Hello readers,
Recently, I was reading about Jars of Clay's semi-recent departure from modern contemporary evangelical Christian culture. I don't know if you've heard about this, or if you even care, but it has pointed out some things which have absolutely enormous implications for Christians everywhere today.
As I was reading, I wondered, "Did Jars of Clay denounce Christianity? Do they now separate themselves from God in this action of separation from contemporary Christian worship music? If not... what are they? What DO they believe?"
while reading Dan Haseltine's words (lead singer for Jars of Clay), I took a step back from my own bias and thought for a moment. I looked at what he said, and then looked again at who I claimed to be and what I claimed to believe.
And I was frightened. I realized that he was right!
Here is an excerpt from a few years back, in Haseltine's article An Unfinished Record, an Uncharted Path.
"These songs are honest expressions of what life around us looks like.
The descriptions of love and pain, loneliness and hope are real to us.
It is what frustrates me about the general church audience. If artistic
expressions do not have an evangelical agenda, or they don’t explicitly
cheer for Jesus, they tend to fail commercially. In my experience, the
music with those kinds of agendas is shallow and somehow not ultimately
believable to me. Ironically, what people probably want, and have a
hard time articulating, is a description that gives voice to their
experiences of doubt and faith and life, but they have been tricked into
a very narrow view of where those descriptions come from. And so they
often settle for the Jesus cheerleaders or worship songs that have been
loaded with sentimentality but not reality. People set expectations
that they are going to connect with real life during their worship
services through the medium of worship music. At the same time, people
may forget entirely or dismiss the movie that described a portion of
hard life that their soul found resonance with, because it wasn’t in a
church context. This doesn’t mean there is no space for evangelicalism.
But it is such a tiny sliver of the entire pie."
He was right. The "Jesus cheerleaders" (another name for Christian alternative music) had too much control, and their messages were far too narrow-- and not in a good way. Some may refute me by quoting Jesus and saying that "The way is narrow" but they don't realize that what they are showing is in fact only a part of the way of life to which Scripture calls us-- their way is more narrow than Jesus' Way!
I'm not saying that we shouldn't continue to do worship music. What I am saying is we spend more time in worship singing about our faith than because of our faith. How often do we quote Scriptures in songs without actually adding something of significance that God has shown us in our own experiences? How often do we sing the words of other people-- not necessarily because the words are meaningful, but because someone who is a "strong Christian musician" wrote them? How often do we mean what we sing wholeheartedly? Yes, we sing a "New Song" about "Worthy is the Lamb" -- but every new song never really seems all that new. Nothing artistic ever shows up, because most of the Calvinistic fundamentalist Christian contemporary groups are more worried about getting their doctrinal ideologies into their music than actually making good music.
What a mess!
Jesus taught us how to pray-- not how to sing. I think He did so on purpose. Perhaps He wanted us to worship Him in our own unique way. Perhaps, after all, free will may play some sort of role in the way we love God and worship Him. Maybe we can freely chose Him-- and maybe we can freely chose how to worship Him as well. Maybe there are no set standards for how to worship. Maybe its better to go off alone on your guitar or piano and sing something you made up on your own that has real meaning to you concerning God's Love than to sit in church and listen to the doctrine-of-Glory/grace songs that your pastor picks for you deliberately each Sunday. Maybe we've taken a step in the wrong direction.
And our artistic talent shouldn't stop at worship service, anyways.
We shouldn't think for a millisecond that unless there is some scriptural reference to our art, we ought not to do it-- that if a song isn't explicitly about Jesus, we can't listen to it. Or if a painting isn't a Biblical portrayal, that we shouldn't enjoy the art. Surely, all true art is inspired by God. It's like Scripture for the senses. Don't reject the baby, just because you don't like the bathwater. Don't reject the art, just because it isn't explicitly "evangelical." That's another thing the modern church does. if art doesn't fit with their extremely narrow agenda-- well, we discard it. That's that.
We so often blame the secular world for not going to our churches, wearing our T-shirts, and listening to our music. Did you ever stop to think that maybe...
WE are the ones to blame for this?
"I have attempted to provide questions that could lead to a more love
based approach. This has meant taking a careful and often critical
view of contemporary church behavior and culture. At times this has led
me to unproductive and unfair assessments of the churc)h culture. Other
times, it has helped me navigate around unhealthy environments and
practices that could have caused me to hurt people." --Haseltine
Perhaps the world is hurt by our condemnation. Perhaps, as Rob Bell said, we should put down the bullhorn and take a step in their direction. Perhaps, instead of clenching our hands tight against the world, we ought to open our hearts and hands and give them Love. After all, that's what the gospel is really about. It isn't about the doctrines-- although doctrines matter-- it's about the Love that is shown to every human being on the planet by Jesus Christ. Behold, He stands at the door and knocks. But does He barge into your house like a bull in a china shop?
No. He is gentle, inviting, and more importantly-- Loving. He extended His hands to us-- and all He asks is that we don't resist. Not that we are unable to resist grace-- but we owe our very lives to Him, and therefore we have no right to resist. Sadly, some do-- perhaps because they don't see Christians practicing what they preach.
Maybe we should change our views on some things. Maybe God DOES love the whole world. And maybe, instead of sharing doctrinal opinions and dogmas (like Calvinism, Fundamentalism, or Escapist Christianity) with them-- we ought to share our LIVES with them. Our experiences, our dreams, our love, our laughter, our sorrow, and our faith. All of these things are what make up the true Church. We are a community that lives together, and Christ is who inspired us to do so. We ought not to exclude anyone-- because Christ did not exclude us. We are to be the means of showing love to the whole world, with no exceptions. There is not a single person on earth who we ought to withhold our community. As C.S Lewis once said, "To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable in others, because Christ has forgiven the inexcusable in you." This is the message Jars of Clay wants to spread-- and I myself support it without exception.
Friday, July 18, 2014
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Emerging in Today's Culture
Hello viewers, I hope you're all doing well! Just decided to post a little something that's been on my mind today. Actually, it's been in the back of my mind for a while, ever since I first saw the "NOOMA" (Greek for spirit) video in my worldview class. I found it intriguing, stylish, and attractive-- especially in comparison with most modern church videos.
In the first little movie clip, Rob Bell (a leader of the Liberal side of the Emergent Church Movement) spoke with passion against hellfire and brimstone preachers. It showed a man holding a bullhorn, in the midst of a crowd, in an attempt to yell at them about their sinfulness. "Please, I beg of you, on behalf of all of us, put the bullhorn down!" said Bell.
Now while I was watching this, I was careful not to be entirely swept away by the attractive qualities of the video. I didn't allow myself to be convinced by cool graphics and catchy words and phrases.
But I agreed with Bell on many things. Namely, that we need to reach out to the postmodern culture with Christ's love-- not with the wrath of God. His message about evangelism was backed up with several scripture verses. The culture is tired of hearing words of hate from Jesus' followers. Don't they already know that we think they're sinners? Don't they already know that we believe God hates sin? Clearly, our method of hellfire and brimstone "evangelism" only brings division. No-one is attracted to a God who hates them.
But then a week later, just last Wednesday, I saw a video at youth group in which a preacher showed that God hates sinners. He backed it up with scripture, too. So I was slightly vexed: which do I believe?
I realized, first, that we need to understand exactly why God hates sin. Here's how I would illustrate it: imagine that God is like a husband, who loves His bride (humanity) with unconditional passion. He does everything He could possibly do to show her that she is loved. But she rejects Him, despite the fact that His love went beyond anything else. In fact, she not only rejects Him-- she commits adultery with her own desires. How would you feel in this place? Wouldn't you be wrathful and jealous beyond belief? And you would grieve, too, if you had been treated so.
I believe God "hates" us in this sense. He is angry just like a rejected husband is angry.
But He also loves us. So He proves this by DYING for His unfaithful bride. If this cannot prove to her that He is worthy of adoration, nothing ever will.
If we explain it to our post modern culture in THIS way, I believe we may have better chances of them connecting to the Holy Spirit's call. But if we keep on making the story about US, and what should happen to US (in other words, we should be going to Hell) , then unbelievers will never hear His side of the Story.
So Rob Bell was right about one thing: we certainly need to renovate the way we reach out to people.
But upon furtcombatsearch, I realized that there were things wrong with Bell's beliefs. I saw, for instance, that he promoted homosexual marriage. This, according to Leviticus 18:22, is incorrect. Mark Driscoll explained Bell's movement this way: they are good, attractive people, but they question things that were decided centuries ago, such as "was Jesus really God," or "is the Bible actually God's Word?"
These questions are okay to ask, of course. No question should remain unanswered. We must always make sure our faith is accurate. But the problem is, Bell's movement never answers the questions, and thus leaves the Bible open to incorrect interpretation. In fact, it leaves room to redefine God. And who are we to define He who made US? That is true heresy, and should not be allowed to roam freely in Christ's body, the Church.
Mark Driscoll, however, showed that Bell's liberal Emergent movement was really only an offshoot of a much larger organization. Here are the other three divisions of Emerging Churches: Emergent House Church Movement, which is doctrinally sound, but rejects the Big Church mentality. This type of church generally consists of 20-30 people. The next kind of emergent church is essentially Calvinist in doctrine, with a strong outreach towards postmodern culture. The next is also traditional in doctrine, but simply seeks new ways to make Christianity and church relevant in today's culture.
Overall, the emergent church had some good ideas, but we must be certain that there are no wolves among us that would ravage God's flock.
Overall, the emergent church had some good ideas, but we must be certain that there are no wolves among us that would ravage God's flock.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Postmodernism. You know?
Hello Reader,
Recently, I watched a few vids that the Rabbi posted online. They were about a relatively new movement within the church, which is loosely defined as "emergent" church movement. This movement has grown rapidly since the mid-20th century, and has an extreme appeal to a post-modernist culture. In this article, I'll attempt to debunk a few myths about the movement, as well as provide clarity as to how a Christian should handle it.
Funny thing, though-- the majority of Emergent churches don't even want to be labeled! They prefer to maintain their own anonymity. Some members call themselves "post-modernists," "post-evangelicals," or even "post-protestant." It's difficult actually define the emergent movement-- the best I can really do is describe their people, practices, and philosophy.
The members of these churches tend to be young and outgoing. They are sick and tired of pews and traditional church methods.They dislike the idea of the spiritual authority that resides in the church-- instead, they decide everything together as one community, without any specific leaders who want to decide everything for the congregation. They want to be heard, and their "sermons" are really just large group discussions about spirituality. They sit on couches, and a discussion leader sits in the center of the auditorium to act as a moderator. Their worship services are very sensory related, and include dj's who mix tracks in order to provide the right "atmosphere" of worship. Some even include ancient practices of worship, which include walking through labyrinths. They tend to mix different worship techniques of different Christian branches-- most notably, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
This is mostly fine-- at least it attracts the modern world to some form of Christianity... right? Well, not necessarily. Unfortunately, This influential movement puts little to no emphasis on the authority of scripture. They don't tend to accept anything as absolute truth, due to the post-modern nature of their views. As D.A Carson, a theologian from Trinity Evangelical Seminary in Illinois, believes, once people remove the authority of truth and scripture, they risk losing a correct view of God.
Christians need to respond to this movement. The only question is, how do we do this? First, I believe we need to consider their arguments, and make sure that we are not guilty of any of their accusations. They claim that the church is too controlling-- is it? Do we put more authority into the church than in scripture? The truth is, some churches do exactly that. We need to avoid this by looking to God as our ultimate authority, and be willing to correct the church's views on certain subjects if they dont align with scripture. They also say that our forms of worship are not convicting enough. They say that they don't really feel God's presence in the church during worship services. In response, we need to be certain that our worship services are filled with God-honoring songs that don't put the congregation to sleep. We need to lead people in worship with hearts that are pure before Lord, as well as being excited to be near Him in his throne room. Others claim that we don't allow people to speak for themselves, or ask questions. We need to make certain that we have places like small groups and bible studies where no-one needs to be afraid that their thoughts will be rejected.
On the other hand, we cannot reject the supreme authority of God and His Word. While we should allow questions to be asked, we must not speak without authority of scripture as the basis for our thoughts. We must not change the clear meaning of the Bible and allow truth to be twisted. Overall, we must put God's desires first when encountering one of these churches-- as we should in all situations.
Recently, I watched a few vids that the Rabbi posted online. They were about a relatively new movement within the church, which is loosely defined as "emergent" church movement. This movement has grown rapidly since the mid-20th century, and has an extreme appeal to a post-modernist culture. In this article, I'll attempt to debunk a few myths about the movement, as well as provide clarity as to how a Christian should handle it.
Funny thing, though-- the majority of Emergent churches don't even want to be labeled! They prefer to maintain their own anonymity. Some members call themselves "post-modernists," "post-evangelicals," or even "post-protestant." It's difficult actually define the emergent movement-- the best I can really do is describe their people, practices, and philosophy.
The members of these churches tend to be young and outgoing. They are sick and tired of pews and traditional church methods.They dislike the idea of the spiritual authority that resides in the church-- instead, they decide everything together as one community, without any specific leaders who want to decide everything for the congregation. They want to be heard, and their "sermons" are really just large group discussions about spirituality. They sit on couches, and a discussion leader sits in the center of the auditorium to act as a moderator. Their worship services are very sensory related, and include dj's who mix tracks in order to provide the right "atmosphere" of worship. Some even include ancient practices of worship, which include walking through labyrinths. They tend to mix different worship techniques of different Christian branches-- most notably, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
This is mostly fine-- at least it attracts the modern world to some form of Christianity... right? Well, not necessarily. Unfortunately, This influential movement puts little to no emphasis on the authority of scripture. They don't tend to accept anything as absolute truth, due to the post-modern nature of their views. As D.A Carson, a theologian from Trinity Evangelical Seminary in Illinois, believes, once people remove the authority of truth and scripture, they risk losing a correct view of God.
Christians need to respond to this movement. The only question is, how do we do this? First, I believe we need to consider their arguments, and make sure that we are not guilty of any of their accusations. They claim that the church is too controlling-- is it? Do we put more authority into the church than in scripture? The truth is, some churches do exactly that. We need to avoid this by looking to God as our ultimate authority, and be willing to correct the church's views on certain subjects if they dont align with scripture. They also say that our forms of worship are not convicting enough. They say that they don't really feel God's presence in the church during worship services. In response, we need to be certain that our worship services are filled with God-honoring songs that don't put the congregation to sleep. We need to lead people in worship with hearts that are pure before Lord, as well as being excited to be near Him in his throne room. Others claim that we don't allow people to speak for themselves, or ask questions. We need to make certain that we have places like small groups and bible studies where no-one needs to be afraid that their thoughts will be rejected.
On the other hand, we cannot reject the supreme authority of God and His Word. While we should allow questions to be asked, we must not speak without authority of scripture as the basis for our thoughts. We must not change the clear meaning of the Bible and allow truth to be twisted. Overall, we must put God's desires first when encountering one of these churches-- as we should in all situations.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
IS HE CRAZY... OR WHAT?
Hello viewers!
Welcome to another edition of "Insanity's Lair!" With us today, if not in flesh, we have the spirits of C. S. Lewis, John. F. Kennedy, and-- oh, almost forgot, Aldous Huxley. Today, I am going to explain some things concerning a talk they had during their lengthy stay in Limbo.
Firstly, let's discuss Jesus' divinity. Was He truly the God of the Bible, incarnate within a human body?
To answer that question, I'll first lay out in plain sight the four possibilities of who Jesus might have really been. First, we may consider the idea that he was a fool-- crazy, a little loose-minded, insane, delusional. The next possibility is that Jesus was a liar-- a swindler, a cheater, a person unworthy of any form of trust. The third is that he was simply a "nice guy."
And the last....
GASP!!!
Could he-- He-- have been God?
C. S Lewis said that we could dismiss with the idea that Jesus was a "nice guy"-- because "nice guys" generally don't claim to be God. If they do, then they are ether demented-- a "Lunatic"-- or they are lying. If Jesus was demented, then he was bad, mentally. If Jesus were a Liar, then he was morally evil-- which also contradicts the "Mr. Nice Guy Theory." So, I agree with Lewis, who said that He wasn't just a nice guy.
The next argument is that Jesus was a fool-- and this would make little sense in the end, as well. If Jesus was a fool, would he really have been so widely accepted? You would think that people would notice if there were something screwy about this guy. In fact, his disciples spent so much time near him it would be virtually impossible for them not to know if He were unhealthy mentally. He spoke to so many educated crowds, with such clarity, that we can essentially deny the very idea of Jesus' insanity.
The idea that Jesus was a liar (or, as Lewis put it, a homo malus) is much more plausible than the previous ideas-- but how does it stand up to scrutiny? Well, before one assumes that this option is true, we need to see Jesus' previous history of lying. Was he lying about other things? Even skeptic scholars generally agree that, on other points, Jesus spoke the truth. He wasn't intrinsically a chronic liar. When he spoke to people, he meant what he said-- and believed what he said. Jesus died for what he believed. Now, people may die for a lie-- but they never die for something they believe to be a lie.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the remaining possibility; it just takes a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants.
JESUS IS GOD
Sinceriously,
Micah Sample
Welcome to another edition of "Insanity's Lair!" With us today, if not in flesh, we have the spirits of C. S. Lewis, John. F. Kennedy, and-- oh, almost forgot, Aldous Huxley. Today, I am going to explain some things concerning a talk they had during their lengthy stay in Limbo.
Firstly, let's discuss Jesus' divinity. Was He truly the God of the Bible, incarnate within a human body?
And the last....
GASP!!!
Could he-- He-- have been God?
C. S Lewis said that we could dismiss with the idea that Jesus was a "nice guy"-- because "nice guys" generally don't claim to be God. If they do, then they are ether demented-- a "Lunatic"-- or they are lying. If Jesus was demented, then he was bad, mentally. If Jesus were a Liar, then he was morally evil-- which also contradicts the "Mr. Nice Guy Theory." So, I agree with Lewis, who said that He wasn't just a nice guy.
The next argument is that Jesus was a fool-- and this would make little sense in the end, as well. If Jesus was a fool, would he really have been so widely accepted? You would think that people would notice if there were something screwy about this guy. In fact, his disciples spent so much time near him it would be virtually impossible for them not to know if He were unhealthy mentally. He spoke to so many educated crowds, with such clarity, that we can essentially deny the very idea of Jesus' insanity.
The idea that Jesus was a liar (or, as Lewis put it, a homo malus) is much more plausible than the previous ideas-- but how does it stand up to scrutiny? Well, before one assumes that this option is true, we need to see Jesus' previous history of lying. Was he lying about other things? Even skeptic scholars generally agree that, on other points, Jesus spoke the truth. He wasn't intrinsically a chronic liar. When he spoke to people, he meant what he said-- and believed what he said. Jesus died for what he believed. Now, people may die for a lie-- but they never die for something they believe to be a lie.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the remaining possibility; it just takes a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants.
JESUS IS GOD
Sinceriously,
Micah Sample
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Tell Me Your Opinion! Calvinism & Alternative Idealogies
Dear Readers,
I have been studying the doctrines of Calvinism (particularly referring to man's role in salvation-- if such a thing exists.) I would truly appreciate it if you commented below! I NEED YOUR OPINION! I do not want to stir up controversy-- I only aim to find out the truth about this topic.
Here are some questions I'd like for you to answer:
1.) Do you believe in Predestination?
2.) Is there a difference between Predestination and Election?
3.) Does God decide to send some to hell before they are even born? If so, how is this justified?
4.) Does man have Free Will? If not, why?
Thank you to those who respond and give opinions! One of the future articles on this blog will cover my own journey through the question of salvation.
Sinceriously,
Micah Sample
(P.S, Have any of you seen the new Son of God movie? Tell me what you thought about it.)
I have been studying the doctrines of Calvinism (particularly referring to man's role in salvation-- if such a thing exists.) I would truly appreciate it if you commented below! I NEED YOUR OPINION! I do not want to stir up controversy-- I only aim to find out the truth about this topic.
Here are some questions I'd like for you to answer:
1.) Do you believe in Predestination?
2.) Is there a difference between Predestination and Election?
3.) Does God decide to send some to hell before they are even born? If so, how is this justified?
4.) Does man have Free Will? If not, why?
Thank you to those who respond and give opinions! One of the future articles on this blog will cover my own journey through the question of salvation.
Sinceriously,
Micah Sample
(P.S, Have any of you seen the new Son of God movie? Tell me what you thought about it.)
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
"There is no knowledge in Sheol-- where you are going."
Most Atheists disbelieve in any sort of soul. But many of us know in our hearts that after we die, we will experience something. Some people call that experience Nirvana. Others call it "being a ghost." Still more call it Reincarnation.
I call it a "SOUL."
A soul is comprised of multiple things, in reality. A soul is a developing process, if you will. But in my worldview, I believe that the soul will have a physical embodiment not so very different from our human bodies on earth. Your soul's location is determined by whether or not you fulfill the Chief End of Man-- which is to glorify the God of the Bible and to enjoy Him forever. As a Christian, every action we complete should be taken in regards to this truth. The soul itself, however, is comprised first of the Mind and secondly of a new physical body. The nature of that physical body is either glorious and perfected, or wretched and damaged beyond repair. Both bodies are eternal, and will either be enjoyed or despised forever.
Some would say "Outside of supposed Divine intervention, there is no evidence for a soul." However, as Rene Descartes said, "Cogito, ergo sum." (Lat. "I think, therefore I am.) this simply means that unless one were alive eternally somehow, there would be no possibility of experience. Just think: when a person is asleep, he doesn't notice time passing. He doesn't notice anything, unless he happens to dream. However, he wakes up, and now he knows he is alive. Besides, it is a proven fact that unless someone wakes up in the middle of a dream, he will not remember it-- which is essentially the same (for practical purposes) as having not experienced it at all. Therefore, if life is indeed but a dream, we wouldn't know that we were alive unless at some point we woke up from this dream. Therefore, the fact that you, dear reader, can actually remember past events proves that you have an eternal soul, in which you will someday find yourself. This may seem unprovable, but our experience during sleep is the closest we can get to death-- yet we dream, and we know that.
But thinkers don't always accept my view of death as true. Some believe that once you die, your sentient experience is gone-- never to return. This view is largely pessimistic-- and causes raises in suicides and homicides. It devalues the idea of human life, and gives rise to abortion. This view means that there is no accountability for your actions in this life-- thus, you can do whatever you want and not think twice. One with this worldview may see that there is nothing wrong with rape, or torture, or adultery.
A person who believes in ghost-hood probably also has a pessimistic view of death-- due to the fact that they will think and exist, yet have no body. It will be just like this life, without the actual physical experience One may see and hear, but he will never again be able to hold a loved one's hand, or speak with his child. Never will he feel the affectionate kiss of his wife, although he may think often of doing so. This view is equally worthless.
A person who believes in reincarnation has a strange view of life. According to this view, one must simply accept the state in which he exists and be "good" in order to achieve a higher state of existence. But valuing the cow as higher than a man is reverse order-- and is a way for Satan to twist God's ordained value system.
Today, most people hold a different view. They believe that yes, there will be an embodied soul-- but there are no consequences of this life that factor in to the next. They believe that there is "light at the end of the tunnel" and that they will again see loved ones and hear the sounds of their voices. It will be a "perfect world."
But they don't realize that nothing is truly perfect, unless it is given from God.
It is a dangerous world to live in-- do not fall into the trap of feel-good death idealogy.
Sinceriously,
Micah Isaiah Sample
Apologies & Apologetics
My dear, dear reader
I just realized that I didn't post anything about the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham debate! I am terribly sorry... I've been so busy recently (what with school and theology conferences and all.) I know that this will be too small to suffice, but I hope to satisfy some of your longings for this post on apologetics.
So now, without further adieu, I give you...
MY OPINIONS ON THE DEBATE!
Yes, yes, thank you all very much for coming to my page. I'd just like to give you some thoughts concerning that debate that happened awhile back.
First of all, I'd love to congratulate Ken Ham on the precise way in which he contrasted two modern worldviews which are completely different. I'd also like to applaud him for showing that modern methods of dating were based on largely false premises, and that the dating methods are often contradictory.
Nevertheless, I cringe when I think of what secularists would think of his evidence. Obviously, Nye pointed out that Ham seemed to have a lack of scientific foundations for his opinions. He probably speaks for a majority of viewers, too. In fact, I found myself wondering why Ham wasn't bringing up thousands of pieces of evidence that scientists at Answers in Genesis had found. Surely, I thought, Ham could crush Nye's feeble arguments for evolutionary thinking.
But he didn't-- or at least, not in the way I expected he would.
Sometimes he would directly oppose Nye's arguments-- for instance, he showed clearly that the ice tubes could have formed with extreme rapidity, instead of forming over a period of millions of years.
But other times, he totally seemed to ignore Nye's questions.
Was it a lack of evidence that caused Ham's silence?
I don't think so. I think it was harder for Ham to communicate everything within so small a space of time. Whereas Nye didn't feel the need to prove anything for evolutionary thinking, Ham had to somehow both destroy the foundations for evolution and at the same time defend his view of science using the Bible as a reference.
Now on to something else- what were Nye's weak points?
I'll finish this post some other time. Hope you enjoyed this so far... follow my blog!!
Sinceriously,
Micah Isaiah Sample
I just realized that I didn't post anything about the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham debate! I am terribly sorry... I've been so busy recently (what with school and theology conferences and all.) I know that this will be too small to suffice, but I hope to satisfy some of your longings for this post on apologetics.
So now, without further adieu, I give you...
MY OPINIONS ON THE DEBATE!
Yes, yes, thank you all very much for coming to my page. I'd just like to give you some thoughts concerning that debate that happened awhile back.
First of all, I'd love to congratulate Ken Ham on the precise way in which he contrasted two modern worldviews which are completely different. I'd also like to applaud him for showing that modern methods of dating were based on largely false premises, and that the dating methods are often contradictory.
Nevertheless, I cringe when I think of what secularists would think of his evidence. Obviously, Nye pointed out that Ham seemed to have a lack of scientific foundations for his opinions. He probably speaks for a majority of viewers, too. In fact, I found myself wondering why Ham wasn't bringing up thousands of pieces of evidence that scientists at Answers in Genesis had found. Surely, I thought, Ham could crush Nye's feeble arguments for evolutionary thinking.
But he didn't-- or at least, not in the way I expected he would.
Sometimes he would directly oppose Nye's arguments-- for instance, he showed clearly that the ice tubes could have formed with extreme rapidity, instead of forming over a period of millions of years.
But other times, he totally seemed to ignore Nye's questions.
Was it a lack of evidence that caused Ham's silence?
I don't think so. I think it was harder for Ham to communicate everything within so small a space of time. Whereas Nye didn't feel the need to prove anything for evolutionary thinking, Ham had to somehow both destroy the foundations for evolution and at the same time defend his view of science using the Bible as a reference.
Now on to something else- what were Nye's weak points?
I'll finish this post some other time. Hope you enjoyed this so far... follow my blog!!
Sinceriously,
Micah Isaiah Sample
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Introducing Knowledge and Ignorance
It's been about a week since I've written my last post, and honestly I've been a bit too busy to write much. But today, I have a few things I'd like to discuss. (By the way, just in case you didn't know, this blog was created under the direction of my worldview teacher, Rabbi G. Thus, it is going to contain quite a bit of philosophic controversy. However, I've always been obsessed with apologetics, so I'll be doing a lot more with that soon. As a matter of fact, I intend to write a review of the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate, so visit here in a few days, and I should have that posted! Now on to the present...)
Knowledge is the key to human existence. Without it, we would have no way of survival. Knowledge is what gives us the ability to work, think, and relax. It tells us when to be sad, and when to be joyful. It tells us that the earth is round, and that hurting oneself or others is generally a bad idea. It tells us that there is a God, and it predicts the weather. It tells us that someone we love has just smiled at us, and it tells the baby to open his mouth so that he can eat. Knowledge is everything.
But how do we know what we know? That, indeed, is the philosophy's most controversial question, and has been debated among the wise and foolish for centuries. The simple answer is that there are three main ways we can know something.
The first is called "cognitive." Simply put, this is what we experience through sight, sense, touch, smell, and taste. Animals have this knowledge. So do people. It is what tells the dog not to go outside the boundaries of the yard, lest he be shocked. It is also what tells a person that chocolate is delightful. It is a purely physical sort of knowledge.
The second kind of knowledge is known as "empirical." This is a type of knowledge that a dog does not have. It takes experience and our senses and compares them with possibilities and fantasies. It compares good with evil. It is what tells us that it is morally wrong to kill another person. It is what tells us that two times two is four. This is what allows a painter to create a clear-cut, recognizable picture completely from his imagination.
The third type of knowledge is revelational. This type of knowledge is strictly known to man. It is what we know as revealed by God or other conscientious beings, such as fellow men or angels. This is what has given us the Bible. This is also what gives us information concerning the past, from the writings of ancestors.
Many ancient men wrestled with the topic of knowledge. Herodotus, for example, believed that the entire world was in constant change and therefore couldn't be known. In other words, "You can't step into the same river twice. However, Parmenides believed the opposite. He stated that knowledge is not derived at from the senses, but only through pure reason. The world was an infinite, unchanging entity, and therefore could be known. Plato combined these and stated that there were two realms of knowledge, the cognitive and the empirical. However, he still stated that things could not fully be known, because truth wasn't revealed in the physical world. Aristotle held many of the same views as Plato, but he believed that truth was inherit within nature. Therefore, knowledge was truly attainable.
Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, provided evidence for natural theology, using reason alone. Thus, he provided a platform for revelational knowledge.
Due to Aquinas' efforts, people like Michelangelo, Da Vinci, and many others were able to provide the public with great masterpieces which are still marveled at today. An example of this is the Sistine Chapel.
However, a few centuries later, Naturalism began to overcome the idealogy of Christianity and grace, because the world became based only on Cognitive and Empirical thinking yet again. This lead to the belief that Christianity has no support by "logic." This caused (and was caused by) a "Line of Despair" between the physical and the unseen. This created a boundary between Church and Science, which in turn lead to a division between Church authority and Biblical authority.
The Reformation, caused by thinkers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, was in response to the split in authority over truth. The reformers reacted by attempting to create harmony between the two worldviews (Naturalism and Christianity.) They said that indeed, the world can be physically observed, but also that science pointed to God as the ultimate authority for truth. During the period known as the Reformation, just laws began to appear for the first time in centuries by brand-new civil governments. The economy in Europe began to thrive like never before. Poverty rates went down immensely. All were impacted by this worldview.
Thanks for reading! Have a great rest of your week.
Sinceriously, Micah Sample
Knowledge is the key to human existence. Without it, we would have no way of survival. Knowledge is what gives us the ability to work, think, and relax. It tells us when to be sad, and when to be joyful. It tells us that the earth is round, and that hurting oneself or others is generally a bad idea. It tells us that there is a God, and it predicts the weather. It tells us that someone we love has just smiled at us, and it tells the baby to open his mouth so that he can eat. Knowledge is everything.
But how do we know what we know? That, indeed, is the philosophy's most controversial question, and has been debated among the wise and foolish for centuries. The simple answer is that there are three main ways we can know something.
The first is called "cognitive." Simply put, this is what we experience through sight, sense, touch, smell, and taste. Animals have this knowledge. So do people. It is what tells the dog not to go outside the boundaries of the yard, lest he be shocked. It is also what tells a person that chocolate is delightful. It is a purely physical sort of knowledge.
The second kind of knowledge is known as "empirical." This is a type of knowledge that a dog does not have. It takes experience and our senses and compares them with possibilities and fantasies. It compares good with evil. It is what tells us that it is morally wrong to kill another person. It is what tells us that two times two is four. This is what allows a painter to create a clear-cut, recognizable picture completely from his imagination.
The third type of knowledge is revelational. This type of knowledge is strictly known to man. It is what we know as revealed by God or other conscientious beings, such as fellow men or angels. This is what has given us the Bible. This is also what gives us information concerning the past, from the writings of ancestors.
Many ancient men wrestled with the topic of knowledge. Herodotus, for example, believed that the entire world was in constant change and therefore couldn't be known. In other words, "You can't step into the same river twice. However, Parmenides believed the opposite. He stated that knowledge is not derived at from the senses, but only through pure reason. The world was an infinite, unchanging entity, and therefore could be known. Plato combined these and stated that there were two realms of knowledge, the cognitive and the empirical. However, he still stated that things could not fully be known, because truth wasn't revealed in the physical world. Aristotle held many of the same views as Plato, but he believed that truth was inherit within nature. Therefore, knowledge was truly attainable.
Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, provided evidence for natural theology, using reason alone. Thus, he provided a platform for revelational knowledge.
Due to Aquinas' efforts, people like Michelangelo, Da Vinci, and many others were able to provide the public with great masterpieces which are still marveled at today. An example of this is the Sistine Chapel.
However, a few centuries later, Naturalism began to overcome the idealogy of Christianity and grace, because the world became based only on Cognitive and Empirical thinking yet again. This lead to the belief that Christianity has no support by "logic." This caused (and was caused by) a "Line of Despair" between the physical and the unseen. This created a boundary between Church and Science, which in turn lead to a division between Church authority and Biblical authority.
The Reformation, caused by thinkers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, was in response to the split in authority over truth. The reformers reacted by attempting to create harmony between the two worldviews (Naturalism and Christianity.) They said that indeed, the world can be physically observed, but also that science pointed to God as the ultimate authority for truth. During the period known as the Reformation, just laws began to appear for the first time in centuries by brand-new civil governments. The economy in Europe began to thrive like never before. Poverty rates went down immensely. All were impacted by this worldview.
Thanks for reading! Have a great rest of your week.
Sinceriously, Micah Sample
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Nice Shades {Intro}: My View on Worldview:
Hello Blog Readers,
(Attention: You just won awesomeness points for reading this.)
I've written on blogs before (particularly on Wordpress) but this is my first Google Blog. I hope it turns out alright... More importantly, I hope you guys enjoy reading my thoughts. Journey with me as I develop my views on a variety of issues.
In my view, a worldview is completely personal and dynamic thing in everyone's lives. It is personal, obviously, because no-one else besides you can decide how you view the world. While your worldview is changeable, nobody can force you to see something differently. In that sense, the mind is a realm of total freedom, in which you are both king and subject. Thus, as personal things aren't effected by anyone except the person himself, worldview is personal.
Nevertheless, it changes-- there are almost no thoughts or ideas which are constant truths in each person's worldview, since we all attempt to alter reality with our minds. This sort of truth-twisting happens when we justify our wrongdoings by altering our views of good and evil. But change isn't always bad-- in fact, when one changes his worldview, sometimes it is for the better. For instance, if a sadist becomes a humanitarian, he has changed his worldview for good. Humankind changes its mind, sometimes taking a step backward, and other times progressing. Thus, as dynamic things inevitably change (whether for better or worse), a worldview is dynamic.
There are many influences which contribute immensely to the formation of an individuals worldview. Things as simple as hunger and thirst can rapidly change a man's priorities when he is faced with them. Parents can help give their children opportunities to alter their beliefs while giving them instruction and discipline. Teachers, preachers, coaches, and orators can bring opportunity for change in a person's worldview swiftly by explaining the facts of life and philosophical issues. In fact, virtually anything can effect a person's worldview! It all depends on how that person responds to what they see and hear in the world.
In the Life Picture diagram shown in Keith Ogorek's insightful book, "A Clear View," I believe that Family is the most important issue. I say this simply because the other issues are far less impactful in comparison with the family. How one treats family sets precedence for how one acts in society. Thus, in order to have great society, one must have a good family basis.
Thanks to anyone who bothers to read this. :) Feel free to comment or ask questions. Good night, 'Murica.
Sinceriously,
Micah Sample
I've written on blogs before (particularly on Wordpress) but this is my first Google Blog. I hope it turns out alright... More importantly, I hope you guys enjoy reading my thoughts. Journey with me as I develop my views on a variety of issues.
In my view, a worldview is completely personal and dynamic thing in everyone's lives. It is personal, obviously, because no-one else besides you can decide how you view the world. While your worldview is changeable, nobody can force you to see something differently. In that sense, the mind is a realm of total freedom, in which you are both king and subject. Thus, as personal things aren't effected by anyone except the person himself, worldview is personal.
Nevertheless, it changes-- there are almost no thoughts or ideas which are constant truths in each person's worldview, since we all attempt to alter reality with our minds. This sort of truth-twisting happens when we justify our wrongdoings by altering our views of good and evil. But change isn't always bad-- in fact, when one changes his worldview, sometimes it is for the better. For instance, if a sadist becomes a humanitarian, he has changed his worldview for good. Humankind changes its mind, sometimes taking a step backward, and other times progressing. Thus, as dynamic things inevitably change (whether for better or worse), a worldview is dynamic.
There are many influences which contribute immensely to the formation of an individuals worldview. Things as simple as hunger and thirst can rapidly change a man's priorities when he is faced with them. Parents can help give their children opportunities to alter their beliefs while giving them instruction and discipline. Teachers, preachers, coaches, and orators can bring opportunity for change in a person's worldview swiftly by explaining the facts of life and philosophical issues. In fact, virtually anything can effect a person's worldview! It all depends on how that person responds to what they see and hear in the world.
In the Life Picture diagram shown in Keith Ogorek's insightful book, "A Clear View," I believe that Family is the most important issue. I say this simply because the other issues are far less impactful in comparison with the family. How one treats family sets precedence for how one acts in society. Thus, in order to have great society, one must have a good family basis.
Thanks to anyone who bothers to read this. :) Feel free to comment or ask questions. Good night, 'Murica.
Sinceriously,
Micah Sample
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)