I didn't MEAN to lie!

 Lying is weird. Usually, I know that I'm lying when I'm lying. Sometimes I sincerely believe that a fact is true and adamantly stick to it, just to find out later that I was incorrect.

Usually, it's somewhere in the middle.

I'd been suffering from some crises (yes plural) of faith, mostly because of the Evangelical support of former president, Donald Trump, so I said, "goodbye," to my church family, expressing that my beliefs hadn't changed, but I needed to be there for my girlfriend who was considering returning to church, but wanted to attend a PCUSA church in Champaign/Urbana. 

Yep, it affected me more than I thought it would. Looking back, it had affected me already more than I thought it had.

There are some foundational beliefs that I no longer hold. God cannot be all-knowing, all-present, all-powerful, AND benevolent in a world where evil exists. ONE of those things can't be true. Refusing to believe that God isn't benevolent, It has to be one of the omni-whatevers. I'm not sure which one, though.

Also, how can a benevolent God allow any of his children whom he professes to love to endure eternal damnation? I Corinthians 3 talks about building on the foundation laid by Jesus with, "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw," that the fire would reveal and test each one's work. I have come to believe that the fire may be unquenchable in that it cannot be avoided, but it doesn't burn everything. Gold, silver, and precious stones (good works and/or good fruit) will not be burnt, only that which is unacceptable. Paul clearly states, "the builder will be saved, but only as through fire."

"The builder will be saved."

Dr. Dan McClellan, Bible scholar, author, and TikTok creator, is adamant that we all negotiate with the text of the Bible because it is not univocal. If that is true, then I would feel free and justified in rejecting any part of the Bible -- or at least understanding it differently than it may have been taught by any of the denominations I've belonged to -- that seemingly or actually contradicts I Corinthians 3. I have found myself in the past agreeing more with the preterist view of Revelation of St. John than with the literal interpretation of the pre-millenialist view. This means that it was written as a polemic against a real world leader of the day in which it was written, and not as literal prophecy.

I shouldn't be surprised. My views on the Bible and Christianity have changed over the years. In the past, I've tried to find a denomination that "fits" me. I've given up on that. I am truly a sect unto my own.

Multiple denominations vs one true interpretation

If God wrote or commissioned a book to be written in his name that was inerrant in it's original form and infallible, It seems that there would be correct interpretation of such a book. 

Granted, this is assuming certain things and does smack of begging the question so, let's step back from the theist vs atheist debate for a moment. 

How would a benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful god (small g is appropriate as I'm not using a proper name here) who commissioned such a work respond to the many different denominations and interpretations? More importantly, how would such a god respond to those who claim they have the one true interpretation?

There is another subtlety to be discussed related to how do we know what that one interpretation would be, and that is how do we reconcile our fallibility with the infallibility of God and/or scripture? What I mean by that is, if a fallible human says that x is the only correct interpretation, how do we know that the fallible human making a statement claiming infallibility is right, or isn't wrong?

I also see a spectrum from the idea that everyone should interpret it for themselves and interpretation should be carefully considered and arrived at by some authority or corporate entity such as a church, denomination, convention, etc.

One answer would be to say that while there is one correct interpretation of scripture commissioned by an infallible god, no fallible human could ever know for certain. As long as one is faithful to the god who commissioned the work, one could assume that god would be pleased

Edit on 1/24/24: This was written quite a long time ago. I also jotted down a few other ideas for posts that I'm reading through. They might end up seeing the light of day, but they will likely be edited. I'm going to post this one as-is, adding one thing: I've come to understand scripture in a different way than fallible/infallible/inerrant/etc. Rev. Heidi Weatherford of McKinley Memorial Presbyterian Church explains it, if I remember correctly, as we take the Bible seriously, but we don't consider it infallible or inerrant. It is good for learning about Jesus and for learning how to live, but every word in it is not literally true. This is what I've come to believe. I've also been reading both accessible and scholarly works on the nature of scripture and the nature and history of Christianity that have been both eye-opening and thought provoking. Hopefully, I can share more and actually start writing more often as I've tried to do many, many times in the last few decades (at least since my late teens/early twenties and I'm in the last half of my 4th decade.

Hurry Up Hermeneutic: Philippians 4:13

 "I can do all things through him who strengthens me." Philippians 4:13 (ESV)

This is almost always taken out of context. It doesn't mean that I can do anything I want because of the strength of Christ in me. In context, it means that I can be content no matter how much or how little I have, for I have the most important thing there is to have: the Love of Christ.

Worship

***WARNING*** stream of consciousness follows:

Today at +First Baptist Church of Farmer City, we had a really good overall worship experience, though it was a tad long. Margie decided that she wanted to play the organ today. Kind of a funny story, too. We were practicing A Mighty Fortress Is Our God by Martin Luther when her husband Randie, one of our deacons, mentioned that it would sound better if she played the organ. We finished practicing and then she decided that she might like to give it a go. By this time some of the older women in the church had arrived for the senior adult Sunday school class that meets in the sanctuary. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that name anymore, but that's another post. Anyhow, both of them were delighted that Margie was playing the organ, so it was decided. Our first song was a more contemporary piece, but the rest were as old as the Reformation, or at least as old as Bill Gaither (He Touched Me) so we were going to do the first piece with the piano and the rest with the organ. The only thing was, there is really no graceful way for Margie to get from the piano to the organ and she is our only accompanist. So, in Sunday school, I was preoccupied with finding a scripture that I could exposit and give Margie the time she needed to get over to the Organ and get settled. Well, Pastor +Michael Jenkins had a better idea, but didn't tell me until I got up to lead the first song. We had a missionary speak after the first song in the song service. This made things a tiny bit more awkward than I'd like. I'm plenty awkward on my own and I don't really need any help. However, it all fit together nicely. I still read the scripture and only explained that dwelling in God's house meant anywhere we were, not just in church on Sunday mornings. We had a really nice song service, then, only making one really noticeable mistake by singing the wrong words. Awkward! What? I did warn you about being awkward. Anyone who would like to donate a new projector so we can have words put on the BACK wall for me, or whomever is leading service, would be greatly appreciated. I am kidding, of course, but only slightly.

Fast forward to this evening. I'm going through my Facebook feed when I come across a post by our former children's pastor, Joey Krol. He had posted a blog by +Rory Noland about worship called 5 Indications Your Congregation Undervalues Worship which is a good read, and the solution is exactly what I had been thinking about most of the day doing anyway: studying and teaching about worship. As a worship leader, I can teach in small, twitter-size -- okay maybe Facebook-size -- chunks as calls to worship or between songs, where it would be appropriate. I think I'm going to check out Noland's book Worship on Earth as it is in Heaven to see what he has to say on the matter. It is one of, if not the most often discussed topics in the Bible, so I'm sure I'm not going to run out of material... like... ever.

Another think kind of going on in the back of my head is the fact that Pastor Mike is wanting to get serious about youth. I think it would be great to get some youth involved in some of my favorite parts of modern-day ministry, such as our YouTube channel, Facebook page, and music. However, I really don't have the time to devote to being in any kind of central leadership role, but would be more than happy to take one or two young people as proteges while harnessing their youth and energy into making those things more of what I'd like them to be.

Father, help us to realize that You alone are worthy of our worship and deserving of our praise. Help us to understand how to worship in a way that is pleasing to You, and not get mired down in our "preferences" and lose the meaning of worship. Please guide us and bless us in all that we do for Your honor and glory. In Jesus Name. Amen.

Yeow! It's been over a year

Well, it has been a looooong time since I posted anything. I have had a really busy year and really haven't had any time that I could (or, really would) devote to writing. It is a pursuit that I often fantasise about but never quite seem to get off the ground. It's the sanguine tendency in me to not finish projects that I start, I guess.

Anyhow, I have several ideas of what to write about and really should start pushing myself to do it more often, especially as how important the topic of this blog is.

Until next time...

Why Do So Many YouTube Atheists Ignore the Rules of Debate?

All too often, I make a comment on YouTube and someone completely ignores all rules of debate, dodges, ignores evidence, falsely accuses me or my motives, and makes completely unsupported claims.  One such incident has happened over the last several days.  Now, I'm not usually one to make fun, but I found a YouTube video called Atheist OWNED by a Christian posted by YouTube user vrod000.  Embedding has been disabled for this video, so I apologize that I cannot do that.  Well, Dr. Ben Witherington III pretty much ate Dr. Michael Shermer for lunch.  Shermer made the mistake of saying, "You see in the gospels this kind of conflicting tension between where Jesus was born. Was it Bethlehem or was it Nazareth?"  Well, that's easy, and Dr Witherington handily defeats this argument.  Simply the gospels that mention a birth place for Jesus is clear that it is Bethlehem and no where does any gospel even hint that it might have been Nazareth.  Yes, Jesus was RAISED in Nazareth, but was born in Bethlehem just like countless other children throughout history have been born in one place and raised in another.  Jesus wasn't the first and he wasn't the last.

So, YouTube user canadianplanter came to Dr Shermer's rescue.  He claimed that Shermer wasn't trying to say that any of the gospels claimed Jesus was born in Nazareth, but was instead claiming that the story of the census and Mary and Joseph traveling to Nazareth was made up by the gospel writers.  First of all, when I hear, "You see in the gospels this kind of conflicting tension between where Jesus was born. Was it Bethlehem or was it Nazareth?"  I understand that he is claiming that at least one of the gospels claims Jesus was born in Nazareth, and I don't see how you can possibly think otherwise, at least not if you read that sentence without bias and with your brain turned on.  Second of all, that claim is also easily refuted, but I'll deal with that later.  Third, canadianplanter is clearly moving the goalposts here.  Shermer set the goal at "at least one gospel claims Jesus was born in Nazareth" and canadianplanter tried to move it to "the story was made up by the gospel writers".  Well, this feeble attempt at a rescue (when Shermer clearly fell on his own sword) is also easily refuted.

I said, "But that is NOT the argument he made. He was trying to argue that some gospels say Nazareth and others say Bethlehem, which is easily refuted. Don't be moving the goal posts!"

It really should end there.  There is no reason to argue further, other than a deep-seeded need to be right.  What he should have said, if he was interested in exploring the idea that the gospel writers made it up, was, "Well, Shermer said something stupid, but I say that they made it up.  What do you say to that?"

Well, you're still moving the goalposts, but I'll play.  For starters, Luke has been accurate about 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands, so he has a pretty good track record.  Furthermore, Just because the only census by Quirinius mentioned in Josephus was in A.D. 6 doesn't mean that it was the only census he took.  Neither does it mean that he didn't become governor until A.D. 6.  Luke is clear that the census taken that required Mary and Joseph to go to Bethlehem was the FIRST census. (Luke 2:2)  This strongly implies that there was at least one more census taken, like the one recorded by Josephus.  There is also evidence to suggest that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.  For a more in-depth look, check out the article When Did the Luke 2 Census Occur?

Well, that's not what was said.  What was said is that *I* moved the goalposts and NEVER did Shermer state that the gospels claim Jesus was born in Nazareth.  Hello!  "Was it Bethlehem or was it Nazareth?"  Please explain to me how this isn't stating that at least one of the gospels claim Jesus was born in Nazareth.  We went back and forth until he finally admitted, begrudgingly and not without condescension, that he didn't have any evidence that Shermer meant what canadianplanter tried to claim he meant.

After this I explained in YouTube approved fashion how canadianplanter could find the article on the Luke 2 Census hoping that would end it.  YouTube doesn't allow anyone to post anything that might even be mistaken for a URL, so I had to show him what to Google and where to click.

Again, instead of admitting defeat, or trying to impeach the new evidence, canadianplanter decided to do more dodging, insulting, and condescending.  So, I'm out.  I'm sure if he ever found this post, I'd be whining about how his superior intellect intimidated me, but I wanted to post this so that if anyone does happen by here, you'd see the kind of tactics used by some less than scrupulous YouTube users with an axe to grind against Christianity.

He even had the gall to say, "If one were to examine all the evidence available, without bias or prior conclusion or desire for a particular outcome, and were to find a conclusion (either way, or a third alternative) then that would be the approrpriate way to go about the question."

Um, who ordered the condescension?  Certainly wasn't me.  I replied with, " You know what, I've gotten nothing from you but dodges, unsupported claims, and false accusations, so I'm done." and then added in a second post, "Oh, and this last post was very patronizing and insulting."

I know how to reason deductively.  I don't need some hoser trying to educate me, especially when his arguments (dodges, false accusations, unsupported claims and condescending remarks) were a major epic fail.

His response?  "I don't see how me explaining my position on examining evidence and coming to a conclusion is patronizing and insulting. I find it strange and sad that often people cannot have a discussion with someone of opposite opinions without getting insulted."

Really?  You don't see how condescendingly explaining the deductive reasoning process to me is insulting?  I posted, "Um, maybe because we didn't have a discussion, we had me asking you specific questions and getting dodges, condescension, false accusations, and unsupported claims. We also had me give evidence for my side and you simply dodging and ignoring rather than trying to impeach said evidence. Have you considered that the reason that people often cannot have a discussion with you without being insulted is because you offer nothing but insult?"

Please, go to the comment page and read the whole thing for yourselves.  Maybe I am wrong, but I don't really think so.  I guess what I really don't understand is that this just scratches the surface.  The real meat of the matter is in the cosmological, ontological, teleological and other philosophical and metaphysical arguments that cannot be defeated logically.  They say the devil is in the details, I guess that's why he so often uses these tactics to try and convince people that God doesn't exist.

Pastor Whaley, We Will Remember You

Dennis Wayne Whaley

Pastor Dennis Whaley impacted my life in the best way possible. He had the most awesome personality.  His obituary said that he "collected" friends, which could not be more true.

My first impression of him, was that he had an overwhelming joy about him. When I had just started attending Praise Assembly of God in Springfield, MO, where he was Minister of Ministries, I wanted to become involved in some sort of ministry at Praise, but I was nervous to approach a pastor in such a large church, even if it wasn't the senior pastor.  Needless to say, he put me right at ease and welcomed me. Less than a month later, he trusted me with being in charge of the Buckaroos, and found me two of the best helpers I think I have ever had, Travis Townsley and Ebon Carter. His faith in me and his encouragement helped me to grow in maturity and faith. Then, it wasn't long after that he was roping me in to the drama team where I met more wonderful people and discovered that I really liked acting. Dennis was a wonderful man, and an influence on my life I will never forget. I can't wait to see him again in glory.

Dennis Wayne Whaley Obituary: View Dennis Whaley's Obituary by News-Leader: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Some YouTube posts

Recently, I've come across a really great YouTube video by user bzel333.  I have found his videos to be very informative and accurate, but this time I had been going through a bit of a season of doubt.  Thanks to bzel333 and this video, my faith has been strengthened.




Then, I came across a number of videos that were published from an atheist perspective.  Following are the videos and my responses:




Even an overwhelming majority is still argumentum ad populam.

These "arguments" are not very good ones, obviously. There are much, much better arguments that the rank and file simply have not been properly taught. There are a number of reasons for this, namely apathy and laziness on the part of Christians.

If you want to see true genius, check out Thomas Aquinas. Ed Feser wrote a really great book entitled _The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism_ that's also worth reading.



I see some problems here. First, you start out discussing the teleological argument, but change to the cosmological argument. The second problem is that neither argument states that something complex must come from something even more complex. This means you have succumbed to a straw-man fallacy.  Furthermore, neither argument states that God came from nothing, but is the first uncaused cause. Finally, the universe did begin, so we can't save a step there.

I've run out of space :)



For the wages of sin is death, BUT the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 3.23, HCSB) ?? I encourage you to read it in it's context. In fact, read the whole book of Romans.

Also, claiming to be a Christian and being saved by the blood of Jesus (and becoming an heir to inherit eternal life) are not the same thing. "For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift" (Ephesians 2:8) Also see Matthew 7:21



While that may be what a lot of people think, it's not what Jesus taught. The video by bzel333 sums it up best:

Hurry Up Hermeneutic: Forgiveness

I've always thought that since seven times seventy was 490, and since I Corinthians 13 says that love keeps no records of wrongs, then we are supposed to always forgive our brothers, no matter how many times they sin against us.  Now, this is true, but this is not why it's true.  I understand that this is a bit of splitting hairs, but I think that proper hermeneutics and exegesis is extremely important, so I have learned that Peter was asking Jesus if they should forgive their brother once each day, and Jesus responded, "no, you should forgive them seventy times each day."  Now, since it would be really hard for someone to sin against you seventy times in one day, then you should always forgive your brother, no matter how many times they sin against you.  I Corinthians 13 is now not necessary to understand Matthew 18, but it does provide a bonus:  confirmation of the clear teaching in Matthew.

Genesis is Not About Evolution

In the beginning...

The last couple of days, I have been watching the comment thread on a You Tube video posted by christianjr4  Why, oh why, won't Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig?  As often occurs in threads such as these, the debate has changed from the subject, namely that Dawkins should/should not debate Craig, to a debate on creation vs. evolution.  Invariably, Genesis 1 gets dragged into the debate by one or the other side.  The problem I have with this is the primary purpose of Genesis 1 is NOT to dispute evolution, but was intended by the author (God through Moses) to be a special revelation of who he is, and to foreshadow the coming Christ.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. — Genesis 1:1-3

When I was attending Bible college at Lincoln Christian College and Seminary (It's now a university!) we talked about  passages being "exegetically pregnant" which means there is a lot of meaning packed into a scant few words.  Notice the state of the Earth in v. 2 before God intervened.  It was:

• Formless
• Empty
• In darkness
• Under water

That's a pretty sad state of affairs.  Notice that in verse 1 God had already created the cosmos, including the earth.  In the Bible often the word "heavens" especially when plural means "outer space" rather than the dwelling place of God and the angels.  So, God created the Earth, but it was formless, empty, in darkness, and buried in water.

That's how our lives are before we accept Jesus Christ as Lord and savior.  Formless here means in chaos and confusion, which is exactly what a life without Jesus looks like.  You may think you have it all together, but then let a major catastrophe happen.  I never understood why people who lose millions of dollars commit suicide until I realized that they did not know the Lord.  They, like the earth, are empty inside and they try to fill that emptiness with material things.  The problem with this is that the emptiness inside them is God-sized and God-shaped.  NOTHING else can fill that void.  We are in darkness, and in us there is no life.  We were dead and buried under a sea of sin and disobedience to God, which overwhelms us and chokes us from breathing.  The idiom "In over your head" definitely applies.  You feel like you are drowning when you are without God and he has given you over to your fleshly desires.  If you feel like that, there is some good news!

God's word gives us life.

The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. — Psalm 119:130

Now skip ahead just a few verses in Genesis 1 to verse 9

Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land "earth," and He called the gathering of the water "seas." And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds." And it was so— Genesis 1:9-11

This is the cool part.  Once we have the light of Jesus Christ, we become a new creation.  We are not just refurbished, but become completely new.  "God doesn't shave caterpillars, he creates butterflies." according to Setting Captives Free team member Mike Cleveland.  www.settingcaptivesfree.com  The old passes away and we burst forth from out of the water into the light of the source of life and we begin to produce fruit!  This is symbolized by our baptism by immersion in water as a believer.

Now you have a testimony.  You know that you were in chaos and confusion, in darkness, and buried in your sin.  Then, God came and spoke light into your heart, raised you from the dead and caused you to bear good fruit.  How wonderful!  How marvelous!  And, did you notice that in Genesis this "resurrection" of the Earth occurs on the third day?  Hmmmmmm.

This post was taken and adapted from "The Lord's Table" course at www.settingcaptivesfree.com Day 28, Section 1.  If you are struggling from habitual sin or addiction such as overeating, alcoholism, pornography, smoking, etc. I strongly encourage you to check it out.

The question is often posed by skeptics:  "If God is so good, why did he create Hell?"  This is a good question, one that has been fumbled many, many times.  There are a lot of ways that people have attempted to respond to this, some more harmful than others.  I think I'll deal with that next time.