Faith Well Grounded

I was over at a sport's forum, where I sometimes go and check up on my favorite team news. When I logged in recently I had a private message awaiting me from someone I do not know, and with whom I have never had interaction. As far as I can tell, the private message was nothing more than a Buddhist apologetic, via an Einstein quote (which is Ok by me for what it's worth). Since I enjoy any opportunity to set Christianity on the "truth-scale" against any worldview, I responded and invited a dialogue.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

We had communion at church this morning and, being in the Christmas spirit, it had a profound effect on me. The long and short of it is that Jesus was born to die-- just like the rest of us. We seem to lose that in the Christmas season. Jesus is the baby, away in a manger, and He rests there eternally in the Christmas mindset for some people, just like He does in the mind of Ricky Bobby the racecar driver.

There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle. Albert Einstein

I was dealing with a supposed Biblical contradiction recently. It turned out not to be so much a contradiction as a misunderstanding, but I think it's actually more an intro into the beauty of our Creator.

Genesis 1:31 says that God called His creation good. By Genesis 6:6, He was grieved by sinful man on Earth. Now, it's obvious that these are descriptions of God's feelings at different times. But if God is eternal, infinite and not bound by time, then how can this be explained.

Some of my most prized possessions are the pretty pictures that my kids have drawn for me. My son draws pictures of us on the golf course or a picture of himself on the ball field. They all end up on my wall even though none of them look exactly like their objects—at least I hope not. (If they do, then I am extremely overweight, have a tiny head, and only three fingers per hand.)

What makes them important is two-fold. He cares enough to want me to have them, and he cares enough about the object (us together, playing golf) to memorialize them.

I’ve written quite a bit heretofore about modern science and naturalism’s failures to either recognize or admit to the implications of the modern scientific support for various arguments for God—specifically the cosmological and teleological arguments for God. With the implications of modern science, it is a good time to be a Christian apologist and/or philosopher.

I was over at "Stand to Reason" today (the link is on my blog roll), and they have a very well-written response to the NewsWeek discussion hosting Rick Warren and Sam Harris. Melinda points out many specific instances where Mr. Harris misrepresents Christianity in his evaluation of it. Now, we all know how easy it is to beat up on the "straw man", and in my opinion the need to build such a straw man is an indication of a weak position.

There are many potential Christian Apologists out there who just choose to keep their mouths shut. In some cases, I think this is a good thing. No argument is actually better than a poor argument. But I think there are many out there who are more than capable of making great cases for God, but they choose not to. They feel that they are not equipped to. They don’t have all of the answers, and have been convinced that they therefore have nothing of value to add to meaningful discussion.

Today, I thought I’d expand on the theme of yesterday’s blog, “How Much Does God Have to Do?” The subject in question for today is belief, and more specifically the essence of the knowledge.

I was recently watching a debate between an apologist and an atheist. The atheist seemed to base a lot of his argument on the fact that, if there was a God, it seems He would reveal Himself in a much clearer and more specific manner. The atheist refused to believe in large part due to a lack of proof. Now, my last blog "Science Ex Nihilo" speaks more to the fact of the revelation of God in nature, and the logical proofs inherent in existence. But His general revelation is not the subject of discussion here. The subject in question is specific revelation.