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












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.)

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

"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

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




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