Baha’i Faith

By Reeves 

Brief Introduction

The youngest world religion, Baha’i, Originated in 19th century as an offshoot of Shi’ite Islam. Baha’i is a movement started by an Iranian wool merchant and a Shi’ite Muslim aimed to reform Islam.

On May 23, 1844, in Shiraz, Persia, a young man, Mizra Ali Muhammed, known as the Bab, said that God’s messenger was about to appear.

Babs work was to prepare a way for this messenger, he would be the living door or “the gate.” Bab’s teaching became widely known throughout Iran, but provoked opposition

He finally died by execution. One of Bab’s earliest disciples was Mizra Husain Ali, who was assumed the name of Baha’u’llah whan he renounced his social standing and joined the Babis.

He self-proclaimed that he was the long-awaited prophet. Baha’u’llah began organizing and composed many of the now known Baha’i scriptures for the movement, which became known as Baha’i.

Baha’u’llah died at Bahji and was succeeded by his eldest son Abd ul-Baha to be the leader.

Baha’i’s Holy Book

One of the most important scripture is The Most Holy Book containing the laws governing Baha’i. The writings and spoken words of the Babs (or Bobs), Baha’u’llah, and Abd ul-Baha form the sacred literature of the Baha’i Faith. Some of the most notable of the one hundred volumes of the Baha’i scripture are:

1. Selections from the writings of the Bab.

2. Tablets of Baha’u’llah, Kitab-i-Aqdes (considered to be the most holy).

3. Book of Certitude (kitab-i-iqan).

4. Baha’i Prayers.

Baha’i Beliefs

The basic Principles of the Baha’i Faith includes the oneness of the world of humanity; the foundation of all religions as one; the religion must be the cause of unity. This is so because according the Baha’i people,”all faith is unified in the eyes of God,” and that there are certain principles under which God intended us to live.” The laws and obligations of the Baha’i Faith are:

1. Pray daily

2. Read the holy writings from various religions

3. Fasting from sunrise to sunset

4. Contribute to Baha’i financial fund

5. Abstain from drugs and alcohol

5. Avoid gossip etc

Least we forget, Baha’i Faith is a monotheistic religion such Judaism and Christianity. Baha’u’llah taught that there is one God, the eternal Creator, who is essentially unknowable.

Baha’i is syncretistic, claiming that the world’s major religions are not contradictory or even competitive but equally true. Baha’i also teaches that Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad all of whom were valid manifestations of God. Yet Baha’u’llah claimed to be more of significance than all previous manifestations including Jesus.

The key of Baha’i beliefs must be highlighted, thus the following are:

  1. The Primacy of Love
  2. New Role for Humanity
  3. The Twelve Principles
  4. Oneness of God
  5. Foundation Beliefs
  6. Successive Revelations
  7. Basic Unity of All religions
  8. Religious Dialogue
  9. Prejudice
  10. Racial Unity
  11. Equality for Women
  12. Economic Justice
  13. Universal Education
  14. World Federal System
  15. Science

Baha’i Worship

Baha’i have no clergy, sacraments or rituals. Baha’i as such is pretty much individualistic; that is they are responsible for his or her own spiritual growth.

Baha’i Faith and Christianity

It is said that Baha’i people are committed follower of Jesus Christ, but denies what the New Testament declares as truth in the same process. Basic Baha’i faith are diametrically opposed to biblical Christianity. The Baha’i also rejects the fundamental teachings of the New Testament such as:

  1. The Trinity
  2. The Deity of Christ
  3. Virgin Birth of Christ
  4. The physical Resurrection of Christ
  5. Christ’s Atonement (the doctrine concerning the reconciliation of God and humankind,)
  6. Salvation by Faith In Christ Alone
  7. The Holy Scripture as Final Authority
  8. The Second Coming of Christ

This shows that what Baha’i faith followers follows in Jesus and embrace are only those they consider authentic teachings of Christ that are in accord with their principles. This means to say is they “pick out” the ones that agrees the teaching of Baha’u’llah.

This also means that only some part of the Bible is from God but this is contrary to what the Scripture says, “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).

Baha’i in its relativistic system teaches that all religions are valid way to God. Again, this goes against to what Jesus said namely that He is, “The Way, The Truth, The Life” (Jn. 14:6). As you can clearly see, Baha’i Faith is irreconcilable with Christianity. As Dr. Walter Martin said,

There is very little indeed that a true Christian can have in common with the faith of Baha’i. There is simply no common ground on which to meet…The Baha’i Faith is at its very core anti-Christian theology [The Kingdom of The Cult].

Jehovah’s Witness

By Reeves

Introduction 

The Jehovah’s Witnesses officially known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was founded by a fella Charles Taze Russell. He was born February 16, 1852, near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

As a young lad without theological degrees, organized a Bible study group and was ordained by his member as “pastor.” In late 1800’s Charles founded and published the magazine Zion’s Watchtower. It contains his odd interpretation of the Bible. 

After Charles Taze Russell’s death came Joseph F. Rutherford become the successor of the Watchtower Community. The name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” was adopted during his rulership. Rutherford died in 1942 and was replaced by a fella Nathan Knorr. 

The members of the Watchtower increased from 115,000 to 2 million members under his presidency. During 1961 the society produced their self-proclaimed English translation of the Bible entitled The New World Translation of Holy Scriptures.

The Credo’s of Jehovah’s Witnesses

  • Unusual Practices 

For some odd reason a Jehovah’s Witness (JW) must refuse Blood Transfusion. One must not wear a cross necklace not even just an ornament. They refuse to be active in the political arena such as refusing to vote elections, salute the flag or sing a national anthem. Christmas and birthdays are excluded too. Serving in armed forces is an absolute a no no in their practice. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are commanded to be very active to proselytizing for the movement. 

  • Source of Authority 

There are no “articles of faith” or authoritative doctrinal statements according to their beliefs. Most of their theological views are found in their different publications, including the famous The Watchtower and Awake.

  •  JW’s And Its Doctrines 

Trinity, is denied. According to them the doctrine was not conceived by Jesus or the early professing Christians. In the field of their theological studies, Jesus Christ deity as God incarnate is denied. Their favorite biblical passages they use to quote denying Christ’s deity are John 1:1, John 14.28 and Colossians 1:15. They often refers to these verses to read the texts out of contexts. 

Jesus Christ according to Jehovah’s Witnesses was just an ordinary created being-a human just like you and me. Holy Spirit to JW’s is not part of the Godhead. JW’s believe in forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ plus total obedience to Watchtower Society. Salvation for a Jehovah’s follower is through good deeds. 

Christ bodily resurrection is denied and the Second coming of Jesus distorted. Infallibility of the Scripture, Final Judgment, and eternal life in heaven are also distorted in their doctrinal beliefs. JW’s also teaches that there is no salvation outside the Watchtower Society.

A Response to Jehovah’s Witnesses 

Christ Deity 

JW’s denial of Christ’s deity wasn’t originated by Charles T. Russell but by a man called Arius. Arius was a fourth century heretic whose false theology and doctrine was opposed and condemned at the council of Nicea in 325. Arius or Arianism as its called for this teaching was opposed, and exposed his distortions of the Bible by Alexander the mentor of Athanasius. 

Later, Athanasius wrote a skillful defence of Christ’s deity entitled On Incarnation. I’m just going to write a couple of common “proof text” to rebut JW’s false doctrine namely, Christ was just a created being.

John 1:1 

The Scripture reads, ” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (KJV) But according to NWT corrupt rendition of the last clause of John 1:1 it says ” In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God.” The reading of “…the Word [Christ] was a god” totally changed its original meaning. 

The letter a is not in the original Greek text. JW’s maintains that Jesus is only a created being a lesser god. But for the sake of the argument, lets say that Jesus was just a god, this will only add up more difficulties since the Judeo-Christian doctrine is exclusively monotheistic (Is.43:10)! 

To suggest that Jesus is just a lesser god is tantamount to that their are other god beside YHWH! 

John 14:28 

Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I” JW’s frequently uses this verse as a proof text to support their false presupposition about Jesus’ deity. 

If Jehovah is greater than Jesus then Jesus cannot be god. This is just a simple misunderstanding of the text. What Jesus meant about the “greater I” was that God the Father is greater by position, but not by nature, since both are God. Jesus is lower in office, in function in position-As man. 

Jesus is also equal to the Father, in essence, in nature, in character-As God. We have to remember that Jesus has two nature;God-man. Jesus wasn’t denying His deity as God.

Colossians 1:16 “All things” or “All [other] things” 

If one cannot change a meaning to a text all he can do is to add a word to it so that it might appear more appealing. Yet this is exactly what the JW’s did adding a word other into the verse of Col. 1:16 in their NWT. Did the word other existed in the original Greek texts? 

No. The word other is not in the Greek original text. They believe that Jesus is Micheal the Archangel a created being, therefore, they have to add other four times in to the text to justify their false doctrine. JW’s main point about Col. 1:16 is to show that God created Jesus and Jesus in the same token created other things. 

Let’s read Col. 1:16 in its original rendering, “For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him…” 

Again, if we read Isaiah 44:24, where God says, “I am the Lord, that maketh all things, stretchet forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” If Jesus created others along with God then why did God say that He did the creating by Himself?

Bibliography__________

Kingdom of Cults,Water Martin; Bethany House Publisher

Reasoning From The Scriptures with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Ron Rhodes;Harvest House Publishers

Is It possible for a Christian who has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Savior and Lord, yet lose his salvation? Before attempting answering this delicate and important question we have to ask if a person is really saved. Did he have a genuine saving faith or a counterfeit based faith?

Certainly before we can be assured of our salvation and have the certainty for being eternally saved a person must be born again. Jesus Christ was is clear about this and said,

“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3)

    The above word “born again” simply means turning away from his sinful life. A born again person must live a new life, new thinking, and new aim or purposes in life and trust his salvation only in Christ.

    The Bible clearly warns against spiritual pride. Christians risks the possibility to fall into corruption of sinning or even leave his faith and become apostate (2 Peter 2:20).

    Why does this happen to a Christian in a first place? Can the cause of falling-away-from-faith from these professing Christian accepted the decision for following Christ superficially?

    There are various reasons why those who profess their faith does not have eternal security such as follows:

1. Professes the Christian faith but does not repent (Luke. 3:7-14; Acts 26:2).

2. Having religious zeal apart from the gospel (Romans 10:1-4).

3. Knowing not, saving faith always produces works (Eph. 2:8-10; Heb. 11:4,7)

    Or perhaps this believer (who lost his salvation) failed to understand that as a Christian we need to live a disciplined and holy life (Lev. 19:2) so that at the end of our “race” he would not be disqualified or even eliminated from the competition, and win the Crown of Life (1 Cor. 9:24-27)?

    Henceforth, false Christians can never lose their salvation because they never had it in the first place! Genuine Christians on the other hand if they lived consistent biblically based, Christ-like life can rest assured that they are indeed on their way to heaven and are eternally secured. 

    I am totally in disagreement with my fellow brethren who argues from the negative side that true believers in Jesus Christ can lose their salvation.

Once Secured, Always Secured!

    I would argue against the false notion that a Christian who have an intimate with Christ Jesus is in risk losing his eternal security.

    First of, it is a contradiction in term to say that saved can be unsaved. Remember a born again Christian has been saved from the following:

a. Saved from the penalty of sin (Rom. 5:9)

b. Saved from condemnation (v. 8:1)

c. Saved from eternal punishment in hell (Jude 23)

    Indeed, Jesus told us that, “He that  believeth on the Son hath (right at this very moment!) everlasting life” (John 3:36).

Born again believer have everlasting life with God in heaven not “probably” or even “maybe” but today!

    Our source of life which is none other but Jesus Christ give us the positive certainty,

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any one pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:27, 28). [emphasis mine]

    How wonderful and encouraging to read this profound word from our Lord Jesus Christ. Not only that we are assured in him he also will hold on us!

    There is no possible way that a Christian will lose, (who depends and believes in God) his salvation. Jesus says,

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24).

    This is very simple, the person who hear and believe in Him shall not come into judgment. What a promise indeed! But what if a believer who had everlasting life with God lose his salvation? The Jesus Christ would not be true to his word. Yet it is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2).

    Again Jesus tells us,

“I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live” (John 11:25)

    All we have to do is to believe in him who is “the resurrection and life” only then we have eternal life. Paul the Apostle responded to the jailer and said,

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31)

    It is hard for me to reconcile between the genuine believer who is saved will ever be unsaved. On the top of this, it is important to remember that security is based on the grace of God and the fact that eternal life is a gift. 

     Of course, this is ONLY true for “born again” Christian.

Re-checking Christians Attitude Towards God

    If you are a Christian and is saved by the grace of God then, you don’t have any reason doubting your eternal security.

    However, if you as a believer still doubts your salvation, then it is only advisable to re-check our personal relationship and attitude towards our Savior. If we really want and willing with whole our mind and soul to get right in-tune with God we must check the following:

1. Do I have a present trust in Christ for salvation?

2. Is there evidence of a renewing work of the Holy Spirit in my heart?

3. Do I see a long-term relationship of growth in my Christian life?

Again, remember if you are already a believer then be certain and be assured of your eternal security. Make sure we’re not one of whom Jesus rebuked,

“Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven…I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matt. 7:21,23).

By Reeves

suicideGood question! Although this question misunderstands the entire concept of the Christian faith it must nevertheless be properly responded. Assuming for a moment that the questioner is a skeptic therefore the very nature of this inquiry doubts the reality of heaven and the truthfulness of Christianity.

For instance, “If heaven exist,” the skeptics ask, “why don’t you Christians commit suicide, after all isn’t heaven a better place?” and “But heaven is not real therefore you do not commit suicide.” There are lots of ways to approach this question though I decided to only chose a few. Let us analyze this question more closely.

1. If heaven exists as Christians believe,

2. They should commit suicide (since heaven is a better place).

3. But no Christian commits suicide,

4. Therefore, heaven must not exist.

Premise 1 is true that Christians indeed believe that heaven exists but premises 2, 3, and 4 are false, and should not be taken as a valid conclusion. Premise 3 is false because there are Christians, sad enough, who commits suicide, though I believe that it has more to do with brain chemical imbalance, but not for the sake of getting to heaven pronto. There are those who died, indeed for the Christian faith (martyrs) but not by solely taking one’s own life.

Breath of Life

But what about the other premise such as 2 and 4? Are these valid? I do not think so for a moment. First of all, God intended for us to live as he has given us “the breath of life,” not the breath of death. God created human beings to live and “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:28).

The command to “be fruitful, and replenish” implies having great responsibility, thus committing suicide will make Christians notoriously irresponsible!

Sanctity of Life

Second, God commanded us to fully respect the sanctity of life, and He even forbade murder (Ex. 19:13). So if one commits suicide by which taking his or her own life is tantamount to 1st degree murder! Besides murder, suicide is also selfish, cowardice, and irresponsible.

Death Is Not Heaven

Thirdly, Death is not a synonym for heaven. Likewise, death does not equal heaven as if these two concepts were the same. These two words have totally different meaning and different concepts. In fact, to even think, therefore that death = heaven is oxymoron or contradiction in terms. Death means losing life, heaven in the other spectrum means gaining life!

Furthermore, one does not have to die in order for a Christian to be and or experience heaven i.e. prophet Elijah (2 King 2:11) did not went through death but went to God. The Apostle John “saw” heaven several occasions before his natural death.

Death as Curse

Fourth, death wasn’t suppose to coexist with the living. Death “entered” when Adam and Eve rebelled and sinned against their God. Dying has become a curse and part of our existence. However, just because death has become part of life, it simply doesn’t mean intertwined with life. As a matter of fact Jesus would have not said to be “the resurrection and life,” if death and life were one. Thus there is a great gulf between life and death.

Jesus Values Life

Life is better than death, and no doubt Jesus Christ apparently valued life over death. This is illustrated in Jesus’ life by, for instance, raising his friend Lazarus (John 11:44), others, and himself from the dead. So, if dying means a ticket to heaven, Jesus and Lazarus would have remained in their graves. Thus, choosing death over life just to be in heaven will devalue life and would be in grave opposition to Jesus who is life himself.

Not All Are Going To Heaven

Finally, not all are going to heaven (according to the Bible). Those who are going to be with God are those who are born again and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. So, if you are to die today without Christ in your life, your are going to be condemned to eternal punishment which is hell. If you are living Christless then I beseech you to reconsider your life in Christ and ask for forgiveness.

Conclusion

The key word in this subject is life. God created and breath “the breath of life” not death. God gives us life and responsibility. Choosing death over life means irresponsibility. Death is not to be identified with heaven because this two has different meaning and significance. We also learned that death means losing life, while heaven means gaining eternal life. Jesus preferred life over death by raising others including himself to life. One does not have to die in order for him or her to get to heaven. Finally, Only those who are in Christ are going to heaven. And those without Christ and are living in sin are going to be in hell for eternity.

By Reeves

charlesDBefore we get into the core of this, rather long essay, let me first start to introduce you briefly about what evolution really means and what it teaches. Then we will examine its tenets whether or not evolution is a fact or just a man-made defiance against God. It is said that, “It is always wise to get to know your enemy” as the saying goes. Without knowing or having any knowledge about your opponent can be very deceiving and even lethal. 

Evolutionist atheists pride themselves to be the champion of reason. They tell Christians to abandon their faith and should start using their brains.

Well, I agree though I would say that I will never abandon my faith in Christ because it is the power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), yet I will use my brain with its rationality to discard evolution. I pray evolutionists will do just the same.

What Does Evolution Means?

Evolution covers three basic areas: the origin of the universe, the origin of first life, and the origin of life forms. These three are also commonly understood as cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution.

Since, the theory of evolution is broad, my aim in this study is confined only in the life sciences– that is biological evolution. Though the term evolution can mean a lot of things (for example, micro evolution vs macro evolution can be very misleading, but I’ll explain this terms later on), let is not be side tracked to the common understanding of evolutionists in which they propagate.

Biological evolution is the description of naturalistic process that is assumed to have turned molecules into man over billions of years.

Douglas J. Futuyma an evolutionist defined biological evolution as follows:

“In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.”

Theory of evolution is the dominating, and currently popular (in our public schools, universities, and even in the media,) concept of how life reached its current state.

Most (not all) scientists embrace this hypothesis and phenomena driven by natural selection, so much so that it is generally assumed as factual in most studies.

What Does Evolution Theory Teaches?

Evolutionists believes and teaches that life itself originated from a single-cell in a pond a billions of years ago. The majority of evolutionists denies the existence of God, humans, animals, and plants are nothing but an accidental by product of biological mutations.

I will limit myself to introduce the evolution theory as is commonly understood today in our public schools and universities, in three factors:

1. Spontaneous generation

Also called abiogenesis (bio means life, genesis means beginning or origin). What the term implies is that life arose from dead material, in a pond or other moist environment, commonly known as pre-biotic soup.

This is the idea that non-living matter can give rise to living organism. Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.

The Encyclopedia Britannica explains:

Whether the earth cooled from a molten mass or condensed out of cold dust, life could not have existed when the earth was formed some 5,000,000,000 years ago; it must have originated since. As both processes (automatic synthesis and ultra violet light energy) are the characteristic of life, it is not unreasonable to suppose that life originated in a watery “soup” of pre biological organic compounds and that living organisms arose later by surrounding quantities of these compounds by membranes

that made them into “cells.” This is usually considered the starting point of organic evolution.

This theory is supposedly have been “proven.”

2. Natural Selection

It teaches that, Natural selection is the process by which species adapt to their environment. Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring.

3. Homology

Perhaps one of the stronger arguments for evolution that humans have originated from one species is the analogy of homology.

Homology is a specific explanation of similarity of form seen in the biological world. Similarities can often be explained by common descent; features are considered homologous if they are shown to be inherited from a common ancestor.

Macro- and Micro Evolution

What about “macro”- and “micro evolution?” The word macro- and micro evolution was used in the late 1930s, by evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky devised the Modern evolutionary synthesis.

Macro evolution teaches that, in evolutionary theory entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation.

This means in a simple language, one organism transform into a new but different organism, i.e. worms turns crocs. The micro evolution on the other hand teaches that, as one evolutionists explains,

Micro evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population.

In simple term micro evolution tells us that, for instance a dog only produces a different but the same subspecies dog.

As a students of biology one must not confuse between the two. Micro- and macro evolutionary has its different significance. The evolution theory is very much accepted in general because of its none God inference.

Most scientists argues that because of the theory of evolution from cosmology (Big Bang) to life (biology) it is now quite alright to be a confirmed atheist. Because science, so they say, has disproven the God-myth and the Bible.

Other reason why the theory of evolution is popular because it teaches that morality is subjective, since God an absolute standard of right and wrong does not exists. Or cannot possibly exist in a non-purpose mindless universe.

As a back drop, evolutionism is mainly atheistic and naturalist theory. I don’t understand why Christians should compromise in their synthesising between creationism and evolutionism as if both were compatible.

As George Gaylord Simpson an evolutionist said,

Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.

Now that we have properly (even though briefly) conduct our review namely what evolution means and what it teaches, it is I guess safe to conclude that Evolution theory hinges (though not entirely exclusively) and rely upon three things:

1. Spontaneous generation

2. Natural selection, and

3. Homology

I have also written and describe pronto the difference between macro-and microevolution as a part of this study.

Why? Because this subject can be very confusing. If we as Christians cannot and or fail to differentiate between the two can be very devastating in our dialogs with the evolutionists.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has mostly been the benefactor of the moral decline mostly in the western world. It has given the people excuse to simply live as they wished. Darwinism leads to what people call themselves as secular (anti-God) humanists.

But is darwinian theory of evolution a proven matter of fact? Many scientists believes this theory to be true so is it then an established fact? Lets see if we can answer this question.

Is Darwinian Evolution Theory Scientific or A Hoax?

First off, neither creationists – and evolutionists scientists were there to witness the universe first hand to occur. All we have at this present stage are artifacts and data of what we can examine from this present of the past.

Both theory can only examine what we can get and observed right now, whether it be fossilized bones, carbon dating and so on and so fort.

Second, the evidence or data we discover does not automatically become obvious for scientists as a fact since, evidence does not speak for themselves but is interpreted by our own interpretations whether we be evolutionists or creationists.

To state that, “the data of fossil records points more on the evolutionary theory” is biased if not dogmatic.

Just because the majority of evolutionists are anti-God does not follow that their interpretation of the evidence of origin automatically infers naturalism. To discredit creationist scientists because they happen to be Christians is prejudiced

The Law Of Abiogenesis

With this in mind, creationists and evolutionists undoubtedly agrees that life is complex. Yet darwinists maintains that life was generated from non-living material in a primordial soap.

The transition from non-life to life, however, has never been observed. Despite of what the evolutionists tells us about spontaneous generation, there is simply no evidence to support this theory much less to have occurred.

One must also remember that spontaneous generation is not widely accepted as a settled, fact theory among biochemists and other scientists. On the contrary, this theory has been under criticism more and more thanks to the development of highly advanced technology.

Scientist Michael Denton (not a creationist) said concerning this topic,

“Considering the way the pre-biotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.” [1]

Other scientists such as Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe concluded,

“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was not primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” [2]

More and more scientists arrives there conclusions that life cannot simply come from non-life. Luis Pasteur a Christian and scientist proved experimentally over 120 years ago that dead objects cannot produce living ones.

In his studies, Pasteur comes into conclusion that life always arises from life of the same kind. This is recognized as the law of abiogenesis (studies of the origin of life).

Carl Sagan an atheist estimated the probability for non-life to rise life, thus,

“The mathematical probability of the simplest form of life emerging from non-living matter has the unbelievable odds of one chance in ten to the two billionth power (1 in 10 with two billion zero after it) – even less probability than predicted by Sir Hoyle or Dr. Morowitz. The enormity of this figure is revealed by the fact that it would take 6,000 books of 300 pages each just to write the number!” [3]

Wayne Jackson in his book The Evolution Revolution wrote,

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”

As scientist George Javor added,

“Abiogenesis, both spontaneous and directed, is merely a concept. It has not been observed or demonstrated in the laboratory. Moreover, no one has come up with a convincing scenario of how it could happen, even on paper.” [5]

Indeed, spontaneous generation is just a concept and a hypothesis. It is, as stated earlier, neither demonstrable or observable. Life must only come from life.

But how many of us realize the fact that life is too complex for it to just emerge from non-living material. The DNA for instance. Those who have been studying the complexity and mechanism of the DNA cannot just ignore its vast information.

For those who have not the time to look more closely the DNA functions: DNA is the genetic material that carries all the instructions for the function of the cell. [6]

DNA determines also what structures a cell will build, what chemicals or hormones it will produce. This means that DNA decides what eye color an individual will have or what the color of his or her hair or still what skin complexion a person may have are also determined by it. But what is the odds for the DNA forming by chance in an organic-soup?

In their Book Darwin’s Demise Drs. White, and Comninellis argued against the notion of DNA arising from just happenstance,

“DNA – containing the code for this first living cell – is very complex and does not naturally occur. As a matter of fact the chance of you being able to jump high enough to reach the moon is greater than the chance that DNA would form by chance. Its existence can only reasonably explained by some external, organizing force.” [7]

Information scientists, Werner Gitt, expounds the information storage in DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid:

Not only is the amount of the information in cellular DNA staggering, it’s also incredibly compact. We marvel at computer storage disks with ever capacity. Yet the quantity of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to the content of a pile of paperback books spanning the distance from earth to the moon 500 times – each book being unique from others! [8]

A chemist and former evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith, says,

It is emphatically the case that life could not arise spontaneously in a primeval soup of any kind…Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup ever existed on this planet. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario “the myth of the pre-biotic soup.” [9]

In closing with our discussion of spontaneous generation, let us quote Edward P. Tryon, Professor of Physics at City University of New York,

The novelty of a scientific theory of creation ex nihilo(creation from nothing) is readily apparent, for science has long taught us that one cannot make something from nothing. [10]

We should teach our children, peers, and love ones that the simple aphorism, ”something cannot come from nothing” is a fact! This is pure and simple and should have been well established in the scientific community long time ago.

We should also remember the truth that non-living material cannot produce living things. To believe it is not scientific or intelligent. Life comes only from life.

Does The Natural Selection Support Evolution?

As you have noticed we have examined the probability for life arising from non-life without any guidance from intelligence is impossible just as scientists (quoted above) studied the spontaneous generation.

Does natural selection support the theory of evolution? This is our second examination whether or not evolution is true.

Let us turn to what is commonly known in our biological textbooks: natural selection. According to humanist evolution adherents, natural selection is the primary mechanism that drives evolution.

Natural selection as darwinist defines is,

“The process by which genetic traits are passed on to each successive generation. Over time, natural selection helps species become better adopted to their environment. Also known as “survival of the fittest,” natural selection is the driving force behind the process of evolution.” [11]

Is this true then? Biblical creationism explains on the other hand that, the mechanism and process of natural selection does not point to molecules-to-man. Creationism maintains that, organism do change but only within its species i.e. from wolf to coyote.

Creationist never denies this kind of change, what is in dispute is the type of change such as fish-to-philosopher as the theory of evolution originally proposed. Creationist Nicholas Comninellis says,

“It is understandable that the fastest, most agile, and strongest creatures will survive longer than the sick, the weakened, and crippled. But while natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest within a particular group of plants or animals, it does not explain transformation from one species into another. Actually, nature selection is conservative, not creative.” [12]

Christian and scientist Henry M. Morris also explains that natural selection only operates within the particular type of organism,

“Modern molecular biology, with its penetrating insight into the remarkable genetic code implanted in the DNA system, has further confirmed that normal variation operate only within the range specified by the DNA for particular type of organism.” [13]

Creationists always believed that there are variations within species, yet this variations do not cross into something entirely new organism.

Natural selection “transform” what is already in the gene pool. Plant physiologist, David Catchpoole added,

…natural selection is not evolution since by itself it cannot make new organism. Natural selection can only eliminate weaker organisms (and thereby their genes) from the population. A group of creatures might become better adopted to a colder environment, for example by natural selection weeding out those which don’t carry the genetic information to make thick fur, but that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to produce thick fur.” [14]

The evolution model of natural selection is corrupt and in explainable. The creationist model predicts and ‘fits’ will in the creationist theory. Jonathan Sarfati a physical chemist explains this very well,

“In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms which reproduced “after their kinds” (Gen. 1:11-12,21,24-25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adopt to a wide variety of environments.” [15]

Scientists especially those of the creation movements proposed what natural selection can, and cannot. Please consider the chart below.

 Natural Selection Can Natural Selection Cannot 
 Decrease genetic information  Increase provide new genetic information
 Allow organismto survive in a given environment  Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man
 Act as a selector  Act as “originator”
 Support creation’s “orchard”  Support evolutionary “tree of life”

Again, creationists does not deny change or transformation for organisms to adopt its environment. But this change only occur within species i.e. bear kinds and have limitation and does not create new life form (for example, polar bear to gorillas). 

    Evolutionists on the other hand argues that mechanism of organisms adopting its environment will eventually (given enough time) transform into something new creature (for example, crocs to a chimp). How can this be since evolution requires changes that increase genetic information? This is not science.  

    Macro evolution (particles-to-man) has never been scientifically observed. All they can tell you is that the reason why we cannot observed ‘evolution’ before our eyes is because it is very slow and takes millions of years of process.

    Micro evolution (wolves to coyotes) though decreasing its genetic information can be observed and predicted.

Homology Doesn’t Say Common Ancestor

What about the argument from homology, does this support the Darwinian theory of evolution? Homology or common structure between animals is being promoted as an irrefutable evidence for evolutionists theory.

The argument for evolution assumes the common physical features, such as five fingers on apes and human, which supposedly points to a common ancestor in the distant past.

Is this true? Let us now continue with our study whether the Darwinian theory is scientific or just a religion disguised as science,

Scientifical creationists critique this argument from homology as evidence for common ancestor, but rather say that common structure were due to common Creator than common descent.

Creationists proponents argues that a common Designer explanation makes much more sense. Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D. wrote concerning this;

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. [Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Master Books, p.112]

In his book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith?, Don Boys wrote,

Similarity does not equal relationship. Evolutionists often use similarity between animals and man to “prove” Darwinism. They point to the legs, neck, ears, etc., of apes and remind us how similar they are to those of men. Creationists likewise use similarities to support creation…So God used His blueprint for many of His creatures. Similarities don’t mean common ancestry but a common Architect!

Textbooks in biology defines homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry — a circular argument (logical fallacy)masquerading as scientific evidence? Yet common ancestry is being teached in our public schools as a fact.

We can infer that the similarity indicates common Designer not “common ancestor.” In addition, common descent as an argument for Darwinism is not a direct find to support their theory, but an interpretation-an interpretation made from an evolutionary framework.

From a biblical framework of thinking, creationists would say that the similarity (among birds for instance) reflect their having been created by a single Designer with a common basic plan.

But, what about the oft-mooted idea that humans and chimps have 96-98 percent DNA similarity? Does’ntthis countan evidence that human evolve fro apes? To be honest, evolutionary argument from a common ancestor to explain likeness is probably the most appealing hypothesis. However, this hypothesis falls far short as a confirmation for common descent.

Concerning the likeness between man and a chimp and therefore common ancestor is misleading to say the least. Again, similarities between humans and apes are often over-dramatized if not overrated.

For example, it was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA . However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Let say, for the sake of argument, similarity due to common ancestry, then, the analogy between ape and man breaks down because humans are more closely related to chicken and crocodiles.

“Hemoglobin, the molecule that carries oxygen in the blood, is found in all vertebrates, including humans. But hemoglobin also exists in earthworms, crustaceans, starfish, and end in some microorganisms. Crocodiles hemoglobin is more similar to chicken hemoglobin than it is to the hemoglobin of snakes, and other reptiles. Human lysozyme, an enzyme for digesting foods, is more similar to chicken lysozyme than to the lysozyme of apes and other primates. [16]

Farther more, in his new book , Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells wrote,

“But if similarities are the primary evidence for common ancestry, how can we know when they are not due to common ancestry?” and “Similarities in fossils originally suggests that hippos are evolutionary sisters of pigs and camels but far removed from whales. Similarities in molecules now suggests that hippos are evolutionary sisters from whales but far removed from pigs and camels- and that the fossil similarities on which Darwinists originally relied were never evidence for common ancestry at all.” [17]

Humans are very different from yeast but have some bio-chemistry in common, so we should expect human and yeast DNA to be only slightly similar. Thus, the general pattern of common structures need not be explained by common-ancestry evolution.

Closing Statement

The question, “Is Darwinian Evolution True?” has been, in my opinion, answered and critiqued thoroughly by handful other scientists and in this essay that it cannot be possibly true. The evidence against the theory of evolution is being challenge not only by creationists who are scientists but by secular scientists too. They found this theory seriously flawed.

We can safely conclude in what we have researched that Darwinism is not a scientifical fact but a hoax! The only viable and satisfying explanation in the origin of man is God. An all-powerful, all-knowing God created the universe including you and me as we read in the Scripture. The theory of Evolution is not needed because it as a hypothesis cannot provide factually and reliable answer to our questions.

Notes and resources_____________________

[1] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler; 3Rev Ed edition

[2] Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon and Schuster, p. 148

[3] John Billingham and Rudolf Pe, editors, Communications With Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, Pergamon press

[4] Wayne Jackson, The Evolution Revolution, Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, Inc

[5] John Ashton and Michael Westacott, The Big Argument: Does God Exist? Master Books

[6] Drs. Joe White, Nicholas Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise, Master Books

[7] Drs. Joe White, Nicholas Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise (p. 31) Master Books

[8] Werner Gitt, Dazzling Design in Miniature, Publish in Creation Ex Nihilo

[9] Taylor, Origins Answer Book.

[10] Edward P. Tyron, New Scientist (March 8, 1984), p.14

[11] Qouted from the book, The New Answer Book, General editor Ken Ham, Master Books, p.272

[12] Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Master Book, p.82

[13] Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, Master Book, p.51

[14] John Ashton and Michael Westacott, The Big Argument: Does God Exist? Master Book p.117

[15] Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D., Refuting Evolution, Master Book,p.32

[16] Drs. Henry Mooris and Gary Parker, What Is Creation Science? Master Books, p.52-61

[17] Jonathan Wells Ph. D, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing, p. 41

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me” – Jesus

By Reeves

religion symbolsIntroduction

I wrote this essay for almost two years ago for my Swedish essay assignment, and I did get a good grade for this essay. This essay was originally written in Swedish.

I attempted to rewrite this in English version ( I have modified and added some arguments) hoping to have the same effective, but readable argument. Though I prayerfully hope that whoever read this in English will give the ready a clarity of my arguments for Christian exclusivism[1]. No I’m not a scholar nor a teacher. I’m just a student and still learning under the infinte knowledge and grace of my God, Lord Jesus Christ.

I wrote this particular essay as a reaction against the arguments for Religion Pluralism. Religion Pluralism (RP from now) teaches us that whatever religion one my adopt or adhere to, whether it be Hinduism or Islam, no one can hereby claim that an individual belief is more true than any competing beliefs because, “all religion are basically the same.” More over, RP if we understand them correctly also teaches that whether it be Judaism or Buddhism actually believes in the same God. All religious belief according to RP will eventually end up to one common God. But this is utterly nonsense and false as I will counter argue against this false idea later.

Though I do not have the aptitude to demolish altogether the RP objection against the objective, Christian exclusivistic argument for the Orthodox Christian faith, this does not however disqualify me to write any objections against RP. A person does not need to go through academic training in order to refutethe false and fallacious arguments mounted against Christian exclusivism or objectivism. Let us now continue with our study.

The Apparent Contradictions

To believe in something is not wrong just as long your belief is in accord with reality or which that corresponds to reality. Ludwig Feuerbach (1808-72)2 believed that religion is essential, and which I really agree. But, do we ever question our belief system? Whether you are an atheist, agnostic or theists we cannot and should not neglect to ask whether our current beliefs have any significant in our lives.

“Does it really matter what we believe just as long we believe in something?” “The meaning and reality of faith probably does not matter just as long we are faithful or sincere to whatever it is we happens to believe.” Or “Is there any truth in my current belief?” These questions must we ask if we really want to know if there is any truth in our faith.

Elementary Logic

I think the idea behind the statement, “That there really ain’t such thing as absolute truth,” is common philosophy in our media, newspapers, music, peers, and even in our own family dining room. Yet, the same people who argues for “no absolute truth” (relativists) argues in the same time in the same breath “for absolute truth!”

The statement that “Religion is relative,” is a statement about religion, so the statement is also relative that “religion is relative” and should be rejected as false. This is because the given statement is contradictory.

I did not mean to give you headache. No contradictory statements are true. For instance, Fredrik Reinfeld won the 2006 election, Fredrik Reinfeld did not won the 2006 election both are an statement but both cannot be correct in the same time in the same respect one of this statement is simply mistaken.

Before we continue let me first give you a brief introductory to the three law of though. First the Law of Non contradiction (namely, a cannot be non a at the same time in the same sense). No Hindus are Christians.

No H is C,

because C is non H

Therefore H is no C

LikewiseNo Christians are Muslims because Muslims are not Christian, therefore Muslims are not Christians.

No C are M,

because M are not C

therefore C are not M

This is simple logic in which I hope everybody understands. Let us continue with our logical studies. The second law of though is the Law of Excluded Middle-the either or argument. For example, either Jesus was the Christ or he wasn’t. There are no in-between. Either he is the Anointed one or Not the Anointed one.

Either Ann Sofi won the Chess Championship or she did not won the Chess Championship. To push this further, either God exist (Judaism, Christianity), or He does not exist (Atheism, Buddhism), there are no in-between explanation. Jesus as a master logician shows as the Law of Excluded Middle, “He that is not with me is against me;” (Matthew 12:30).

Now to our third law of though which is The Law of Identity. This law simply states that if a statement is true then it is true. Let me provide you with an example. God is God without the Law of Identity God would also be the Devil. These are the basic principles of logic. The RP breaks all these basic principles of logic. Let me yet give you one last example. The RP as I have explained above assumes that all religion (x) are the same (y), therefore all religion is one (z).

All x is y

therefore x and y is z

Taken RP’s conclusion Buddhism is the same as Islam therefore Islam is Buddhism! This is absurd. These above examples are what pluralists postulates. The same people who pride themselves as more logical turns out to be more illogical! The statement “It really doesn’t matter what you believe in just as long as you are sincere,” is ludicrous and horrible.

If this statement is followed by its conclusion then a sincere Nazi or Satanist is praiseworthy! An idea taken from our religious pluralist friend in which God’s applause (by one’s sincerity) of a child molester doesn’t really fit the idea of what we happen to know what’s good, and what’s evil.

This is meant to say that a theist have a belief system value such as the atheist, or a neo-Nazi in his idealism for white supremacy has the same values and equality to a Buddhist. In short all belief system are nothing but subjective thinking or idea according to a religious relativists.

But this is not the case, that all religion in its creeds, rituals, doctrines, and practice in which totally contradicts from each other are nonetheless true, and identical sounds insane, violates against human reasoning! Let me explain why this is irrational and absurd.

Truth per se is not dependent in our belief. Whatever constitutes our belief (believing in Santa Clause, unicorns etc..,) does not entail its truthfulness. For example, whether we believe that the mathematical equation 20+20= 40 or not remains true, but believing in unicorns is not.

I may sincerely believe with all my heart and mind that the weather in Stockholm will be warm through out winter, but, my sincerity of believing this does not validates reality. Again, I may believe with all my heart and mind that I bought a 56′ Chevy, and is parked in the garage does not guarantee that this is really the case. Because in reality tells me that I cannot afford such a classic car.

Inspiration maybe felt deep inside in our inner most being, but this inspiration should not be used as a “compass” to our path for religious objectivity. I maybe deep religious and sincere, but this still does not say anything about the truthfulness of my faith.

What I’m trying to say here that whatever faith there is it must correspond to what reality is. Does your faith corresponds to reality? I guess everybody or most of us have seen Michael J Fox’s Back to The Future series. I have seen all of them and I enjoyed and laughed to it.

gathering the best philosopher such us Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Plato and a Buddhist thinker, hoping to compose a symposium on physics and astronomy.

If RP is true, an apparent nonsense would eventually be the ending of this symposium–even if these great thinkers will not individually agree with each other no one would be accounted for the mistake! Believing that earth is spherical and that the sun is the center of our solar system the opposite if this is also true according a a RP mind.

Objectivistsdoes not arrive to this conclusion. The nature of the universe is what it is no matter what we believe about it. Belief and sincerity does not entail to what is true and what is real. Rather, all faith must be under the bar of what is real and must correspondingly correspond to reality.

Apparent Differences I

In Accordance with the RP an atheist who flatly denies the existence of God or gods compare to a theist who believes that a just, holy, and merciful God exist, both of them are not different. God (according to RP) exists and not exists in the same time in the same sense! One can be very skeptic by this kind of reasoning.

Let us now face the multi million dollar question. “Are all religion one?” is this really true, that in the core of its religiosity will eventually end up to the same God? My answer of course will be, not in a million chance! My reason for this is that all religion contradicts with each other plain and simple. No contradictory statements or beliefs can be simultaneously be true at the same time in the same sense remember?

A question comes to mind “Is there any truth in other religion?” of course there is, we cannot ignore these truth in other religion after all all truth is God truth.

But just because other religion contains truth one cannot hereby generalize that they are all compatible, and this goes against our rational common sense. Hinduism is pantheist 3while on other hand Buddhism denies any existence of God or gods. As mentioned earlier, God exists for Christians while there has never been any God or gods in Atheism. The Bible teaches that Jesus is God’s incarnate Son while Islam flatly denies this fact.

Jesus who is Yahweh in the Scripture is nothing but a mere prophet in the Qu’ran. Is monotheistic4 belief the same as the polytheistic (1 apple equals 100 apples)? Can God exist and not exist in the same time in the same breath? Is Yes to be understood as no? Is there such a thing as square-circle? More of this later on.

The Argument From Religious Feelings

What about the statement, “I believe Hinduism is true because I feel this deep inside me” Or My beliefs are true because my feelings tells me so.” What have we learned about our feelings? We have learned from the dawn of history of man that feelings are unreliable. Feelings always change from time to time while truth does not (2+2=4, earth rotates around the sun, murdering infants is morally evil).

Besides, feelings cannot be objective. For instance, how many skyscraper and gigantic buildings all over the world that has been built based on feelings? None! How many professors are they who corrected their students exams, essays based on feelings? I hope none! Individualism is rampant among post-modernistic minds. One individualistic philosophy is “Whatever you feel it is true” (go for what you feel!).

But individualism has its maladies. What about marriage? Do we divorce our spouse just because we cannot “feel” any longer? Are we not to feed the poor because we doesn’t feel like it?

Are we to sanction law based on what we each feels? What if we based our moral norms to mere feelings (and which obviously shifts over time) are we then going to call good (helping, giving, honesty, protect human rights) today but evil tomorrow? Who’s feelings are we to base our moral norms to judge what is wrong and what is evil?

Someone will say that “rational people decides what’s good and what’s evil.” But, rationality is not feelings. Worse yet, whoever decides what is good or evil is subject to change since feelings is not constant, as the dictum goes “feelings comes and they goes.” Emotive moralists are standing on the shaky ground here. There must be law and moral norms that transcend our mere futile feelings.

And this moral law giver must be absolute and objective that prescribes universal law and morality. An objective moral giver is the only explanation as to why we know what is good and vice versa. Emotivists cannot discern why is is evil to murder or rape, he/she may “feels” that rape and murder is evil, but feelings of “knowing” is altogether different from why murder/rape is wrong.

I may have deep feelings that goddess Aphrodites only loves me, and watches over me while asleep. The fact is that Aphrodites does not exist no matter how I may feel about here. Likewise we may feel that Darwinism is true and is “scientifically proven” by feelings does not make this theory true.

Because evolutionism as a matter of fact is a hoax. Evolutionism is nothing but religion and an ancient philosophy (Anaximander 610-546 B. C.) 5Despite of what darwinists tells you about evolution, it is never been proven (macro evolution 6 ) nor it is observable.

Though the theory of morality belongs to ethics what I’m trying to say here that since there are problem in morality ascribing to mere feelings how can it there be no problem in religion since most of it happens to be mere emotional rather than objectives?

A religious pluralist cannot maintain to propagate that religions in general are the same and equally true because as i have written earlier, that since these religions contradicts with each other, they cannot all be equally true. Again, while these religion contains truth is not tantamount to their equality.

Apparent Differences II

Further, to say that they are the same is to one way or the other disrespect and undermine these Religion. The conservative Christian believes, that there is only one God, who is supreme and sovereign.

And while He is transcendent — above and beyond us, He is also immanent — right here among us at the same time. He created it all–the universe and the world in which we live from nothing (ex nihilo ).

The Bible says that we are created in God’s image; and when we die we will either go to be with Him of be separated from Him forever. In addition, the conservative Christian believes that those who rejected Christ as their Lord and Savior hell will be their ultimate destination.

Hindus on the other hand, do not believe in a personal, loving God, but Brahma, a formless, abstract, eternal being without attributes, who was the beginning of all there is. Hindus call sin “utter illusion” this is because they believe all material reality is illusory. They seek deliverance from samsara the endless cycle of death and rebirth, through union with Brahmah. Salvation in Hinduism is achieved by good works.

Buddhist, deny the existence of a personal God. They believe that the existence of God is irrelevant. This belief clearly contradicts the Christian God who is personal, omniscient, and omnipotent (Job 42:1-6; Psa.115; Matt. 19:26). Regarding sin, and salvation, Buddhists believe that sin is lust that arises in one’s life. Through self-effort and by summoning Bodhisattvas for help one will be eventually get rid of these lustful desires.

Christian on the contrary believe that sin is any though, deed or desire contrary to God’s will, and salvation comes only through faith in what Christ done for us (see Acts 4:12; Rom. 3:10,23; Eph. 2:8-10).

Let us now turn to what Muslims believe regarding Jesus, sin, and salvation. Muslims believe there is no God but Allah; Christians believe that God is revealed in the Bible as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons who are co-eternal God (read Matt 3:13-17; 28:19;9 and Cor. 13:14)

Regarding Jesus Muslims believe that Jesus was only a mere prophet below Mohammedin subordination, who did not die for mankind sin. In contrast, Christians says that Christ is the Son incarnate of God, the sinless redeemer who died and rose again for sinful man (John 1:13,14; 1 Pet. 3:18).

Muslims teaches that Allah does not love those who do wrong, and each person must earn his or her salvation. Again, this teaching is contrary to the Scripture; Christians contend that a loving God sent His Son to die for our sins (cf. Rom. 5:8; 1 Col 15:3,4). Most if not all religions doesn’t agree, and in grave in opposite with each other for example;

Jewish, Christians and Muslims believe as written above different versions of God. Hindus and the New Age adherents believes that everything that exists are part of none personal entities.

Lots of Hindus believes that evil and suffering are nothing but illusions; Jewish, and Christians alike believes that evil and suffering is a fact as a heart attack.

Christians believe that salvation is by faith alone (sola fide), while other religions teaches (among these are Roman Catholics, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism) that salvation through good works. By the way, the definition of what “good” is what salvation means in these religions vary a lot.

If one studies God’s nature, man’s nature, sin, and salvation, heaven, and creation in contrasts with each systems, creeds, beliefs, and dogmas, one would indeed conclude that these faiths do differ, and is not the same as RP wants us to believe.

The statement that Jesus Christ is God’s incarnate (Judeo-Christian), and not God incarnate (Judeo, Islam) is a contradiction. Either Jesus was God’s incarnate or He is not. There are no middle ground here. Jewish, Muslims and Christians identifies Jesus of Nazareth differently, and they may all fail in their belief about Jesus, certainly all cannot be correct simultaneous.

As I have demonstrated, RP failed to explain as to why if they are identical then why do they contradict? Despite their grave differences the RP didn’t give any clear instruction as to why all these would eventually end in the same God.

From these we can now safely conclude that all religions cannot be equally valid in the same time in the same sense. Christians must remember that while we possess the truth we must respect others belief systems. Respect and tolerance does not of course entail accepting them as equally true, because only Jesus Christ Is the truth.

One of Jesus’ disciple Thomas asked, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” and Jesus answered, “I am the way, and the truth (Gr. alétheia), and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me” (John 14:6).

Notes and References—————————

1. Christians who believe that Christ is the only way.

2. An agnostic philosopher.

3. who believes that every thing is God/all is god.

4. who believes in only one God as oppose to polytheism.

5. a naturalist philosopher

6. from a fish evolves (given millions of years) to a philosopher

Religions, Cambridge Illustrated History

Norman Giesler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics; Baker Publisher

Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli Handbook of Christian Apologetics; InterVarsity Press

Paul Copan, True For You But Not For Me; Baker Publisher

Fritz Ridenour, So What’s The Difference?; Regal Publisher

By Reeves

God’s Holiness

Mosaic window Too much pressures upon our teens today seen in our television commercials, popular teen magazines that teaches them what to wear, what to think, and how to become popular among their peers is quite daunting to say the least. No wonder that living a holy, righteous life is not so popular among teenagers today.

The modern mind superficially believes that life of righteousness of today’s generations is outmoded, and even out of touched with “reality.” Sadly, Christians are not exempted and have been deceived from the popular motto of being in touched with the modern world, and live and let live kind of philosophy. But what does the Scripture tells us about living a life of holiness? What does God tells us when it comes to live a life with/in Him? We will try to answer these questions.

Christians are unaware of the fact that God calls His children to sanctify themselves and live a holy life. Before we embark with out Bible study, we should first and foremost understand God as a holy being quite briefly. The idea of holy (kadosh) implies differentiation: entirely set apart  from the common, habitual, or the profane. The holy God, is awe-inspiring even terrible or dreadful (Neh. 1:5; Psa. 68:35).

The psalmist wrote, “The LORD our God is holy,” Similarly, Joshua said to the people, “Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.” (Josh. 24:19) And prophet Isaiah wrote, “But the LORD of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, and God that is holy shall be sanctified in righteousness.” (Isa.5:16) God is utterly holy, and this is what the biblical writers tells us about Him.

God Hates Sin!

What Christians sometimes fail to realise is that God is more than just a “God of Love,” HE is also holy. Yes, God is love, and this is true, but it is equally true that God is pure and holy, and therefore hates sin! God’s purity and holiness are not confined behind his love. To think of God nothing else but love is a false view about God. God is love, God is just, God is holy, these are His attributes (that ascribes His being as a whole) that neither confines or excludes the rest of His attributes.

When God is love but He is also just. When God is just, He is also mercy. When God is mercy, He is Also holy. Thus God is love, just, mercy, perfect, and holy with all His being. In addition, God’s love does not over ride his holiness nor his mercy over ride his perfection so on and so fort. Christians who has been chosen by God according to His will should know that God is holy and hates sin. We cannot ignore the fact that God cannot stand against sin and tolerate any kind of sin prophet Habakkuk wrote;

Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction. Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?” (Habakkuk 1:12-13)

 

Judah was chosen by God but because of their wickedness, because God cannot look at sin, He punished them severely by handing the ruthless Babylonian armies into them. What we can learn through out the Bible, is that God will still punish justly those who violates His holy precepts and commandments even those who He has chosen. No doubt, Israel was God’s chosen nation yet God punished His disobedient people several times. I do not think that God Has change since the Fall. He is still pretty the same as He was towards Adam and Eve. Speaking of Adam and Eve, God did not spared them after they committed sin, they died (spiritually) and driven away from the wonderful place of the Garden of Eden for all time. Never to return again. This was so because Adam violated God’s holiness, and obviously underestimated his Creator.

I can sometimes be under the deception that God favors me, and if I do commit sin here and there, He would not punish me. This is nothing but sophistry! The fact is God cannot stand sin. God’s judgment follows after committing sin, and it does not really matter who commits the sin, He will righteously judge believer or not. By sin, God punished, beside Noah and his family, the entire earth inhabitants by sending the Flood.

By sin, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by sending fire and burning the whole city. By sin, God send plague upon the great Egypt, By sin, Moses was restricted to enter the Promise Land. By sin, Samson with all his strength died with those he sought to kill, by sin, David’s favorite son, Absalom died under pursuit by Davids own emperial army, by sin, God gave His life and died on the cross. These and many other examples that demonstrates God’s hate towards sin. God’s judgment against sin fell upon men who He himself has chosen to serve Him, yet because of their disobedience, God did not spare them from His righteous judgment.

Are we to think God would just somehow close His eyes while defiling ourselves with the things that God hates? God did not close His eyes when David committed adultery with Bathsheba the wife of his loyal general, Uriah. Nor did God told David___ by gone be by gone! No, God judge king David through prophet Nathan by telling him that the consequences of his sin will never depart from his house. David, did asked forgiveness unto his Lord Jehovah, “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.” (Psa. 51:1) 

Be Ye Holy!

There are two basic aspects to God’s holiness. One aspect is related to the eminence, exaltedness, and splendor of God as seen in Isaiah 6:1-4, where Isaiah saw God “high and lifted up,” and the seraphims cried “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.” The second feature of God’s holiness is the absolute purity of His goodness. God is untouched and unstained by the evil of the world. God’s holiness is the standard for our moral character, and the motivation for the way we are to live our lives.

Moses wrote, Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? (Ex.15:11). God is absolutely perfect in all His ways. There is not a single blemish or flaw in God’s character. God is never partial; He is never unfair; He never plays favorites. God’s perfection and holiness is emphasized by the kings, prophets and apostles. God told us that He is holy, but He also exhorted us to be sanctified, and holy. In the Old Testament, book of Leviticus 11:44 reads,

For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy…”

 

The Lord God of Israel commanded the Jews to sanctify themselves, (which means to “consecrate,”) and live holy (to be holy means “to be separated”) lives because He Himself, their Creator, is holy. God is holy, this means God is completely separated from anyone and from all not just from evil, and is therefore completely other. It is of significance to read correctly the commands of the holy God in being holy.

The Scripture does not command us to “merely look holy,” or “try to be holy” but emphatically commands His follower to, “Ye Be Holy.” Being holy includes everything in mind, heart, spirit, body and action. He or she cannot be holy only some part of his or her own being but the whole being must be sanctified and holy. “Ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves…and ye shall be holy,” edicted God of Israel to His chosen people of Israel.

Likewise, we read several passages in the New Testament of the holy Bible commanding the saints to sanctify and be holy. Apostle Peter wrote,

As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;  Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (1 Peter. 1:15-16)

 

What Peter is trying to tell us is this, since God has called us to Him who is holy, we ought to be holy in all manner. Christians are holy unto God by consecration (declare sacred). And since we are consecrated by God, we must also be holy outward in all manners.

Those who are in Christ Jesus are declared sacred by God and therefore holy. So, if Christians are holy (by the very meaning of it), they ought to separated themselves from any sort of uncleanness. The world is fill with uncleanness that defiles both mind and action such as, pornography, adultery, promiscuity, thief, cussing, homosexuality, drunkenness, disobedient to parents, and so fort.

These uncleanness of both mind and action ought not to be practiced by Christians who are consecrated and separated from it. In Ephesians 1:4 states, “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” This verse is quite interesting. It says that “God chosen us out for Himself (in Christ) i.e. out of this world. Why would God chose us out of this world if there is nothing wrong with it?

If the world weren’t defiled, He would not have “pick” us out of it. Nay, Christians are not of this world, nor belongs to the world’s sinfulness. “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the worldhateth you.” (Jn. 15:19)

The saints in Christ was once a slave, and in bondage of sin, but has been transferred into the kingdom of God’s Son freed from the shackles and bondage of Satan and sin, has different joy, purpose, hope and love. This is so because God have chosen Christians out of the world system by Christ and now belongs to Him who is holy. Christians no longer belongs to this world, and because not only that Christians belongs to Christ’s kingdom, they no longer think, and conform to this world’s sinful system and therefore, due to their apparent differences between the set of mind of the world (carnal) and the set of mind of Christians: the world hates them.

Separation from the sinful system of the dying world is not enough. Christians who are chosen by God should separate themselves from the rest and live a holy lives and should no longer conform after the thinking pattern of this world. Apostle in his letter to the Romans wrote,

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (12:1-2)

Paul exhorts believers to present their bodies as a living sacrifice which means to say that believers should use their bodies whole heartedly to serve and obey God unconditionally since they have the newness of life, and set apart for the Lord’s use and pleasing to Him. In addition, Paul told his fellow believers not to conform or mold after this world’s (usually undertood as “age” or “era”) worldly, lustful and sinful values of this age. Christians, since they no longer belong to this world and is been set apart by God, they should also transform or better yet change by the renewing of the mind. Spiritual transformation starts in the mind and heart.

A Christian mind who continually conforms after the ideas or philosophy of this present ungodly world and its concern can easily fall prey back to his former miserable self. A self of ungodliness and lawlessness, and probably no hope for spiritual recovery. Christians who live a life of compromise usually end up worse than they were before. But the worst part is that they are not aware of their backsliding nature. They believe in their own deception that they are actually more holier than anybody else. However, if a Christian truly transform his mind and dedicate all his mind by focusing only to Christ, he or she will produce a life that can stand the test of time. Mind conformed after Christ stands stronger against the attack of the devil and will powerfully resist the temptations of this ungodly culture.

God commanded Israelites to be holy because He himself is holy. If Christians worships the same God as worship by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Daniel, and David who is separated from all, then it is only adviseable that those who worship Him should live a life of holiness. Not only God is holy, He demanded those who believe in Him to be holy.

God requires perfection, the new mind, the new heart, the new man, righteousness, purity, and holiness; and then you will start searching for how to arrive at what He requires from you: repentance, your bodies as a living sacrifice, crucified on the inward cross of self-denial, your sinful nature dead, and Christ’ spirit completely replacing the sinful nature in your bodies, to live in union with He and God in the Kingdom within, while on the earth, and then forever as a son of God. God sternly warns that, “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them.” (Ephesians 5:5-7)

The of message Ephesians qouted above is a solemn warning, and shows  that purity and a sinless state are required. Christians should strive in aiming to live sinless, and unblemish regenerated of God through Christ Jesus and establish Him in His rightful place which is in our heart and mind. An obedient, holy life in God, should make Him be our Ruler and King within our lives. He should be our foremost Comforter, Teacher, Guide, Government, Chancellor, Counselour, Judge, so on and so fort. As long as we live in our sinful nature, we are unruly and incapable of being ruled, governed, or led by a Lord or King. So, if you want Jesus to be your Lord and King, you must put to death the sinful nature by repentance to holiness. It is only by grace that we can become sinless and holy, but we have to go to Christ to receive his grace.  ___ Amen