these spiritual teachings with your Christian beliefs."

This is an excellent question towards her new age perspective, it positions Oprah to defend the contradiction even I addressed above, it asks how Oprah can be a Christian while at the same time believing in something contradictory to Christian beliefs.

(Oprah: 3:10) "I reconcile them because I was able to open my mind about the absolute indescribable hugeness of that which we call God. I took God out of the box because I grew up in a baptist church where there were rules and belief systems and doctrines. I happen to be sitting in church in my late twenties... this great minister was preaching about how great God was and how omniscient and omnipresent and God is everything and then he said the Lord thy God is a jealous God and I was caught up in the rapture of that moment until he said jealous and something struck me... I was thinking God is all, God is omnipresent and God is also jealous? God is jealous of me? Something about that didn't feel right in my spirit because I believe that God is love and God is in all things so that's when the search for something more than doctrine started to stir within me. I love this quote... "Man made God in his own image: eternal, infinite and unnameable was reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as my God or our God."

Oprah really didn't address the question, she actually dodged it. This might not have been intentional, many people probably realize that when asked a question on the spot it is not always easy to come up with a great answer to the question, I will, for her sake give her the benefit of the doubt.

There are some issues here though, primarily when she discusses the conflict in her spirit when she found God to be a jealous God. It is primarily important to note that within context this means that God is jealous of things we make into being God - or man made idols, he was not discussing when man worships "another omnipotent being". Jealousy, as the modern man interprets it in in a negative context - and Oprah may have been interpreting it in this way. For example, jealousy is often associated with insecurity. In the Biblical context, however, the jealousy that God holds is his intolerance of unfaithfulness or rivalry. When God says he is a jealous God he is stating he is intolerant of the unfaithful and of those who embrace their man made Gods. He must be, because as the only God and as the supreme judge he must judge based upon the truth that he is the only God. It would be unjust of him to let us worship man-made God's when there are those who worship the one true God.

Addressing the quote that she loved: "Man made God in his own image: eternal, infinite and unnameable was reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as my God or our God."

Man has made and often makes Gods in their own image, but every time God is transformed into an idol, whether it be blindly worshiping without a relationship or ritualistic beliefs it contradicts the Biblical idea that Christ wanted man to seek after truth.

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." (Matthew 7:7)

Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that individuals blindly follow the faith, nor does it encourage imbecility. In fact, Christ demands the complete opposite, he wants us to know God, to understand him, it was part of his purpose in becoming man so that he could communicate the beauty of God to mankind. This is quite possibly one of the most beautifully unique aspects of the Christian faith, in that it is encouraged by its creator to incessantly question it and put it into practice and the truths should hold no matter the circumstances, they may not always be clearly evident, but time often shows the truth as it is.

Craig Chamberlin







Related Articles:
Bill Cosby's Philosophy Transcends Race and Gender
Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value
Will "Good Men" Find Favor With God?
Modern Man has "Educated Himself into Imbecility"
Jesus Would Have Been Against Socialism

An often discussed issue is whether or not good men who perform great things or do great things in this world will find favor with God when they pass into the next life. It is a fearful and scary notion to believe those we perceive as being 'good men' will not find favor with God when they stand before him.

There is, however, a dilemma to this thought process. Often times what one man perceives as goodness is something that they simply find favorable about another individual. Many times one looks at someone as being a 'good person' when that person makes them feel good and also gives them the impression that they are helpful, kind and gentle people. One may, for example, think of another man as a good man because of the few times they encounter him he is kind, gentle and polite, but know very little of his actual thoughts and heart.

If a God exists, and he is the epitome of goodness, then if a man attempts to do good things how can the deeds of the man be good without reference to the very creator of goodness? In other words, if goodness can only come from God, then how ought an individual do good deeds if they never know God?

Individual deeds, in this respect, are separate from God - and what we may perceive as a 'good man' may not actually be 'good' in God's eyes. Jesus said something interesting in Matthew 7:20 - 23:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

What if, for the sake of this verse, there is no such thing as a 'good' deed and a 'bad' deed. What if there were only 'God' deeds and 'godless' deeds, the will of the father deeds and the will of ourselves deeds. When one looks at the frame of reference as to the motives of the deed and that is what will determine whether the deed merits acceptance by a God or not. For example, if I give $100.00 to charity, but not because God led me to do so, am I truly attempting to do God's will?

God has set into each and every persons heart a purpose and drives them to do great things in his name. We can either live our lives in communion with him, and do the things he leads us to do, or we can never know him and do what we want to do. God deeds, therefore, are deeds we perform because God leads us to perform them, and when we come before God he will have authorized them. Godless deeds are deeds we perform by our own perceptions of what is good, and we do them without giving glory to or fulfilling the purpose God intended in our lives.

A person can go through their entire lives doing 'good' deeds by only their own perceptions, and completely separated from God. In doing so, all of their good deeds were not led by God, and when they stand before him they may find themselves in terrible circumstances. On the other hand, as we are commanded to do God's will, if we embrace the Lord Jesus Christ, and allow him to take control of our lives, even the smallest of things if done in his name and for his glory will be pleasing to him.

As much as I always wanted to believe that 'good men' would find favor with God, I had come to the realization that 'goodness' can only come from God, and without a personal relationship with him, and without submitting our will to him, with every 'good' deed we attempt to perform apart from him brings us further from his will and deeper into our own. It can be a fearful and terrible notion to see that there is a rhyme and reason for Christ saying "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one can get to the father except through me." (John 14:6) Without a relationship with Jesus Christ, all of the "good deeds" we do are done in our name, not in Gods - therefore they are not "good" deeds, for they are deeds only meant to glorify our own will.

Craig Chamberlin





Related Articles:
Jesus Would Have Been Against Socialism
3 Reasons Christians Don't Need Scientific "Proof" of God
Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value
Truth is Artfully Etched in the Hearts of Mankind
The War Against the Evil One

There have been some ideas around that Jesus Christ would have been adamant about enforcing socialism in government. "We should be," many have been arguing "compassionate and charitable to all people and promote equality in all that we do."

It is important to note that not all socialist programs existent in society today are necessarily a bad thing, but the primary idea discussed here is the complete embracement of socialism as a form of government.

While the statement above is both admirable and true, it does not accurately portray socialism. The structure of socialism is an attempt to regulate equality through the use of the government. In other words, it aims to demolish social injustices by enforcing social justice on the people within that society.

For this reason many advocates of a fully fledged socialist government are eager to enforce laws that, for example, force those who are with more revenue to give up a portion of their incomes to have it redistributed to those who "need it more". This is a classic Robin Hood type mentality, and although it sounds good when stated as a philosophy, the philosophy itself is both un-just and un-Christian.

Most who believe in Jesus will likely agree that those who are better off financially should aim to be more charitable. In fact, the Bible also suggests that all Christians should be charitable even if they are not well off by giving a portion of their earnings to God and God's works. Socialism, however, is equivalent to walking up to a fellow Christian and telling him "It is time for you to be charitable, therefore, hand over 25% of your income so that we can give it to those who need it more than you."

This undermines Jesus Christ's teachings that all men ought to be Charitable because it eliminates the individuals choice to be charitable. As a result, the individual who is 'forced' to be charitable instead becomes bitter because their choice to be charitable is taken from them and they cannot choose what to do with it themselves.

The idea that a government can change the hearts of people is the root behind socialism. This is, of course, a logical fallacy. It is equivalent to saying that rules established by a school will make good children out of students. The reality is that rules are put in place so that individuals can choose to follow them or not - eliminating that choice does not make a child any more moral just as eliminating the choice for individuals to be charitable does not make them more charitable.

Jesus Christ preached of both personal responsibility and societal responsibility. Christians are to love their neighbors as they love themselves, but they are to choose to love their neighbors as they love themselves, not be forced to do so. For this reason it makes sense that Jesus Christ paid little attention to the laws of the society of his time and instead emphasized on changing the hearts of people.

Jesus Christ had realized that changing the hearts of individuals will allow for the laws of the society to change themselves. A Christian nation is not one simply with Christian laws, but one with hearts that embrace the truths of Jesus Christ's teachings and live their lives according to it. As a result, the Christian nation, being of a majority following and believing in Jesus Christ will have laws that reflect those beliefs.

It is very unlikely, in fact, counter-intuitive to believe that Jesus Christ would have emphasized the government attempting to take control of the social injustices that exist within a society. Instead, it is likely Jesus Christ would have placed the responsibility on each individual to come to him so their hearts can be transformed, and after that transformation has taken place in the hearts of a society, their laws will reflect that transformation.

Jesus Christ has always started at the root of the problem, and that root is deep within the heart of each and every individual. Jesus Christ, as the master of the heart, can transform a sinful man to one who strives and desires to do good. Jesus Christ, then, offers himself as a means to be forgiven when the man fails, giving them an opportunity to pick themselves up and again strive and desire to still be good.

Craig Chamberlin





Related Articles:
Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value
How A Society Can Protect Children from Pornography
Society's Failure in Sexual Responsibility is Destroying Children
The Cancer of My Generation
Modern Man has "Educated Himself into Imbecility"

Around each and every corner lurks that which will attempt to snare you into its grasp. There lies within this world a dark evil that resides in the hearts of each and every individual. This evil has a desire to consume the individual with its passions and bring them to their own self-destructions.

Satan is alive and well, and a wise man once said "The greatest accomplishment of Satan is his ability to convince the world he does not exist." The architecture of his plan is present in modern day and it easily witnessed too when one dares to look close enough.

That which Satan does best is corrupt good. C.S. Lewis discussed these ideas himself:

"...good should be original and evil a mere perversion; that good should be the tree and evil the ivy; that good should be able to see all round evil (as when sane man understand lunacy) while evil cannot retaliate in kind; that good should be able to exist on its own while evil requires the good on which it is parasitic in order to continue its parasitic existence."

- C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, 1994

Satan perverts that which God has created, and through that perversion it illustrates that all evil as the world knows it is a parasite of goodness. God created everything wonderful and beautiful and Satan's goal has always been to pervert that which God has made while at the same time hiding his existence from the world.

Fortunately, God has equipped his followers with the tools necessary to battle the temptations of Satan as he brings them into our lives. It is inevitable that each and every Christian will fail in temptations, but Christ's delivery from the consequences of sins gives the Christian the hope to further battle both his own desires to do evil and to battle the manifestations of evil in the world.

God also gave to the Christian his word. Like a double edged sword the word of God transcends and brings light to the deceptions raised by Satan. Satan has a way of being very convincing to the world until God's reflection is placed before it. Many individuals find that living by Satan's illusions is far more convincing than living by God's truths, but God's truths always have revolved around love, compassion, patience, peace, kindness and gentleness. These are illustrated further in Galatians:

"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other."

- Galatians 5:19-25

As one can see, there are also perversions of God's goodness, and these perversions are emphasised as truths by Satan himself, and he convinces mankind of the world that these perversions are the true path to happiness. Happiness itself becomes a perverted notion because apart from God happiness is something that is simply an illusion.

This war has been raging since the beginning of original sin. It will do the Christian well to acknowledge both the power of Satan and his persistent goal to destroy as many individuals along with him before he is cast into hell for all eternity.

Craig Chamberlin





Related Articles:
Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value
When the Christian Heart Fails in Sinful Temptation
When the Christian Heart Fails to Love the World
Truth is Artfully Etched in the Hearts of Mankind
How Can God Exist When There is Evil?