All posts in category philosophy

Nobody’s perfect so don’t criticize (a self-defeating argument)

Talk-to-the-HandSeveral years ago I did a post entitled “Judge not, lest ye be judged” that covered what Christ really meant when he spoke those popular words often quoted by those who hate even the most constructive of criticisms. Tied to those words of Christ that are quoted out of context is the notion that since nobody’s perfect, we should just shut up, live and let live, and stop criticizing other people. Is that argument valid?

Criticism is the act of pointing out what’s wrong or bad or faulty about someone or something. When we take an honest look at society, whether the society is advanced or developing, criticism is everywhere. I especially get a kick out of Christians who use such bad logic with the ”nobody’s perfect” argument since Christianity itself is based on the criticism of human misdeeds so we can recognize the remedy for those misdeeds.

Let’s take Paul, for instance. He was formerly Saul, a persecutor of Christians who was responsible for the deaths of some of them. Then he was confronted by Jesus and got saved. Even after he got saved, he still had struggles. He was unforgiving toward John Mark, who abandoned him on a missionary journey. When John Mark’s cousin Barnabas wanted to take John Mark on another missionary trip with him and Paul, Paul and Barnabas had a heated argument about it and went their separate ways.

Paul admitted in Romans 7 that he had two natures struggling for dominance within him. In Philippians 3, he said he had not attained or apprehended his ultimate spiritual goal of sinless perfection that only comes by resurrection. He was still pressing toward the mark. Nevertheless, God by his higher authority entrusted his perfect words to Paul for Paul to spread them around.

The same thing can be said of Peter who had many faults also. Peter was so bad that one time imperfect Paul had to confront imperfect Peter about how he was acting when he snubbed Gentiles to impress some Jews who were visiting a congregation (Galatians 2:11-14) since Peter’s hypocrisy would have weakened the church at Antioch. Still, God used Peter to write down his perfect words in 1 & 2 Peter.

These men were far from perfect, but God gave them license to criticize just as he does for us after we humbly show ourselves ready and willing to do his will.

Societies that will not accept criticism devolve into chaos. The biggest collection of criticisms any nation has is the system of laws and regulations they set up to govern the nation. Laws are set up by imperfect men to criticize certain behavior. When the citizens of a nation are caught committing behaviors the laws call faulty, then the person is brought before an imperfect judge and/or an imperfect jury to be criticized by an imperfect prosecutor whose case is criticized by the imperfect defender of that imperfect defendant.

As I mentioned in a recent post about the 10 commandments, we all have a sense of right and wrong built into us by a Higher Authority based on his laws so that most countries have laws or morals set up that agree with at least some of the commandments, and those commandments are essentially criticisms. When we set up laws that reject the Higher Authority’s criticisms, then chaos will result (e.g. the Bolshevik revolution or Hitler’s Germany).

Now if we apply the “nobody’s perfect so don’t criticize” argument to how we govern, we would have to get rid of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches at the local, state, and federal levels since they all criticize with their policies and procedures.

Our workplaces would also have to be shut down since managers wouldn’t be allowed to criticize employees and procedural manuals or professional associations or regulations wouldn’t be allowed to criticize businesses to ensure they run properly.

Essentially, the “nobody’s perfect so don’t criticize” argument is unsustainable and impossible to carry out since criticism is vital to all aspects of life, whether material or spiritual. And the statement is itself contradictory, making it null and void based on the Law of Non-contradiction since the moment a person makes the statement, they have just criticized.

Harry A. Gaylord

4 Comments
by Harry A. Gaylord on April 16, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Christianity, government, humanity, life, philosophy, religion
Tagged

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on April 16, 2013

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/nobodys-perfect-so-dont-criticize-a-self-defeating-argument/

Strategic socialism: true purpose of the welfare state

Although there are many individuals in places of power within the U.S. who claim that the record levels of people on the welfare rolls in America is due to the slow economy that is all Bush’s fault, the truth is that the swelling welfare state is a well-conceived plan that has been in the works for decades. American Marxists have just been waiting for the perfect opportunity and the perfect President to put their plan into effect in an economic environment that would give them the perfect plausible deniability.

Taking their ideas from European Marxists like André Gorz and American Marxists like Saul Alinsky, the American socialists came up with various ways to infuse their principles into the American capitalist system that would cause capitalism to cave in on itself. André Gorz came up with the idea of working within the system to bring about gradual reforms that outwardly appeared to be innocent changes that could change the course of capitalism to a downward trend. Saul Alinsky applied such principles to the concept of community organizing, using the funds from wealthy left-leaning charitable foundations to aggressively pressure politicians into pushing for legislation and regulations that could ultimately be used for spreading socialism.

Two of Alinsky’s disciples, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, members of the Socialist Scholars Conference, strategized that one of the best ways to get people to embrace socialism was to promote welfare to those having a hard time financially, which would serve to have a domino effect in a capitalist system. By encouraging as many people as possible to get on welfare while telling them that capitalism was to blame for their condition, eventually the vast number of people on the public dole would spark financial crises within the government, causing government entities to cave in on themselves. The resulting fall-out would be that capitalism would be seen as totally evil, which would then brainwash the masses into embracing socialism and making the changes necessary to include it as a regular part of American society.

Collapsing welfare would also have the added bonus of creating the perfect two-tier society desired for the New World Order. The wealthy leftists (who are also members of various secret societies kowtowing to the Vatican) would be on top ruling everyone else who would be their dependents, including the defunct middle class. Principles espoused by Alinsky, Cloward, and Piven encouraged their associates and followers to start organizations like ACORN, the Developing Communities Project in Chicago, and Project Vote in Chicago. Here’s the kicker. Our current President, Barack Obama, served as director of the Developing Communities Project from 1985-1988. He also served as director of Project Vote, who has had Frances Fox Piven serving on their board of directors. These organizations helped launch Obama’s political career.

One does not become the director of such organizations by going against the teachings or beliefs of those who help establish them. So our President, during his administration, has expanded the eligibility requirements for welfare and has given several states the right to re-define as “work” various things that aren’t work, which undermines President Clinton’s welfare-to-work reforms. The result has been that more people than ever before are now collecting welfare. Not only does this essentially buy votes for socialist-leaning Democrats, as many of the talking heads on TV point out, it also helps institute the socialist ideas President Barack Obama was groomed in. Among those ideas are that capitalism must be weakened in order to bring in more socialism and that the only good capitalists are the ones that help you reach your quasi-socialist goals.

Source: David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin. The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future. [New York: Crown Forum] pages 19-27.

1 Comment
by Harry A. Gaylord on October 28, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in economics, End times, government, philosophy, politics
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on October 28, 2012

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/strategic-socialism-true-purpose-of-the-welfare-state/

I wouldn’t be caught dead as a progressive/liberal

And Bill Maher is the perfect example why. He recently stated emphatically to astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson that he is pro-death. Maher, the TV talk show host on HBO, implied that humans aren’t really all that special since dogs can even procreate like we do.

Maher feels that killing people should become the order of the day as long as we kill the “right people” when it comes to the death penalty. Then he went on to imply the right people would not be restricted to violent criminals, but would also include those who want to commit suicide, those who want to be euthanized, and babies that are in the womb, especially babies that could face “severe challenges” if they are born. This, of course, would include economic and/or physical challenges like those who are disabled or who would live in impoverished neighborhoods. Maher simply repeated what Margaret Sanger and other eugenicists have tried to bring about.

I’m glad that a progressive/liberal like Maher has finally stated out loud the beliefs that these type of people hold to in private. They accuse Christians of hypocrisy, but they are the worst hypocrites ever. Here are a few examples of their hypocrisy:

  • Progressives/liberals claim they want equal justice and opportunity for minorities and the poor and claim to hate racism, but they push for killing babies who would be “severely challenged’ in society if they were born, which obviously includes the poor and disabled. A significant amount of the poor are minorities.
  • They cry out for equality, but then make the argument as atheists and Darwinists that all people are not created equal and, therefore, are either not fit to keep on living or need to be dependent on the government for survival because they aren’t skilled enough, educated enough, intelligent enough, or don’t have the same opportunities as others do. So essentially, many white progressives/liberals are closeted racists who look down on minorities who are poor.
  • For all their talk of helping the poor, progressives/liberals are not very generous in giving to charity when compared to conservatives, according to recent findings.
  • Progressives/liberals often attack the Bible, accusing God of carnage and killing people and causing bloodshed, but then they promote socialism and socialists using fascism caused the largest number of deaths in the 20th century by slaughtering innocent people, including pregnant women and their unborn children. And today they like the idea of slaughtering the unborn, the terminally ill, and the severely disabled under the guise that they are being merciful when it’s the opposite of mercy.

So what was Maher’s reasoning for his views? “… the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.” This tends to be the final conclusion when people reject God and embrace atheistic liberalism. Those who reject God hate true wisdom, and as godly wisdom stated in Proverbs 8:36 when it was personified, “But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.” Progressives/liberals are the perfect example of that truth from Proverbs.

Source: Elizabeth Harrington. Bill Maher: “The Planet Is Too Crowded And We Need To Promote Death.” CNSNews.com. October 15, 2012.

Harry A. Gaylord

7 Comments
by Harry A. Gaylord on October 16, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in atheism, Christianity, End times, human rights, hypocrisy, philosophy, politics, religion
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on October 16, 2012

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/i-wouldnt-be-caught-dead-as-a-progressiveliberal/

God’s preservation of nations

Throughout scripture, God shows concern over how nations are ruled, what laws they uphold, and how both the citizens of nations and their rulers conduct themselves. This is why our interaction with our neighbors and government as Christians should not be taken lightly. God wants us to be concerned about their character and conduct after we measure our own character and conduct because he is a God who delights in blessing people. Even though we are living in the last days where perilous times are all around us and wickedness is increasing, we can still meditate, pray, and act on these timeless principles God has established to preserve his people and the nations we live in, so here are a few of them:

♦ The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain. 2 Samuel 23: 3-4

♦ The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. Psalm 9:17

♦ Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. Psalm 33:2

♦ Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. Psalm 127:1

♦ Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3

♦ When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting. By the blessing of the upright the city is exalted: but it is overthrown by the mouth of the wicked. Proverbs 11:10-11

♦ Excellent speech becometh not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince. Proverbs 17:7

♦ In the multitude of people is the king’s honour: but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince. …Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:28, 34 [In this age of promoting population control, God's word says growth in populations strengthens nations.]

♦ When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat. Proverbs 23:1-3

♦ As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people. The prince that wanteth [lacks] understanding is also a great oppressor: but he that hateth covetousness shall prolong his days. Proverbs 28:15-16

♦ The king by judgment establisheth the land: but he that receiveth gifts [bribes] overthroweth it. Proverbs 29:4

♦ At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. Jeremiah 18: 7-10

♦ I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour. 1 Timothy 2:1-3

♦ Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. 1 Peter 2:17

Harry A. Gaylord

Leave a Comment
by Harry A. Gaylord on September 6, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Bible, Christianity, encouragement, government, life, philosophy
Tagged

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on September 6, 2012

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/gods-preservation-of-nations/

Tearing down the ‘who created God’ question

“Who created God? If God created the universe, the earth, and everything on earth, then someone had to create God.” That is the often-asked question and often-stated comment of those who doubt or don’t believe what the Bible says.

However, this argument is based on false assumptions as follows:

1) The law of causality, also known as the law of cause & effect, is misunderstood by them to say that everything and everyone that exists is an effect that had a cause. But the law of causality actually says that everything that has come to be or that has come into existence requires a cause. The Bible never claimed that God came into existence. It instead says that God is from everlasting to everlasting [Psalm 90:2]. He is eternal. He has always existed. So the law of causality does not apply to things that aren’t created.

Not only do the critics show lack of understanding of the law they attempt to use, they also show lack of understanding of what the Bible actually says.

2) Critics of Christianity don’t really understand the laws of thermodynamics & general relativity, although they swear up and down that they love science. The laws of thermodynamics & the theory of general relativity clearly tell us that space, matter, and time must have had a beginning since they are finite and they can eventually run out, wind down, and decay. Since space, matter, and time had a beginning, then that means space, matter, and time have not always existed.

For anything to begin, there always has to be something or someone that caused the beginning, according to the law of causality. Therefore, if space, matter, and time had a beginning out of nothing, an intelligent source not confined to space, nor made up of matter, and not subject to time, had to have created all of it. That intelligent source, based on the vastness of the universe and all the power present in the universe (including on earth), would have to also be much more powerful than everything combined that exists in the universe.

When we also take into account the exactness of planetary orbits, the exactness of each planet’s distance from the sun, and other very exact constants in our universe, there can only be one honest conclusion. Whoever brought all of these things into being would have to be eternal and would have to be a spirit (i.e. immaterial) with a phenomenal, mind-blowing, infinite level of intelligence and power.

Anyone who would be so foolish to deny this really is not truly in love with science and lacks scientific integrity since those who are truly dedicated to science follow wherever the evidence leads, even if the evidence tears down their assumptions. This brings us to the truth which the Bible so bluntly tells us, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God,” Psalm 53:1, because only a fool would deny such facts.

Further reading:

Don Batten. Who created God: It’s an illogical question. Creation Ministries International.

Frank Turek. Who made God? CrossExamined Blog. April 10, 2008.

Harry A. Gaylord

13 Comments
by Harry A. Gaylord on August 28, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in atheism, Bible, Christianity, creationism, God, philosophy, religion, science
Tagged , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on August 28, 2012

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/tearing-down-the-who-created-god-question/

Dealing with Darwin: a look at his views on race, religion

Was Charles Darwin a racist? Was he a white supremacist? Did he promote slavery? Was he a God-hater? These are some of the questions that have swirled around the mention of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution for years. Search the internet and you will find arguments that he was or wasn’t for all of these questions. They can be answered from his writings since he was not known as being shy about expressing his opinions.

Darwin’s views on slavery & race

Darwin once wrote the following in 1861 to a Harvard botanist Asa Gray: “I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. North America does not do England justice; I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, and I am one of them, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against slavery. In the long-run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in! Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God! How I should like to see the greatest curse on earth—slavery—abolished!”

In another letter to the same gentleman, Darwin stated: “If abolition does follow with your victory, the whole world will look brighter in my eyes, and in many eyes. It would be a great gain even to stop the spread of slavery into the Territories…”

Thirty years prior to this, in 1832, Darwin wrote this to J. S. Henslow: “I would not be a Tory, if it was merely on account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian nations—Slavery.”

And the following year, he wrote to a relative, saying, “I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England if she is the first European nation which utterly abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Hayti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place. There is at Rio a man (I know not his title) who has a large salary to prevent (I believe) the landing of slaves; he lives at Botofogo, and yet that was the bay where, during my residence, the greater number of smuggled slaves were landed. Some of the Anti-Slavery people ought to question about his office…”

So we can see how Darwin was very much against slavery. However, what gives some people pause is his reference to non-Europeans as “lower races” throughout his book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. For example, he states, “It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation.”

Darwin also stated in that same book, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.  At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18.  ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated.  The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Although Darwin hated slavery, he seemed to think it was okay to be racist. His feelings appear contradictory — one minute admiring blacks and other non-Caucasians while the next minute expecting them to be killed off. And those views helped continue hatred for non-Caucasians after colonialism ended and slavery became illegal.

Darwin’s religious views

When writing to Asa Gray in 1860, Darwin said, “Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter.”

In 1876, Darwin wrote in his autobiography, “During these two years (October 1836 to January 1839.) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the ‘Beagle’ I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality… But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos…

“By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses… I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.

“But I was very unwilling to give up my belief… But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress…

“Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument from design in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.”

There you have it. Darwin hoped natural selection would get rid of God and he denied intelligent design. But he drew his conclusions assuming the science of his day was static, unchanging. Now evidence is accessible and advances have been made that debunk his view of the Bible and that show the various systems within everything organic and inorganic have specific designs as revealed in DNA.

Sources:

Charles Darwin. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. 1887. volumes I, II. Edited by his son Francis Darwin.

Charles Darwin. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Second edition, 1874.

Harry A. Gaylord

3 Comments
by Harry A. Gaylord on August 23, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Bible, Christianity, creationism, evolution, God, philosophy, racism, religion, science
Tagged ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on August 23, 2012

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/dealing-with-darwin-a-look-at-his-views-on-race-religion/

Some necessary philosophies to strengthen good capitalism

“History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom” — Milton Friedman, American economist.

Although capitalism of late has been intentionally getting a bad rap, it is really a neutral economic system that can be used for good or evil. Forces within America’s capitalist system are trying to sabotage it from within to turn us against capitalism altogether in order to push for overreaching regulations and to draw us toward more socialism that will strip us of freedoms.  However, when we look at the Bible we can see that God favored free markets. He also understood that regulations to a certain point were good for guiding free markets because people, all of whom have a sinful nature, can be self-serving if left without certain checks and balances. Here are some things I came across that I found refreshing and they’re principles and warnings based on love for God and our fellow man:

☼ But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Deuteronomy 25:15

God knew we could be greedy, so he commanded to keep everything at a fair price.

☼ And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:9-10

We are blessed to be a blessing to the less fortunate. But notice how in providing for the poor and stranger, there was a requirement for those less fortunate to work for what was provided. They had to go out in the fields to gather what was left for them.

☼ But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth… Deuteronomy 8:18

Although we should be glad we have the knowledge, education, & skills to acquire riches, it wouldn’t be possible if God didn’t open up doors & windows of opportunity for us, so we should give him glory & thanks.

☼ Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase. Proverbs 13:11

Hard work is what really brings true rewards.

☼ It is naught, it is naught, saith the buyer: but when he is gone his way, then he boasteth. Proverbs 20:14

There will be people in the market who will talk you down on your price by making it seem your product isn’t worth it, then they brag about getting a steal once the deal is done.

☼ Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel. Proverbs 20:17

Deceiving people to fill one’s belly won’t be good for the deceiver in the long run.

☼ He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want. Proverbs 22:16

☼ He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor. Proverbs 28:8

☼ Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: …For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 2 Thessalonians 3:8, 10

Paul wasn’t into handouts and held down jobs when he visited churches. He required anyone wanting assistance from the church to work for it.

☼ Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. Ephesians 4:28

Free markets can only be truly free when ideas like these are applied to the markets. Of course, since mankind is fallible we will never reach a utopian state in this present world, but it’s nice to keep ideas like these in mind.

Harry A. Gaylord

Leave a Comment
by Harry A. Gaylord on August 22, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Bible, Christianity, economics, God, life, philosophy, religion
Tagged , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on August 22, 2012

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/some-necessary-philosophies-to-strengthen-good-capitalism/

Manuscript evidence: the New Testament’s firm reliability

In determining the reliability of ancient writings, whether secular or religious (like the New Testament), scholars have devised standards to judge them. Those standards are the following:

Bibliographic Evidence

–Was the document composed close to the time of the event(s) it describes?

–How many copies of the document are available to make a comparison?

Internal Evidence

–Did the writer(s) have the capability & occasion to tell the story correctly?

–Are there glaring contradictions in the document?

External Evidence

–Does evidence exist outside of the document to back what the document claims?

These standards can be applied neutrally to all types of ancient documents whether Christian or secular, so let’s compare facts surrounding non-Christian writings with New Testament writings of the Bible.

Examining bibliographic evidence

–Plato died in 347 BC. The oldest manuscript of his writings dates back to the 10th century AD. This is 1200 years after his death. There are 7 ancient manuscripts available to compare his works.

–Herodotus died in 425 BC. The oldest manuscript of his writings dates back to the 10th century AD also. This is 1300 years after his death. Only 8 ancient copies of his writings are available for comparison.

–Aristotle died in 322 BC. The oldest copy of his writings goes back to 1100 AD, which is 1400 years after his death. The number of ancient copies of those writings for comparison are 49.

–Julius Caesar died in 44 BC. The oldest manuscript of his writings, which discuss the Gallic Wars, dates back to 900 AD, 1000 years after his death. There are 10 ancient manuscripts available to make a comparison of his writings.

–The New Testament (NT) was established when Jesus Christ died in approximately 30 AD. The oldest undisputed writing of his teachings dates back to 117-138 AD (Gospel of John fragment). Nine disputed fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls date back to 50-70 AD covering excerpts from Mark, Acts, Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter, and James. The oldest manuscript of  a complete New Testament book dates back to 200 AD and the oldest manuscript of the majority of the New Testament, including the gospels, goes back to 250 AD. These are from 20 to 220 years after Christ’s death. Over 5600 ancient manuscripts (and counting) of the New Testament are available for comparison.

The writings of the NT are in closer proximity to Jesus’ death than secular writings are to historical secular figures. The NT also has a far greater number of manuscripts, which ensures that it is more accurate and reliable than secular historical writings. So why is it that critics of the NT are so critical of it by claiming older manuscripts are needed when at the same time they are so accepting of secular historical writings that are based on far less reliable evidence?

Examining internal evidence

For the NT, rules for establishing the Canon by those who compiled the NT are:

–It must be written by eyewitnesses or near eyewitnesses.

–Doctrines within the writings must agree with the rest of Christian doctrine.

–The writings must be used in the worship services of the early church.

Since all the books of the NT had writers who were capable and had the occasion of getting their stories straight and their writings were in agreement and they were used by early churchmen like Clement of Rome (AD 95), Ignatius (AD 107), and Polycarp (AD 110), it was not only determined that the NT was completed by 100 AD, but also that the current NT books were the ones accepted as scripture and widely used by the early church. This shows that accusations that the NT was tampered with or made up long after Jesus died are completely untrue.

Examining external evidence

There is now an overwhelming body of evidence outside the NT validating the claims made by the NT books. For instance, in 1968 on a construction site in Israel, an ossuary (burial) box was discovered dating back to the time of Christ containing the remains of a crucified Jew. The bones had seven inch nails driven through the ankles with wood stuck to the back of the foot and it was determined by these bones that the nature of crucifixion was exactly as portrayed in the gospels.

Furthermore, writings of 10 non-Christians (some expressing their disdain for Christians) who wrote within 150 years of Christ’s life have confirmed his existence and events recorded in the NT, such as:

  • Christ’s virtuous life.
  • James was Jesus’ brother.
  • Tiberius Caesar reigned during Christ’s life.
  • Christ worked unexplainable miracles.
  • Christ was touted as the Messiah.
  • Pontius Pilate allowed his crucifixion.
  • Jesus was crucified the day before Passover.
  • Darkness & an earthquake happened when he died.
  • The disciples believed & preached that he was resurrected.
  • Christ’s apostles were ready & willing to die for the gospel.
  • Christ’s apostles refused to worship Roman gods & claimed Christ was God.
  • The gospel spread fast, even as far as Rome by the end of the 1st century.

The 10 non-Christian ancient sources confirming those events are:

  1. Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian
  2. Tacitus, Roman historian
  3. Pliny the Younger, Roman politician
  4. Phlegon, freed slave & historian
  5. Thallus, 1st century historian
  6. Suetonius, Roman historian
  7. Lucian, Greek satirist
  8. Celsus, Roman philosopher
  9. Mara Bar-Serapion, Roman citizen
  10. Jewish Talmud

Sources:

Lutheran Hour Ministries. The Bible on Trial. NRB Broadcast. ©2011.

Norman L. Geisler. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. ©2004. pp. 223, 225, 235-236.

–Harry A. Gaylord–

Leave a Comment
by Harry A. Gaylord on February 13, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Bible, Christianity, God, Jesus Christ, New Testament, philosophy, religion
Tagged , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on February 13, 2012

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/manuscript-evidence-the-new-testaments-firm-reliability/

Christians’ unrealistic view of unbelievers

Do Christians try to force their views on unbelievers? Do we expect unbelievers to act like us? If so, is that really the correct approach toward the unbeliever? When unbelievers live moral lives by human standards, does that mean it will be more difficult for them to be saved because they won’t recognize their sins?

Recently I heard a caller on a Christian talk show say something like “I don’t understand why we are so shocked when unbelievers act the way they do. That’s just their nature and they’re supposed to act like that. What we as Christians should be concerned about is our own behavior if we are acting like unbelievers.”

It’s true that we Christians should watch how we act to make sure we keep God’s commandments, but I fail to see any truth in the criticism that we force our views on others. Unbelievers and some Christians think that sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ is forcing our beliefs on them, but it isn’t. We are just speaking what we were commanded to speak by God and our freedom of speech is no different than an unbeliever bragging about who they fornicated slept with over the weekend or them inviting us to a wild party or them urging us to curse someone out and seek revenge on someone who did us wrong. If they want to be allowed to share their ungodly views with us, they should show us the same courtesy when we share our Christian views with them. We believe, therefore we speak [1 Corinthians 4:13]. Woe is me if I preach not the gospel [1 Corinthians 9:16].

Should we expect the unsaved to act like us and is it wrong if we do? This can be answered with this question– what was the purpose of the Great Commission that Jesus gave us in Matthew 28:19-20? He said “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

The Bible, from start to finish, is the story of how God expects all men to be holy like him, not just to act holy. So, yes, we should have the same expectations that God has, which means we desire unbelievers to be like us in the sense that we are following Christ. We have an expectation that the unsaved will be like and act like us by obeying Christ’s commands, not our man-made traditions. This isn’t wrong and we shouldn’t allow people to make us feel guilty that this is the goal because there are a whole bunch of positive things that come with confessing Jesus as Lord and putting his word into practice.

Why did God punish individuals and nations in the Bible and in history? Wasn’t it because they refused to be like him? Wasn’t it because they disobeyed his commandments and persecuted his people and hardened their hearts against his prophets? Why did God’s prophets prophesy? They wanted to obey God and they also expected the unbelieving to be like them and repent of their sins. Is this arrogant? Of course not. It’s actually humility because they knew that but for the grace of God, they would not be delivered from the impending danger of God’s judgment in this life and in the next life, so they didn’t want to see lives and nations destroyed because of sin and wanted to see lives and nations blessed by living up to God’s standards.

We actually should be shocked when we see unbelievers act the way they do because of our hatred for sin and because the gospel of Jesus Christ has been preached throughout the world. Men no longer have an excuse for clinging to sin. As Paul said to the people of Athens in Acts 17, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”

And again in Romans 1 Paul says “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse…” Even the atheist knows deep down inside that God exists, but he postulates and speculates with theories that, when correctly scrutinized and thoroughly tested, don’t hold water. God has made his existence obvious all over the world and no one has any valid excuse for not believing that Jesus is the only Lord. This is the whole premise on which the book of Revelation is based. After God gives all of mankind ample time to turn from their wicked ways, he unleashes his final judgments in the last of the last days because they should have repented and chose not to.

So when we try to promote just, godly behavior in our laws, does this hinder a sinner from realizing he needs Christ’s salvation, as has been argued by some? Should we really legislate morality? No, promoting godly laws doesn’t hinder sinners from being saved. Many of us who are saved were considered good by human standards and may have been told we were good people before we got saved, but when we heard the gospel, we clearly saw our need to have Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

And yes, morality can and should be legislated. This is why God ordained the powers that be [see Romans 13:1-7]. It is when the powers that be withdraw from legislating morality that human life becomes devalued by such things as human trafficking and abortion, that lawlessness becomes the order of the day where proper authority is not respected, and that God’s judgment is poured out to punish nations. Those who claim morality cannot be legislated are liars and hypocrites because they tear down laws that are against their set of “morals” only to put in place laws that agree with their “morality.” Don’t believe me? Just look at the gay rights movement.

4 Comments
by Harry A. Gaylord on October 2, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Christianity, End times, life, philosophy, religion
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on October 2, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/christians-unrealistic-view-of-unbelievers/

How atheists & Darwinists are like flat earthers & inquisitors

“You’re such a flat earther!” That is the false accusation often leveled against Christians who don’t buy into the scientific theories and myths espoused by atheists and Darwinists. But did you know atheists and Darwinists have more in common with flat earthers and inquisitors of old? It is Christians who are more aligned with true science. Let’s weigh the evidence–

♠ Misinterpretation of scripture: Flat earthers (who were in the minority in the early Christian church and were rejected by Christian leaders) and inquisitors misintrepeted scripture to push their views,  as atheists and Darwinists do. 1 Samuel 2:8 talks about the “pillars of the Earth” so flat earthers have said this prove them correct.

During the Inquisition of Galileo, the inquisitors used Psalm 104:5 to argue the Earth doesn’t move and is not heliocentric (revolving around the sun) as Galileo claimed. Atheists and Darwinists use such scriptures to say the Bible is unscientific and wrong, when the Bible is overwhelmingly accurate in its science.

♠ Ignoring scientific data: Greek philosophers going back to the 6th century BC spread the idea of a spherical Earth throughout the world and gave proof of it, including the shape of the Earth’s shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses, but flat earthers held to their views and still do today. Galileo used telescopes to show scientific evidence of how the Earth and planets moved around the sun, but the inquisitors weren’t interested. Atheists and Darwinists have a wealth of scientific and historical evidence available to prove the Bible is true and that God exists from the second law of thermodynamics to the proof of a worldwide flood to the fossil record showing all life on Earth appeared suddenly in the same forms they always had, without any transitions (i.e. no macroevolution), but they choose to ignore the obvious.

Darwinists have claimed whales and sea cows evolved from four-legged land mammals into the forms they have now to be better suited for their marine environments. “There are no hind legs–legs would get in the way and produce friction. In large whales the hind legs have not been completely lost–a single bone of the back leg is still present. …Things similar to a dog investigated the sea a bit more, and eventually made the transition into whales.” [Simon Morris. Royal Institute Christmas lectures. BBC broadcast. 1996.]. David Attenborough once said, “…forelimbs have become paddles. The rear limbs have been lost altogether, though there are a few small bones buried deep in the whale’s body to prove that the whale’s ancestors really did, at one time, have back legs.” [David Attenborough. Life on Earth. Collins/BBC. 1979. p. 242.]

Dinosaurs like ichthyosaurus, plesiosaurus, and liopleurodon had back limbs in the form of pectoral and pelvic paddles and survived quite efficiently in their marine environments according to fossil records. So friction was obviously not a problem as Prof. Morris claims. Loss of limbs is unnecessary to survive in marine environments and this is proven by beavers, polar bears, crocodiles, alligators, hippopotamuses, sea otters, and other animals that have four limbs and survive quite well in marine environments. So their theories are fairy tales that don’t prove why whales and dolphins have the bodies they have.

♠ Clinging to man-made traditions/philosophies: Since heliocentrism was not the accepted thinking of their day and did not fit within the confines of their traditions and would highlight their own errors, the Roman Catholic leaders in charge of the Inquisitions rejected the findings of Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo, and Johannes Kepler’s theories about the moon causing Earth’s tides and that the planets had elliptical orbits around the sun.

Since atheists and Darwinists are rooted in the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and Erasmus Darwin (Charles’ grandfather), they are unwilling to consider the notion that the explanations for why things have been the way they are on Earth find their answers beyond man’s ancient traditions. Furthermore, they are quite comfortable with accepting and participating in the sins that the majority of humans take part in  (which are so much fun to them) and don’t want to be faced with the idea they are on the wrong track, which would force them to ponder the possibility that they need to change. Basically, their stubborn pride gets in the way.

♠ Humanism: Modern flat earthers feel the need “to restore man’s confidence in the validity of his own perceptions”. They believe those who don’t agree with them are acting on blind faith and “reject the evidence of their own senses.” In other words, what man thinks and senses is the measure of what is true. Johannes Kepler was excommunicated from the Catholic Church after inquisitors discovered he did not believe that priests had the power to turn the bread and wine of the communion (eucharist) into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, or transubstantiation.

Since Christians believe in the Almighty as being more intelligent and more powerful and more creative than humankind, atheists and Darwinists reject, ridicule, and condemn Christians and the Bible. They accuse us of having blind faith when, in fact, our faith is based on the God who has a proven track record of doing what he says he will do and making accurate predictions that eventually come true. For instance, Jesus said in Matthew 24:7 that there would be an increase in wars, earthquakes, famines, and diseases before his return and recent history proves him right. The book of Revelation, written after Israel was destroyed by the Romans, predicted Israel would be a nation again and that the world at that time would move toward a one world government and that’s exactly what we see today.

♠ Calling for rejection of proven truth: Not only did the inquisitors ignore the proven findings of Galileo, Kepler, and others, they forced Galileo to “‘abjure, curse and detest’ those opinions” which were not in keeping with their own opinions. Why? Allowing the acceptance of the truth would’ve threatened the power of the leaders in the Roman Catholic Church over the people.

In the same manner, atheists and Darwinists continue to try to convince Christians and society to reject what we Christians know to be true since our beliefs are not in line with their opinions. Why? The power they have in society would be threatened. They enjoy getting funds for their research even when their research is questionable, but they definitely want to avoid having a level playing field with creationists since that could mean they would lose millions of dollars.

♠ Keeping the opposition out of the public forum: Galileo’s inquisitors censored and banned his writings after they threw him in prison for a short time then placed him under house arrest for the remainder of his life. When Kepler published his Epitome of Copernican Astronomy in 1618, it was immediately banned by the Inquisition and hampered his ability to make money from his works and for his scientific findings to circulate. Prior to that he lived for a short time in Italy, but quickly discovered his freedom of speech was jeopardized by inquisitors so he moved to Germany.

Today we are witnessing how atheists and Darwinists are trying with all their might to keep Christianity and Biblical truth out of the public forum. Christians believe in freedom of speech and are not hampering the ability of their opposition to express themselves but we are not shown the same courtesy. Atheists and Darwinists don’t care about the rights of those who don’t agree with them and tend to work underhandedly to silence Christians and the Bible altogether, just like their counterparts–the inquisitors of previous centuries. When they accuse us of being flat earthers or being like the Inquisition or having blind faith, the truth is that they are projecting onto Christians what they themselves are.

Sources:

“Galileo Galilei.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. 31 August 2011 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei&gt;

“Flat Earth Society.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. 27 August 2011 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society&gt;

David Brewster. The Martyrs of Science, or, The lives of Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler. London: John Murray, 1841, pp. 92-101, 236, 240. <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25992/25992-h/25992-h.htm&gt;

“Who Invented the Flat Earth?” Paula McKerlie. Answers in Genesis. March 2004 <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v16/n2/flat-earth&gt;

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

Leave a Comment
by Harry A. Gaylord on September 2, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in atheism, Bible, Christianity, evolution, human rights, philosophy, religion, science
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on September 2, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/how-atheists-darwinists-are-like-flat-earthers-inquisitors/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 178 other followers