The video below explains what the Bible says about how a person can have eternal life and a relationship with God.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Saturday, December 23, 2006
AP article compares Santa to Jesus, Angels
A recent AP article compares belief in Santa with belief in Angels and Jesus. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238498,00.html) After listing different statistics about Americans' beliefs in Santa the article describes Americans belief in Angels, as if they are in the same category. Towards the end of the article, belief in Jesus is also compared to belief in Angels with the following quote: "'When you are a little child you go to Santa and after that you move over to Jesus," she said. "I think it kind of goes together.'" For many in the media, belief in Jesus is similar to belief in Santa: both lack factual evidence but are great stories worth passing on because they inspire hope.
Let me be clear, there can be no more dangerous a view of Jesus than this. Santa is a myth, and the history of the development of his myth is plain to everyone. Jesus, however, was a real historical person. Hundreds of eye witnesses actually saw him ascend into heaven. In addition, not believing in Santa has no real consequences. Not believing in Jesus is serious, for Jesus himself claimed "I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." The true miracle of Christmas is that God became a man so that he could pay the punishment that all of us deserve. This is the only way to have a relationship with God. A relationship with God is not just a hope for some cool stuff on Christmas morning, it is a hope for eternal life, purpose in existence, and everlasting peace. The good news is that it is real news, not a "Santa for adults." Merry Christmas to all!
Let me be clear, there can be no more dangerous a view of Jesus than this. Santa is a myth, and the history of the development of his myth is plain to everyone. Jesus, however, was a real historical person. Hundreds of eye witnesses actually saw him ascend into heaven. In addition, not believing in Santa has no real consequences. Not believing in Jesus is serious, for Jesus himself claimed "I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." The true miracle of Christmas is that God became a man so that he could pay the punishment that all of us deserve. This is the only way to have a relationship with God. A relationship with God is not just a hope for some cool stuff on Christmas morning, it is a hope for eternal life, purpose in existence, and everlasting peace. The good news is that it is real news, not a "Santa for adults." Merry Christmas to all!
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Nativity Story Review
What do you really know about the Christmas story? Does what you know come from a children's skit or a quick read through one of the Bible's accounts? Maybe it is simply from seeing a nativity scene. Whatever the case, there is so, so much to this story, and "The Nativity Story" will do a great job introducing you to many of the themes. That's right, there is much more the movie could have done, but what is there is very moving and is a must see this Christmas season. My only significant complaint is that the angel scenes were weak. One thing that stood out to me personally was the suffering that Mary and Joseph went through. Wouldn't God take better care of the parents of Jesus? Yet God was working in ways that Joseph and Mary couldn't understand at the time, and they knew it. They placed their faith in Him even when it didn't make sense. What a great example for all of us.
Friday, December 1, 2006
Can atheists be moral?
This is part 2 of my reactions to "Letter to a Christian Nation," by Sam Harris.
You will sometimes hear people argue against atheism by saying something like, "If you don't believe in God, why be a good person? What keeps you from killing someone." Of course, this is insulting to atheists. Besides the obvious fact that atheists don't want to go to jail (or simply may not have any desire to kill), atheists will claim that they can believe in morals and be good people apart from God- even when they know they can get away with doing something. This is essentially what Sam Harris argues. And to a certain extent, you have to agree. My own personal experience is that atheists can be very good human beings. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you're going to suddenly go on some kind of rampage of evil.
However, there is going to be a difference between the moralities of atheists and theists, and I have never seen it more clearly illustrated than by Harris' book. Without God, there can be no objective standard of right and wrong. What one person believes is right- another may argue is really wrong, and how do you know who is right? Harris uses this principle when he declares that theists are really the ones who lack morality. He claims that “religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are highly immoral (p.25)." His illustration? Mother Teresa, who he claims had “deranged" moral intuitions because of her religious faith (p. 35)! His reason is that Mother Teresa decried abortion, something that causes relatively little pain compared to something else like genocide. His ethics can largely be reduced to discovering what causes the most pain or pleasure. I wouldn't even know where to begin to explain the problems with this kind of ethic. It's the same kind of thinking that drove so many of the murderous tyrants of the 20th century (many of whom were atheists). I have to say that Harris has opened my eyes a bit on this subject. While atheists may on the surface appear to live by a decent moral code, when you begin getting into the specifics of their ethical beliefs, the differences get clearer.
Atheists may be able to live relatively moral lives without believing in God. But could they if God really didn't exist? There is a huge difference between the two questions. I believe all of us have a sense of what is really "right" and what is really "wrong." But where does this come from? If God doesn't exist, there really can't be such a thing. We'd really all be just a bunch of molecules. But if there is a God who has established what is right and wrong, we can understand how even people who don't believe in God can believe in morals. As C.S. Lewis once said, the reason we believe in God is similar to the way we believe in the sun. We can believe in the sun without directly looking at it, because through it we can see everything else.
You will sometimes hear people argue against atheism by saying something like, "If you don't believe in God, why be a good person? What keeps you from killing someone." Of course, this is insulting to atheists. Besides the obvious fact that atheists don't want to go to jail (or simply may not have any desire to kill), atheists will claim that they can believe in morals and be good people apart from God- even when they know they can get away with doing something. This is essentially what Sam Harris argues. And to a certain extent, you have to agree. My own personal experience is that atheists can be very good human beings. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you're going to suddenly go on some kind of rampage of evil.
However, there is going to be a difference between the moralities of atheists and theists, and I have never seen it more clearly illustrated than by Harris' book. Without God, there can be no objective standard of right and wrong. What one person believes is right- another may argue is really wrong, and how do you know who is right? Harris uses this principle when he declares that theists are really the ones who lack morality. He claims that “religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are highly immoral (p.25)." His illustration? Mother Teresa, who he claims had “deranged" moral intuitions because of her religious faith (p. 35)! His reason is that Mother Teresa decried abortion, something that causes relatively little pain compared to something else like genocide. His ethics can largely be reduced to discovering what causes the most pain or pleasure. I wouldn't even know where to begin to explain the problems with this kind of ethic. It's the same kind of thinking that drove so many of the murderous tyrants of the 20th century (many of whom were atheists). I have to say that Harris has opened my eyes a bit on this subject. While atheists may on the surface appear to live by a decent moral code, when you begin getting into the specifics of their ethical beliefs, the differences get clearer.
Atheists may be able to live relatively moral lives without believing in God. But could they if God really didn't exist? There is a huge difference between the two questions. I believe all of us have a sense of what is really "right" and what is really "wrong." But where does this come from? If God doesn't exist, there really can't be such a thing. We'd really all be just a bunch of molecules. But if there is a God who has established what is right and wrong, we can understand how even people who don't believe in God can believe in morals. As C.S. Lewis once said, the reason we believe in God is similar to the way we believe in the sun. We can believe in the sun without directly looking at it, because through it we can see everything else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
