By Danzil Monk (The article was published Sunday November 5, 2006 in Time Magazine) The Creation/Intelligent Design verses Evolution debate has been going on for many years. It is an important debate that needs to air out not only in the education and science community but also in the public arena. But unfortunately there are certain people and organizations on the side of evolution that insist on stacking the deck against creation science and Intelligent Design in order to convince the public that there is no real scientific debate, that evolutionists have all the science while creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are only spouting religion. Great efforts are made to convey this misinformation in the media, in public schools and institutions of higher education. One of the culprits in this campaign of misinformation is the unfortunately popular and quite liberal Time magazine. Every year Time magazine can be counted on to publish at least four major articles that attack the Judeo-Christian worldview by publishing false or misleading information that is intended to silence the truth about Christianity in particular. The field of science is a particular favorite of the magazine and you can rest assured that whenever they deal with the issue of science, their target is “Creation Science” and or Intelligent Design. Their November 5, 2006 cover story titled “God VS Science” by David Van Biema is a perfect example. Before this they published an article titled “The Evolution Wars” by Claudia Wallace. I wrote a response to that piece of deception as well and it will soon be available on this web site. But now I am going to ask you to follow me as I examine David Van Biema’s "God VS Science”. Mr. Biema opens with the following statement: “There are two great debates under the broad heading of Science vs. God” At the outset the author ignores the Creationist’s perspective, as if Creation scientists do not exist, yet creation scientists are in the mix and have been from the very beginning. It should also be noted that Intelligent Design (I.D.), has not replaced Creationism, they are two different groups. Many I.D. people are evolutionists but there are many creationists who reject Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution. Also of note is the fact that many I.D. proponents stop short of identifying who the designer is, but creation scientists boldly acknowledge the designer as God. He goes on to state: “In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of "intelligent design" (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality.” Four points need to be made here, first he attempts to make I.D. simply repackaged Creationism which it is not. Second, he says the attempt is to show “blanks in the evolutionary narrative”, but that is not correct, the attempt is to show errors and lies in the evolution story, as well as the obvious weaknesses in their claims. Third, notice how he carefully words his reference to Intelligent Design so as not to describe it as actual science. He deceptively describes I.D. as “a scientifically worded attempt”. This is typical of atheist- evolutionists and their supporters, and it is dishonest, since the scientific credentials of the leading Intelligent Design defenders are quite impeccable. The constant claim that “I.D. is not science”, is nothing more than a dirty “tactic” used by atheists and other evolutionists, in an attempt to minimize the attention and effectiveness of those Intelligent Design scientists and science educators who are effectively arguing the case for Intelligent Design. Finally, he states that the evolutionary narrative is “very convincing” in its totality. Indicating he feels that over all the evidence for evolution is “very convincing” making it clear that this will not be a fair examination of the issue. Notice that he is careful not to attempt to explain just what is so “convincing” about evolution. He goes on the say: “I.D. lost some of its journalistic heat last December when a federal judge dismissed it as pseudoscience unsuitable for teaching in Pennsylvania schools” This is a common tactic of pro-evolutionist writers; give half-truths or distorted information to make it seem as if the truth and the law were on the side of evolution. Interestingly there is no mention of the judges’ name [John Jones] or his background. Neither is there any indication of the bias agenda the judge was pursuing when he presided over the case, the details of which were exposed by the Discovery Institute’s book “Traipsing into Evolution” and in their press conference by the same title which was aired on C-span. Anyone interested in the facts about the Dover trial and Judge Jones should consult those sources. He goes on to say: “..but the antireligion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design…” Note the indicated contrast between “scientists” and “intelligent design”, he is careful not to refer to them as I.D. “scientists”. The suggestion is that I.D. people are not scientists, but this is not true. Many in the I.D. movement are indeed scientists. Also, he fails to state why the scientists are “angered” by I.D., the real reason is that I.D. has quite frankly embarrassed the scientific community by intelligently exposing the truth about evolution, namely that it is dishonest in its insistence that life originated by chance and that there is no evidence of design[1] or a designer[2]. Their inability to intelligently or evidentially refute the fact of design and the information codes contained in all life, has frustrated them to say the least. And it has driven many of them to use some quite devious tactics to avoid the public dialog on the topic, such as denying that I.D. is science at all, and refusing to acknowledge anyone as a true scientist if they believe in I.D. or Creation and reject Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution. He continues: “and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience.” They are “excited” because they have been deceived to believe that such accomplishments somehow prove that life began without and does not require a creator. Yet their blindness has prevented them from realizing that their efforts prove just the opposite; that intelligence is required to understand and engage life. Notice what he says next: “Brain imaging illustrates--in color!--the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus. Like Freudianism before it, the field of evolutionary psychology generates theories of altruism and even of religion that do not include God." This is nothing more than another example of man attempting to explain more than he has knowledge to explain. “Brain imaging” does not in any way challenge the Christian concept of a soul. But as you can see, there are those whose goal is it to remove the need for God. “Religion” is full of all kinds of faulty concepts, therefore “challenging” them is no big deal. But the true definitive Christian doctrine on the soul and spirit of humans is in no danger whatsoever of being challenged by modern technology. All those instruments show are physical reactions to emotions that are directly connected to the physical via electrical impulse and therefore show a physical reaction. There is no method or way for any man made device to monitor the soul or spirit and that is a fact. The arrogance and deception of scientists seeking to make a name for themselves seems to have no limits. And the willingness of those who are dedicated to atheism and liberalism to help spread their anti-God religion is apparent even in this article. Note the words “could” and “may” dropped in the text. This is often missed by people who read their claims but it is include because scientist have been caught in so many lies and have been forced to admit their fabrications so often that they started using such words to cover themselves so that they could deny having made the claim when it was proven wrong. This is a common game of science and the public needs to wake up to it. While some may argue that they are just trying to be precise by using such words, I would counter that if that were that case, we would not hear so much about the “FACT” of evolution, and the context of most science articles, textbooks and TV documentaries would not be so emphatic about the age of the earth, the universe and the common descent of all life on earth. His next comment is equally as subtly deceptive: "Something called the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology speculates that ours may be but one in a cascade of universes, suddenly bettering the odds that life could have cropped up here accidentally, without divine intervention. (If the probabilities were 1 in a billion, and you've got 300 billion universes, why not?)”[3] As for the “Multi-verse” concept, here is an example of stating the speculations without allowing the I.D./Creation Science response. The Multi-verse hypothesis is a mere speculation as here stated, and a most desperate one at that. Note the words “suddenly bettering the odds”, Realizing that time is a proven enemy if the dead evolution theory, evolutionists have often wondered off into the realm of fantasy to gather intelligent sounding patches for their science hoax. This too must be realized by the public, evolution science claims are more about hype for grant control money and a battle for the public perception of science integrity, than about actual advances. He then states: “But a growing proportion of the profession is experiencing what one major researcher calls "unprecedented outrage" at perceived insults to research and rationality.” What is being claimed here is that evolution scientists are outraged by what they choose to view as Intelligent Design proponents “poor” or “non-research”, and what evolutionists claim are irrational defenses of Intelligent Design as science. But the truth is that the “insults” are the I.D. and young earth Creationist’s intelligent and quite public arguments against evolution and their documented proofs that much of the theory of Charles Darwin & company has no clout; it’s fake science, a con, and evolutionists counter by dubbing any intelligent opposition as religious irrationality. This way they hope to avoid public debates that would expose their weak arguments for what they really are. Naturally they would experience “unprecedented outrage”. The exposure of their deception has been so wide spread that they are embarrassed. He goes on to say: “The market seems flooded with books by scientists describing a caged death match between science and God--with science winning,” Again, he makes misleading claim that the conflict is between “science” and “God” when the truth is that the conflict is between “God centered true science” and “atheistic or naturalistic, philosophical science”. And for the record, atheistic, philosophical science is not winning, it’s losing, that’s why they are so set on keeping the alternate view of I.D and Creation Science away from the schools and universities. And why they are so deceptive in the media and museums. The Documentary “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” gives a good example of what happens when they are faced with direct dialog and exposed to the public.[4] He continues: “..or at least chipping away at faith's underlying verities.” I am not sure of what he means by this but if he is hitting at the various views of the religious community on the evolution issue, he should be aware that evolution scientists are quite in a shamble over their differing views. While they may be “chipping away at” some unfounded view propagated by some churches (which he does not specify), they are not chipping away at the sound truths in science that are being presented by intelligent God fearing people of the science community such as those representing THE INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH, ANSWERS IN GENESIS, CREATION SCIENCE MINISTRIES, CREATION TODAY and others. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. What is amazing is that in spite of all their resources including the mainstream media, Hollywood, Network, Cable and satellite TV, the courts, universities nation-wide and the entire public school system, they are still losing this battle in the public arena, forcing them to rely on all kinds of tactics to maintain the illusion that they are credible. And the reason is because in spite of their lies and deceptions there are many reputable scientists, educators, organizations and ministries who are doing the job that God commanded them to do and people are getting the message by the grace of God. While they are “chipping away” at some of the false views of science in the churches, with the blessings of creationist and I.D. proponents, Creationist and some I.D. proponents are likewise “chipping away” at their false evolution teaching. Unfortunately the public does not often get to see this information. Those interested in getting the facts should contact CMI, answersingenesis.com or icr.org. Notice his next comment: “Dawkins is riding the crest of an atheist literary wave” Richard Dawkins is one of if not the most outspoken atheist and anti-God scientists around today. As a leader among the aggressive “new atheist” who publically states their hatred of God and religion, and do everything they can to discredit Christianity in particular and religion in general, it is no accident that the writer references him. He is clearly giving free press support to Mr. Dawkins and the atheist community, but that is not all, he wants his readers to understand the superiority of atheism over religion. The idea seems to be that the atheists are the only ones publishing a multitude of books, that they are so informed and knowledgeable of issues and events that they are flooding the publishing industry with material while the Creationist and Intelligent Design proponents are inactive in the area of publishing. Note that there is no mention of a Creationist or Intelligent Design literary wave. The writer then proceeds to list a linty of pro-evolution books and their authors. Perhaps the clearest giveaway of the author’s bias and sneaky attempt to further the cause of the religion of atheism via evolution is his list of authors and their books. Of the eleven mentioned, notably absent is any mention of a single Creation Scientist or even and Intelligent Design scientist or their books. The best he can do for those who oppose evolution and atheism is to mention them in the following manner: “Dawkins and his army have a swarm of articulate theological opponents,…” Again, notice the insinuation, the opponents of evolution are “theological” not scientific. This is the old “I. D. is just religion pretending to be science” insinuation, but it is not true. The fact is that many of their I.D. and creationists opponents are scientist and educators of the highest quality. But to let their readers know this would be to defeat their purpose. The deception is to convince the public that there are no true scientists who reject evolution; that only ignorant religious people believe in creation and I.D. Then he makes the dishonest statement: “..the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science,” In addition to being untrue, this is an outright insult to the many anti-evolutionists scientist who have defended the concept of creation against evolution using science, because of their love of God and science. It is also an insult to the many teachers who have dedicated their lives to teaching the truth about the scientific fallacy of evolution because they do love science. It is interesting that he does not list who those “ardent, theological opponents” are. Again, their goal is to make you believe that there are no true scientists who are creationists or who believe in Intelligent Design. Fortunately organizations such as Answers in Genesis have compiled a list of well known scientist who are creationists and posted them on their web site.[5] He continues by saying that: “Most Americans occupy the middle ground…” It would have been more prudent of the writer to first state his statistics as to why he feels that he knows what “most” American feel about the issue. The fact is that most Americans are still creationist, this is something that even evolutionist admit. He continues: “And to balance formidable standard bearers like Dawkins, we seek those who possess religious conviction but also scientific achievements to credibly argue the widespread hope that science and God are in harmony--that, indeed, science is of God.” (Emphasis mine) So it seems that most Americans require anti-evolutionists to have made a “scientific achievement” in order for them to be qualified to “credibly” argue the matter. Just being scientifically educated is not enough for the evolution rejectors. The truth is that Americans do not require a scientist to have made “scientific achievements” in order to be accepted as a valid scientists, or to be qualified to argue against evolution claims, nor do evolutionists require such people as Richard Dawkins or the many other evolutionist-atheist who “argue” for evolution to have made any such “scientific Achievements”. Why? I should mention that Richard Dawkins is not “formidable” to informed creationists, Dr. Johnathan Sarfati Ph. D., F.M. has done a wonderful job exposing Dawkins in his book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth” Refuting Dawkins on Evolution" a refutation of Dawkin’s book “The Greatest Show On Earth”. As for the so-called “widespread hope that science and God are in harmony—that, indeed, science is of God”, for true creationists this is not a “hope” that must be argued, it is a truth that needs to be and is being defended. It is not God and true science that are out of sync with each other but true science and naturalistic science that are far from harmony. This is due to the insincerity of naturalistic scientist and evolutionist in general. Notice his next comment: “But foremost of those arguing for common ground is Francis Collins.” Francis Collins may be the best that he can offer of those seeking common ground but what about those who are not seeking “common Ground” but rather are seeking to expose the fallacy of evolution and establish the integrity of Creation Science in the public arena of ideas? The author seems to be uninterested in even mentioning such people. Not one scientist from Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research or Creation Ministries International was even mentioned. Why? Because in the author’s opinion they are not worth mentioning, they are in fact too troublesome to give any publicity to. But the real reason is because their arguments are the most damaging affront to the message of evolution. So, although Collins is touted as the authority in the “Christian community” on matters of science, the truth is that he is not a champion defender of the Christian view of evolution or creation from the scientific perspective. Collins is a liberal Catholic who has little respect for the Bible, and who lacks the integrity to be honest about the flaws of the evolution claims that render it a poor substitute for the God of Creation. Collins and those scientists like him are not defenders of true science, but are scientists who while having contributed famously to true science, have used their fame to become agents of evolution deception, and are being paid very well for doing so. Collins and others like him are often presented as if they represent the Christian perspective of science, but in truth, they represent the atheist agenda to legitimize the false idea of Neo-Darwinian evolution. The debate which follows between Collins and Dawkins only proves my point that Francis Collins is a poor representative of the Christian perspective on the Creation / evolution debate. Note the following comments by Collins: “ I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.” “By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution,” It seems that Time Magazine is careful to select “Christians” who are scientists, but who are not representative of the biblical creation science perspective. I have proven on several occasions the clear bias of Time Magazine writers against creationism and for evolution. Anyone who trusts in the integrity of Time Magazine to present the truth is making a serious mistake. Your comments and suggestions are welcome. [1] As with so many of their past claims, they are changing their views on these and are now attempting to redefine chance evolution as natural process and acknowledging design but by natural cause. [2] Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer is a good example. [3] This “why not” question indicates the writers convictions on the topic. He is an evolutionist. This will become even more clear later in this article. [4] See my article: “Expelled excels in spite of Nemesis” [5] www.answersingenesis.org DR. MICHAEL BROWN’S ENGAGES A HOMOSEXUAL /PROHOMOSEXUAL RESPONDER, BUT HE COULD HAVE DONE BETTER.7/11/2017 Recently, Dr. Michael Brown published a Tweet dialogue he had with a “gay” activist who was replying to his article “Yes, Gay activists are after your children”. Because it is a good example of how many of them think of us Christians and how they respond to attempts at rational, intelligent conversation I thought it would be good to share it along with my brief commentary as to possible ways that Dr. Brown could have better replied to her. Many of these homosexuals have been abused by so called Christians an others have just been “brainwashed” to believe that all Christians are mean and evil because we oppose homosexuality. The following is the complete exchange between Dr. Brown and Kathryn Brightbill. With my comments. In response to a tweet about my article, “Yes, Gay Activists Are After Your Children,” a woman named Kathryn Brightbill responded, “You're so ridiculously paranoid, why, it's almost like you're projecting the religious right's targeting of children on everyone else.” MLB: When there's a thunder storm, it's not being paranoid to say it's raining. But in candor, your tweet seems like projection to me. So, let's deal with substance. Please point out to me any source that I manufactured in my article. It's all quite accurate. While this was a good reply he should have been more direct to her comment. I would have added, yes we target, but our targeting is to help and yours is to corrupt. What is your point? KB: Says the guy who's part of the religious right, an entire movement centered on turning children like me into foot soldiers for theocracy. MLB: Actually, I don't work with anyone who wants anything resembling a theocracy, as I've stated time and time again. Does truth matter to you? From your bio here, I'd expect some substantive interaction, not throwing out empty (and false) rhetoric. Show me what I misrepresented. And show me where I have ever in 40+ years of ministry advocated for any kind of theocracy. This is a good reply, forcing the issue of her irrational accusations. KB: Your entire movement is trying to implement a theocracy and you're targeting queer kids in the process because you're soulless evil. MLB: So, you repeat your lies and buttress them with vicious insults? I truly expect better of people, perhaps wrongly so. Extraordinary. I would have added, perhaps you can document my representation of the “entire movement” and my contribution to implementing a theocracy. If not, will you admit you lied? Or do you consider yourself to be beyond the need to acknowledge your dishonesty? KB: You're adorable. Just because you say it's not a theocracy doesn't mean you're not trying to make your anti-LGBT beliefs have force of law. MLB: I might [as] well as say to you, "Just because you didn't threaten to shoot me tonight doesn't mean you don't intend to." Meaningless rhetoric. This was a mistake on Dr. Brown’s part. He should know that they look for any kind of excuse to twist our comments in their favor and so he should never give them such wiggle room by saying something that could easily be misapplied. A simple reply of: “True, but it is also true that just because you say I am trying to set up a theocracy does not mean I actually am doing so, what is your point in just making accusation without backing them up? Is it your method to just plaster people with false accusations and hope your trusting reader believe what you say? KB: Now you're implying I'm threatening you as a rhetorical device. You're sick and dishonest and you need to reevaluate your life. Goodnight. MLB: Wow, wow, wow. What an incredibly revealing interaction. I speak the truth to you and ask for substance, you reply with lies & venom. Clear. While Dr. Brown is correct here, he does not take advantage of the moment by first apologizing for using an example that she could so easily twist out of context, and then simply Assured here that was not his intention and that he did not feel in the least bit threatened by her. This would have rendered her comment ineffective and petty. KB: Just because you call something lies and venom doesn't make it so, dearie. Maybe you should stop implying someone might make threats. MLB: Fact: You've stated lies about me repeatedly. Second, I used an illustration to make a point of putting words into people's mouths. Notice that she still milks her accusation because he has no stated why her interpretation of his comment was incorrect. KB: Your entire career is one giant mass of lies about LGBT people, it would take all night to scratch the surface. MLB: First, most of my ministry activity doesn't focus on LGBT people. Activism came to my door, and I respond[ed]. Second, show me just 1 lie. All I hear from you is invective, false accusations, & hyperbole, while I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt & waiting for substance. KB: You repeating over and over that we're recruiting children is a damn lie and a sick one. You need to repent of your lies about LGBT people. MLB: What do I mean by recruiting children? I mean seeking to indoctrinate them, as I said explicitly in my article. Don't you want to do that? Don't you want them to believe that same-sex marriage is fine? Don't you want them to be open to being trans? This is why our use of key words must be carefully chosen and defined, they will zero in on any word that can intelligently be misconstrued or misapplied. Now it is true that they will do so with any word we use, but the point is to use words so carefully that when they do misinterpret them, it is clearly an intentional misinterpretation. We should never make it easy for them. KB: The only people indoctrinating children is the religious right. I don't believe in indoctrinating kids. You do. You're projecting. MLB: So, you do NOT like what all the gay educators have been doing for years, as cited in my article? You OPPOSE GLSEN? I didn't know that. As for "the religious right" indoctrinating kids, we want to teach our own kids about our faith. We're not trying to teach your kids. OK? I would not have added “We're not trying to teach your kids. OK?” Because the truth is that he would and we would at every opportunity. What he may have meant is that we do not infiltrate your private space or public schools to do so as you all do. KB: If you want to talk indoctrination, let's talk about the right brainwashing LGBT kids to hate themselves and driving them to suicide. MLB: You didn't answer me. Do you NOT support GLSEN? Do you NOT support those I quoted in my article? As for the message we bring to LGBT kids, it is one of the greatness of God's love, that we're created in His image but fallen, and that Jesus died for our sins and will deliver us from suicide and depression and fear. He does it all the time! It's a message of life. Dr. Brown missed an opportunity here to challenge her irrational accusation, I would have asked how telling someone that they are destroying their lives by committing unnatural acts against their nature, and that God loves them and wants to make their lives better as He intended it to be, was driving them to suicide? And why she would deny a person’s personal responsibility for self-preservation and put it on the expressed opinions of others? KB: Just because you believe in brainwashing kids and not letting them think doesn't mean others do too. MLB: What brainwashing? What are you talking about? And do parents NOT have the right to teach their kids about God? I would have asked her to define “brainwashing” and if she did give the dictionary definition, (which is unlikely since they love making up their own definitions for key words), I would point out that if what we do is brainwashing, they how would she define what they do, which is force their view on others. KB: If your "faith" teaches LGBT kids that their God hates them, it's an apostasy from the pit of hell. MLB: My faith doesn't teach that, and I have told the opposite to LGBT's for years. Why do you keep manufacturing lies? Please deal with truth. I would have added a question- how she arrives at her conclusions about people, by accepting what she reads about them from others that don’t like them? Because it is apparent that she is not interested in doing careful research about Christian public figures before she draws bad conclusions about them. KB: Yes, it does. Or do you need me to quote back the tweet where you described being gay as "fallen"? We both know what that means. MLB: Every human being is fallen! I've said that 10,000 times. We're ALL fallen and broken and in need of a Redeemer. You're projecting again. A better reply would have been, on what do you base your definition of “fallen” as being “hated by God”? I would challenge her knowledge of what true Christianity teaches. And I would have said, if she cannot get my teaching right, why should anyone trust her opinion of me. KB: Besides, you know full well that's not just what the right does. You try to turn us into brainwashed political footsoldiers. I lived it. MLB: I've been following Jesus for 45+ years & haven't the slightest clue what you're referring to. Once again, you're projecting. What if I tell you, "You know full well the left is setting up concentration camps for the right"? How would you respond? You're doing this. If you were hurt personally, I'm sorry for that, but don't broad brush millions of good people. Tonight, here, the hate's not coming from me. I think here Dr. Brown should not have said that he did not have the slightest clue what she was referring to, because it seems dishonest even if it is true, given his extensive research and publications on the topic. Though he may indeed not be aware of any Christian “brainwashing” tactics, he does know that good Christian churches do a decent job of training their youth on things to watch out for. To a dishonest liberal-leftist, that would be twisted to being brainwashing political foot soldiers. I would have challenged her to explain why their methods of training people was not brainwashing them to be political foot soldiers. I would have ended with an expression of sympathy for the abuse she feels she has suffered, and remind her that poor conduct by some Christians does not make all Christians bad. KB: Dude, stop playing dumb. Generation Joshua, Summit, Teen Pact, all created to brainwash church kids into religious right footsoldiers. MLB: Dude? Please. And I'm not playing dumb. We teach kids to love Jesus and love others. You call it "religious right footsoldiers." What if I looked at how you raise your kids and came up with some gruesome description like, "godless terrorists"? You're doing that. Good, he is challenging her accusation and pointing out what it is an error. But he could have been more direct. Our teaching our children to identify and avoid ungodly behavior, and how to refute their unsound arguments cannot rationally be defined as brainwashing, though making them foot soldiers could be acceptable. But that would also apply to those trained by them. KB: Dude, I lived it. I was trained to be a good little religious right foot soldier, but thankfully your side failed miserably. MLB: I know folks raised by lesbians and it messed up their lives, then Jesus changed them. Do I demonize all lesbians then? You demonize us. I would have added, that she has not explained what she “experienced” as a “Christian” trainee, and so I am at a lost to be able to reply to her claims. And that experience has nothing to do with me. KB: I love how you've once again brought up accusations of violence as a rhetorical device. You're quite the slippery fish. MLB: You're implying ugly & false things about me & you can't get through one tweet without an insult. The junk is in you, not me. Think about it. I would have asked, what in my comment was an accusation of violence? There seems to be a communication problem here, are you redefining words, if so I would need you to define how your are redefining common words so that I can better communicate with you. (They love twisting normal word meaning). KB: I answered your questions, but you're too busy indoctrinating and brainwashing church kids to see that you're projecting. Goodnight. #done. MLB: First, how am I indoctrinating church kids when I'm interacting with you? Second, to be clear, you OPPOSE GLSEN & those I quoted? I would have said, it is interesting that you would say that I did not answer your questions when our dialogue is public and can be read for anyone to see. And since you have ignored my question about opinion of GLSEN and the other homosexual organizations I mentioned in my article. Do you all operate by a double standard that does not hold you accountable for things you clearly try to hold others accountable for? Dr. Brown concludes with these words: And that was the end of our exchange. I did, however, check her tweets the next day, from which I learned that she was involved with Operation Rescue as a child, hence the reference to “religious right footsoldiers.” My prayer for Kathryn is that if she was raised to follow the one true God that she would return to the faith of her youth. But if she was raised in hypocritical, man-made religious traditions – and consequently, deeply wounded by that – my prayer is that she will discover the one true God. He will melt her with His love. By Danzil Monk © Copy Right all rights reserved There is no question that there are many disagreements among professing Christians. Not only on biblical doctrine but also around the issues of politics, science, sociology, psychology, and other points of study. Even the cause of many of their disagreements cannot be agreed upon by the various groups that make up the visible Christian church. Why? Because Man is a sinner, and even those within the confines of the Christian faith have not all learned to walk in the Spirit of God who saved them. Carnality still commands far too much control over the hearts and minds of those who claim to have made Jesus the Lord of their lives.[1] Indeed, it is this sin of carnality that lies at the root of the conflict between professing Christians. Another factor, (though many within Christianity tend to avoid discussing the possibility), is that many of those professing to be “Born Again”, have never truly experienced the New Birth. This I believe accounts for many of the serious conflicts within the ranks of the visible church.[2] However, while sin may be the major factor, it is clearly not the only factor. There are other causes that affect even those who are truly saved and sincerely striving to please God and live the kind of life that he demands of us. One of those primary causes of conflict is error through a lack of knowledge that leads to miss-information, misinterpretation, and the misapplication of the word of God. When believers fail to properly study and use unreliable sources, whether uninformed or unlearned ministers or books, CD’s DVD’s or tapes that contain false information, and except those erroneous views and propagate them without establishing their validity, they contribute to the problem. It is unfortunate but true that far to many of us except what we hear our teachers or ministers say and what we read in books or on the internet and see on TV or hear on the radio, CD’s and DVD’s without checking it out to verify it’s validity. If it sounds good we except it, if it comes from someone whom we respect and believe has a great knowledge of the word of God we take it to be fact without subjecting it to scrutiny. Some even dare to trust their source because they like the way they look and sound. To do so however places too much trust in the sources. The bible tells us to “prove all things” and to “hold fast to that which is good.”[3] Granted, to do so requires a great deal of effort and can be tedious work at times but this is necessary if we are to uphold and benefit from the truth. I am also aware of the pressure that this kind of statement puts on pastors, ministers and teachers, and some may resent it, however, that’s a small price to pay in order to ensure that Gods people are given the kind of sound information that they need to grow in the truth of Gods word since so much is riding on our accurate Biblical knowledge. Those of us who are preaching to and teaching people ought to be willing to be questioned about what we have thought and we ought to have an intelligent answer, and more importantly the correct answer. The lack of proper study and command of accurate teaching on a sufficient verity of important biblical subjects has been a serious problem for many churches and it has resulted in the miss education of the saints as well as the misrepresentation of our faith to the world and those who are hostile towards our faith. This kind of representation of Jesus Christ is unacceptable and inexcusable. While it is rarely admitted or even discussed, non-the less it is true that when we error in our doctrine, or practice carnal behavior we give apparent legitimacy to those who attack us as cults or false teachers. Moreover, we give the cultist and the Atheist and all other hostiles assistance in drawing seeker to their lies. Use the most reliable source and resources. While it is important that we give our leaders honor and appreciate their labor to provide us with the knowledge of God’s word, we should never consider them as the final authority on spiritual matters or on the word of God. We should understand that no one is beyond error and therefore everyone’s teaching should be scrutinized and his or her correctness confirmed. We should strive to make sure that they and we use the most reliable resources and sources. Failure to do so weakens our conclusions and arguments and can result in serious error. Study carefully. Many errors are the result of careless study habits. Failing to be diligent in our method of study and very careful of how we examine what we are examining can result in confusion and misconception. Such misconceptions are then often past on the others and propagates false teaching that harm others. Make sure that your conclusions are correct. Coming to hasty conclusions without carefully rechecking all possibilities and sincerely allowing the evidence to speak for itself is another cause of error. Ignoring important facts and evidence in order to hold on to a faulty view is not only unproductive but it is dishonest. Truth does not need to be defended with tricks and dishonest games whether oral or literary, wile it requires much study to ensure correctness, it is necessary. Never assume that you have all the answers. It is arrogance to think that you have all the answers; only God can make such a claim. Anytime we feel that we have arrived and are the epitome of Biblical knowledge we expose our folly and unworthiness of teaching others. It is wisdom to seek out the knowledge the knowledge of others who are reputable and to share views to sharpen your understanding. Never except weak arguments Many believers who are eager to honor their teachers often except anything that they say without question, this is fine when they are correct in what they say, but when they are clearly putting forth weak arguments to substantiate there point, it is wrong to just except it without question. Even though some leaders find it offensive for laymen or other ministers to “question” their teaching, this is necessary in order get at the truth. Questioning teachers in sincerity (not for argumentation in disrespect) on points where they are not strong forces them to dig deeper or acknowledge their lack of knowledge and all are benefited. Become acquainted with the structure of the bible Understanding the structure of the Bible will enable you to see and understand the big picture, and properly apply the principles of Biblical interpretation. Learn the history of our Bible. Knowing the history not only of how the Bible came to us, but the detailed history that the Bible covers is an essential knowledge for anyone seeking to share the truth of God’s word with others correctly. Such knowledge is also a mandatory defense against Atheist and others who would pervert the history. Knowing the language of the Bible. Knowing the original language of the Bible is without a doubt the most difficult part of necessary Bible study. So difficult that the average Christian usually passes on this requirement. While I fully understand the apprehension, I must still impress upon you the great importance that such understanding has for the believer. While we can do well without such knowledge if we have become proficient in using lexicons and other reference materials that give us the accurate meanings and applications of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words, we would do far better if we actually knew the languages. Understanding the principles of Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation, the method by which we determine the actual meaning of a test. It is therefore obvious why such knowledge is important. Failure to understand and apply the proper principles of hermeneutics can and has resulted in the worst kind of misinterpretation of Bible texts. Walk in the Spirit of Love. Only by truly walking in the spirit of love can we be properly inspired and motivated to do all that we should be for God. And this motivation will drive us to accomplish most if not all of what has been discussed in this article as requirements for our spiritual excellence. Pray without ceasing for God’s wisdom. Since it is a fact that God will answer prayer, we must be ever prayerful for God’s wisdom and help in developing into the kind of people that will truly and consistently glorify Him in all that we do and say. [1] This issue is discussed in detail in my lesson series “THE CREATION AND FALL OF MAN” and “SALVATION”. [2] I believe that plain old carnality in baby believers (some of whom claim to be mature), accounts for most of the problems. [3] 1 thess. 5:21 “WE ARE SUFFICIENT OF OURSELVES TO THINK ANYTHING OF OURSELVS; BUT OUR SUFFICIENCY IS OF GOD” (2 Corin. 3:5)” That verse of scripture above is a most profound truth stated by the Apostle Paul that we all, especially those of us who are Christians who have been born from above must never forget. When things are going well for us, our bills are paid, we have many friends and find it difficult to think of someone who does not like us, we have our health, no pain in our body and each organ seem to be functioning well, etc., it is very easy to forget that each and every day we owe our existence to the God who created us. Those among us who have been particularly blessed with what seems to be greater gifts of knowledge, skills or other abilities that seem to excel over those abilities of others, hold that dubious distinction of being even more prone to think more of themselves than they should. But I caution you, please apply yourselves to defeating that thought, for it is a most unpleasant thing to God. You see, it is a kind of pride that God hates (Proverbs 6:16-17, 8:13,) And so, we are instructed by Paul in Romans 12:2 to keep our egos in check: “FOR I SAY, THROUGH THE GRACE GIVEN TO ME, TO EVERY MAN THAT IS AMONG YOU, NOT TO THINK OF HIMSELF MORE HIGHLY THAN HE OUGHT TO THINK; BUT TO THINK SOBERLY, ACCORDING AS GOD HAS DEALT TO EVERY MAN THE MEASURE OF FAITH”. Paul further expands the divine prohibition against ego-tripping when he warns against comparing ourselves with each other in a competitive manner, that leads to a superiority complex. “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” (2 Corin. 10:12) There is truly no reason for any of us to feel superior to others for any reason since all of our ability (that some of us may think makes us so important), comes from God. Jesus said “WITHOUT ME YOU CAN DO NOTHING” James tried to remind us that our life is nothing more than “A MIST THAT APPEARS BUT FOR A MOMENT AND THEN VANISHES AWAY” And a dear friend of mine, Dr. Johnny James has often said that in Genesis 2:7 The Bible tells us that God “FORMED MAN OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND”, and you know what happens to dust when it gets stuck on itself, it becomes MUD. So, indeed, we have no reason to boast. And what of those who have been blessed with an abundance of money and are as they say, well off. Surely they have a right to boast don’t they? Not at all, you see, God has much to say to them as well. Kind David while giving thanks in prayer to God during the offering time, made this profound statement to deflate any among them who felt that by giving much, they were deserving of some great reconditions or honor. “BUT WHO AM I, AND WHAT IS MY PEOPLE, THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO OFFER SO WILLINGLY AFTER THIS SORT? FOR ALL THINGS COME OF YOU, AND OF YOUR OWN HAVE WE GIVEN YOU. ALL THIS STORE THAT WE HAVE PREPARED ....COMES OF YOUR HAND, AND IS ALL YOUR OWN” (1 Chronicles 29:14, 16) Did you get that? I know it is difficult to wrap around that massive ego of some who suffer from pride due to their abundance, but David puts things in perspective when he reminds us that everything we have that we give to God, ALREADY BELONGS TO HIM. What amazing kindness that God would allow us to give Him what already belongs to Him, and still bless us for doing so. This is why Paul told Timothy to warn the believers who were rich not to be high minded, “NOR TRUST IN UNCERTAIN RICHES, BUT IN THE LIVING GOD, WHO GIVES US RICHLY ALL THINGS TO ENJOY. THAT THEY DO GOOD WORKS, THAT THEY BE RICH IN GOOD WORKS, READY TO DISTRIBUTE, WILLING TO COMMUNICATE; LAYING UP IN STORE FOR THEMSELVES A GOOD FOUNDATION AGAINST THE TIME TO COME, THAT THEY MAY LAY HOLD ON ETERNAL LIFE”. (1 Timothy 6:17-19) While rebuking the Church of Corinth for their division and people praise, Paul reminded them that everything each of them had by way of knowledge, they got it from an outside source from themselves, saying: “..WHAT DO YOU HAVE THAT YOU DID NOT RECEIVE? NOW IF YOU DID RECEIVE IT, WHY DO YOU GLORY, AS IF YOU HAD NOT RECEIVED IT?” (1 Corin. 4:7) Earlier Jesus said in JOHN 3:27 that “A MAN CAN RECEIVED NOTHING, EXCEPT IT BE GIVEN HIM FROM HEAVEN”. Our pastor is a wonderful example of balance when it comes to handling success; although he is a celebrity, he does not permit his success to interfere with his calling as a Christian. While he encourages us to be successful financially, educationally and spiritually, he also reminds us of our obligation to God to be first and foremost, examples of the believer. When he speaks of his success, it is always in the context of God’s grace and mercy and never as a boast of what he has accomplished on his own. Whatever we are that is good, and whatever we do well, all praise belongs to God and not ourselves or others, we must be example of gratitude to the most High. We should never allow arrogance and pride to rob us of our reward from God. |
Categories |