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

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.)

"There is no knowledge in Sheol-- where you are going."

Death is the Great Unknown. No one understands what it is really like. No living man has experienced it-- at least, not in its fullest sense. Some, like the Serpent from the beginning of Time, claim that "You surely shall not die." But others accept that the end of each man is death-- they fear it. And rightfully so.
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