Books, Books, & More Books!

Apologies, I was away on the Darling Downs for a few days!

I mentioned in my previous blog that I was reading Ray Comfort's The Way of the Master. The edition I'm reading goes for about 343 pages. So far, so good. I was going great guns with it (I'm now at page 233) until I picked up Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol. Man, what a page-turning, ripping yarn that one is! How does he know all that technical stuff about modern scientific technology? Gadgets and gizmos! Masons and mysteries! Murder and mayhem! Decoys and distractions! I'm up to page 199 of the 509 paged hard cover edition.

I wish I could read faster. I wish I could remember a lot more of what I read! While reading these two books I am trying to write a piece expounding The Apostles' Creed.

All was going well (sort of - and of course, I was ripping through the Book of Psalms at the same time as all of this!)) until I got home late Friday afternoon and found that a copy of Alexander Tait's The Cup had arrived on my doostep all the way from bonnie Scotland. Ray and Dan are going to have to wait until I've read The Cup.

You see, Alexander Tait is a friend of mine (okay, call me a name-dropper). Anyway, some of you who bother to read my blogs will also know Alexander Tait as Billy Scobie fae the Vale. I immensely enjoyed his previous book Whisky in the Jar - about agoraphobia, illicit whisky distilling on Loch Lomondside, among other things - a great read!

Anyway, maybe sometime in the future I'll blog about each of the books I've mentioned thus far (if I ever finish my present reading regime!)

O, and check out The Apostles' Creed. Then maybe you'll be interested in reading my exposition of it (if I ever get around to finishing it - what, with all these books I have to read!)

Ah, it's great to be back in my comfy blog chair - warp factor four, Scotty!

The Bananaman Gets My Vote!

A friend lent me a book by Ray Comfort called The Way of the Master. I'm only up to page 57, so I won't yet comment on the book. Perhaps when I'm finished reading it... Mind you, I quite liked his Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution book. I also like the fact that Ray Comfort gives away free DVD's and CD's with his books!

Anyway, why am I'm blogging about Ray Comfort? Well, I was "Googling" Ray Comfort to try to find out what he's all about when I noticed that he wants to debate Richard Dawkins (who allegedly refers to Ray Comfort as "an ignorant fool.")

Ray has apparently offered Dawkins $10,000 for the pleasure of his company in a debate. I think that amount has been upped to $20,000. But alas! Mr Dawkins keeps on declining! (Big fearty!)

I just think it would be a real treat to see two people with no (formal) theological training debate theology! (Theo(s) = God, logy = subject of study or interest). Mind you, clearly Ray has studied and is interested in God a lot more than Richard has and is!

Therefore, should this debate ever come about, my money (not that I'm a gambling man!) is on Ray any day! The "Bananaman" has my vote!

Find out more about "The Banana Man" and what he is all about by clicking the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k

THE DAWKINS DELUSION

I've just finshed re-reading Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion. Alister McGrath is an ex-atheist and is presently Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University. Having studied in chemistry and researched in the field of biophysics he knows his way round the science lab.

His book The Dawkins Delusion is, of course, a response and rebuttal to and of the rant of Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion.

Maybe sometime in the future (if God spares him) Dawkins can have a go at dismantling the Triune God rather than raving on about whacko religious people who believe and do crazy stuff - as he does in The God Delusion! Tackle God next time Richard, I dare you!

Also, perhaps Dawkins would like to show us where, eg, Adolf Hitler went wrong in his application of The Theory of Evolution. Yes, perhaps Dawkins could do one of those How To books. "You all know the theory, now let's all put it into practice!" "But isn't that what that maniacal nut-case Adolf Hitler tried to do?" "Er..."

Frankly, I much prefer tried and true Reformed Christianity!

Anyway, back to The Dawkins Delusion. I like the way McGrath conludes his book with the following:

"Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. Sadly, sociological studies of charismatic leaders - religious and secular - indicate that Dawkins may be right to place some hope in this strategy. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support. Yet the fact that Dawkins relies so excessively on rhetoric, rather than the evidence that would otherwise be his natural stock in trade, clearly indicates that something is wrong with his case. Ironically, the ultimate achievment of The God Delusion for modern atheism may be to suggest that this emperor has no clothes to wear. Might atheism be a delusion about God?"

CHRISTIAN JUSTICE

Does something need to be done with a legal system that doesn’t believe in justice?

It was reported in Australia: “A British judge is at the centre of an investigation after he freed a child rapist who then kidnapped and raped another youngster [a five year old] just eight days later.”

There also are judges in America who don’t believe in justice either, releasing rapists back into the community without them having spent any time in prison.

In Australia there is an unrepentant repeat paedophile being shunted from one location to another because of public outcry, many gathering outside his various homes in protest of him roaming free in their community.

Apparently the parents of the first victim in the British rape case (see above) “who are devout Christians” forgave the serial rapist. (However, we need to know that God only forgives those who repent of their sins!)

Yes! It is great not to harbour a spirit of hatred that seeks revenge. But what does this have to do with justice? Since when did Christians, even “devout Christians”, stop believing in justice? A child, two children, were raped by this young rapist.

According to a newspaper article “The latest victim’s father said: ‘Our son was abused not only by this lad, but also in effect by the British [English?] legal system that was supposed to protect him.’”

As a Christian I heartily agree with this statement. The legal system is for the protection of the innocent.

For the record, here’s a little of what Christians actually believe regarding justice:

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment upon themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good and you will have the praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” Romans 13:1-4.

“Therefore submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 1 Peter 2:13-14.

If God did not believe in justice then He would never have sent His only begotten Son to the cross to pay for all of our sins.

May the rapists and the judges who release them see the horror of what they are doing. And may justice, Christian justice, soon be restored in the land.

WHO AM I?

I saw an advert on the Net for Genes Reunited which, directed at me said, "Neil, Find Out Who You Are."

No doubt it's all about finding out my family tree. But it got me to thinking: Who am I?

Am I Scottish? Am I Canadian? Am I Australian? I have been, and still am, each of these (it just depends on who I'm talking to at the time!)

Am I a Plumber? Am I a Presbyterian Minister? Am I an Army Chaplain? I am mostly an Army Chaplain at the moment, but cannot discount the others.

But do we measure who we are by our nationality or what we do or both?

I'm also a husband, a father, and a grandfather, as well as a brother.

I'm a pet-owner. I'm a singer. I'm a song-writer. I'm a writer. I am sure I am many other things too! I think I've reinvented myself more times than the pop singer Madonna!

The bottom line is that I already know who I am.

I am a citizen of Heaven. I am an adopted son of God. I am an (albeit at the moment imperfect) image of God. Yes, being Triune, God is therefore one yet many, unity in diversty. So am I!

I can see that I reflect God somewhat in many things. That's good enough for me!

A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL

We wouldn’t need to speculate about our origins or about the origin of the universe if we could access accurate information from an observer who was there in the beginning. But what would we do with such information were it available to us? Would we discard it out of hand because it does not fit our presuppositions about ourselves or about the universe in which we live? Would we adjust it by adding to and taking away from the information as our presuppositions determine? Or would we accept the information and continue to seek a greater and a deeper understanding of the information given?

In every court of law when witnesses are called to testify they are cross-examined as to their character: character lends to the credibility of their testimony. We have information about our origins and the origin of the universe given us by an observer who was there in the beginning: the Triune God.

Because it does not fit with his presuppositions about biological life the Darwinian Evolutionist rejects even the very notion of revelation from God – rejecting therefore what the Bible has to say about the creation of the universe and biological life. Thus the Darwinian Evolutionist begins his study of biological life by an outright rejection of God and the revelation God has given in His written Word.

Upon this Atheistic premise then the Darwinian Evolutionist relegates God and His Word to some nefarious realm he derogatorily calls ‘faith’ (by which he means anything that does not fit his own set of Naturalistic presuppositions!) The Darwinist alleges that he deals only in facts. Thus, when considering the creation around him, the Darwinian Evolutionist does so with a total disregard of the input of theology – though paradoxically he finds he needs to expend a lot of time and effort attacking the theology he bars from influencing his worldview!

Jonathan Sarfati explains a little the method of interpretation based on assumption as used by Naturalists such as Evolutionists:

"It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.
"Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc."[1] Thus Safarti.

Because Darwinian Evolutionist assumptions are based upon the philosophy of Materialism the supernatural is vehemently denied. Thus Naturalists believe (i.e., have faith) that the natural is all there is – that the physical universe is the sum total of all things. Then the Darwinian Evolutionist reads back into the very origins of the universe what he considers to be the process of Natural Selection on earth – assuming that the process of Natural Selection is a true and accurate copy of the original. But in the final analysis Natural Selection is a mechanism or a process, and as such, cannot be at the same time that which originated itself. A process must have a means other than itself in order to come into being.

For the Darwinian Evolutionist the primary question therefore still remains: How could the Natural Selection process come into being from nothing? How can something come from nothing? Evolution is a philosophy with no platform of support. The Evolutionist has no soapbox to stand on while he preaches his Materialistic doctrines. This is what happens when philosophy divorces itself from theology – as Evolutionism has done.

[1] Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Internet.

SEEING THE LIGHT!

I'm a bit loath to try another joke, seeing as no one thought my last effort funny! Anyway, I'm sure I heard Billy Connolly tell this one (and, of course, he tells it better than I ever could!):

This man comes into the doctor's surgery. "Who are you?" says the doctor as the man enters.

"I'm a moth," promptly replies the man.

"You're a moth? What makes you think that you're a moth?"

I don't think I'm a moth. I AM a moth!"

"Let's get this straight," says the doctor with a concerned tone in his voice. "You believe that you are a moth?"

"I don't believe that I am a moth. I AM a moth!"

The doctor looks him in the eye and says, "If you're a moth, then you should go and see a psychiatrist. Why did you come here?

The man replied, "I was going past your window when I saw your light was on!"

(PS I know that the picture above is not of a moth but of some sort of Tasmanian butterfly (the Meadow Argus) - because I took the photo! However, I posted it to try to help with the humour!)

Pacific Island Nations Devastation

As our prayers go up to God, so our hearts go out to those suffering devatation from the earthquakes and resulting tsunamis in those Pacific Island nations affected.

Communication breakdown, loss of property, injury, fear, and more tragic, the loss of loved ones brings much misery indeed.

It is in times like these that we seriously seek solace in our God through Jesus Christ.

The following is in the Samoan language. It is meant as an encouragement. It and other pieces of encouragement (in Samoan) may be found on my Website by clicking the following:

http://web.mac.com/macfhionn/Site/1._O_le_Faatusa_ole_Atua.html

O le faatusa o le Atua

O le Atua Tolu Tasi e tumu o ia i faamanuiaga matagofie mo le tagata. Sa ia foai mai lona lava faatusa I tauala mai I faatusa e 5 ina ia mafai ona matagofie lona foafoaina o le lalolagi:
1, sosogi (taste); 2, tago poo pa’i (touch); 3, faalogo (hear); 4, pupula (sight); ma le 5, manogi (smell).

Ma, i ona lava tamatamai-lima, sa ia tusia le tulafono o le alofa i lana tama’i fa’ata a’o ia feulaina atu le manava ola ia te ia. O le Atua le Tama, le Atua le Alo ma le Atua le Agaga Paia e faavae ile alofa i lo latou Atua Tolu-Tasi, ma o le faatusa lea na saunia e le Atua Tolu-Tasi i lona foafoaina ole tagata ola ina ia alofa atu i le Atua faapea ona tagata tuaoi I le faamaoni, usiusitai ma le faamaualalo.

Sa totoina e le Atua le faatoaga. Sa ia tuuina atu iai lana tama’i fa’ata, ma le fiafia ma le ‘mavaega o galuega’ sa osia ina ia tonu le la mafutaga. O le iuga o le maliu ona o le le usitai, e sau faatasi ai ma le tautoga o le ola e faavavau pe a usitai ma alofa. O iina, na aumaia ai le tagata, o le tama’i fa’ata a le Atua, ma tuuina atu I le faatoaga sa ia faia e galue ai. O le faatusa sa ia manao ina ia faatuputeleina ma galueaina e Atamu, ma ina ia ‘aia so’o se fua o le faatoaga, vagana ai le fua o le laau faasaina.

O lea laau sa suesueina ai le malosi o le usitai ma le faatuatua o Atamu i lona Atua ma le ‘feagaiga o galuega’ sa osia. Ua ai i le laau faasaina, ma ua pei ua tipi eseina le lima o Le na fafagaina ia. Ua ia fa’ato’ilaloina le faatusa o le Atua. Ma o iina, ua faasalaina ai ile faasalaga o le oti le tagata; o le mea lea ua malaia ai le laueleele; ua momotu ese le nonofo fealoa’I ma le Atua; ua momotu ese le agaga mai le tino, ma ua momotu ese ile ola faavavau le mafutaga ma le Atua.

O le Upu a le Atua o loo molimauina i tusitusiga ma lomiga i tausaga e tele ua mavae atu, ua pouliuli le lalolagi ina ua pau ifo ma le leo tele le tama’I fa’ata ma nuti nini’I, ua motusia le feagaiga ma le Atua ina ua agasala Atamu. E pei o le nuti nini’I i luga o se foloa sima o se fa’ata, e faapena ona nuti le faamoemoe sa fausia e le paia o le Atua mai le vavau mo le tagata e aofia ai oe ma a’u. O le aina o le fua o le laau faasaina e Atamu ma Eva, ua nuti ai le kate mai le fatu o le tagata ola. Sa tutulieseina e le Atua ia Atamu ma Eva mai le faatoaga i Etena, ua leai se faamoemoe sa tuuina atu e le Atua I le tagata. Ua fausia e Atamu se pa puipui o le tagata ola mai le Atua.

O le mavaega sa osia ma Atamu na aofia ai ma ona aiga, auga-tupulaga ma gafa e tau ia Atamu. O le ala I le ola e faavavau e afua I le usitai ma galuega fai ma le faamaoni, ae paga lea, sa vavaeeseina e le Atua le tagata ina ua agasala Atamu.

AE PEITAI, o le Atua Tolu-Tasi o se Tama e tumu o ia i le alofa. Aua ua faapea lava ona alofa mai o Ia I le lalolagi, sa vave ona toe fausia e le Atua lona faatusa sili, e ala mai I lona alo pele o Iesu Keriso, o le faatusa ola sa ia foaiiina mai I le lalolagi.

O lea faatusa E LE PEI o le faatusa sa ia faia I le uluai tagata ola o le sa agasala muamua I luma o le Atua, ae o lesu Keriso sa ia usitai, galue ma le faamaoni ma le loto maualalo. Sa auina mai ia e le Atua ma nofo faatasi ma ona tagata I le lalolagi. E pei o le uluai tagata, sa faapea foi ona nofo vaavaaia lo tatou Alii, tele faaosoosoga sa fetaia’I ma ia, sa iai foi ma le ‘laau’ I le taimi o soifua ai Iesu I le lalolagi. Le laau lena sa tautau ai lo tatou Alii Faaola, ‘le satauro’ ina ia faamagaloina ai oe ma a’u mai le agasala. Sa faamaoni le Alii o Iesu I lona usiusitai I le Atua, loto alofa ma fesoasoani I soo se tagata, sa fai o Ia ma faatusa ola o le Atua I le lalolagi ma sa ia osia lava le feagaiga ma le Atua, seia oo lava ina tautau o ia I le satauro ina ia magalo ai le tagata agasala.

O lona usitai I le Atua ua mafai ai ona faafiafiaina lona Tama I le Lagi i lona faamaoni, alofa ma le usitai. O lea, sa toetu manumalo mai ai o ia mai le oti. Ua faia e le Atua le ‘feagaiga o galuega-paia a Iesu Keriso’ I e o loo talitonu ma le faamaoni ia te Ia mo le ola faavavau. Ma, I le Agaga Paia, e oo mai I le aso lenei, o loo galue pea le Atua e faafouina agaga ma loto o ona tagata I lona faatusa paia.

Afai la o e iloa, o loo nuti le faatusa o le Atua I lou olaga, ua tatau nei loa ona e valaau atu I lo tatou Alii Faaola ina ia alofa mai, ta’u atu au agasala, suiina lou olaga ma mulimuli atu ia te Ia, I le suafa o lo tatou Alii o Iesu Keriso, AMENE.

Faaliliuina e: Sara Seiaemoe Slade-Brunt