An Opinion on Climate Change

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.[1]    

Climate change is a reality. However, many scientists and predictors fall into the “Chicken Little” category. These scientists blame everything on climate change constantly seeking evidence for their feeble hypotheses. I often wonder where the hordes of climate change disciples are when forest fires spew millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Are they helping fight fires, or are they supporting those who do? No! They are in air-conditioned offices, or on boats taking the temperature of the sea in the tropics. Some ardent climate change disciples fly to meetings in various parts of the world on planes soaring above the earth leaving polluted exhaust trails in the sky. Most climate change proponents are hypocritical phonies. Consider what has been written about Greenpeace.

Greenpeace has been branded an 'evil organisation' which has 'lost concern for humans' in an astonishing attack by its own co-founder,

Ecologist Dr Patrick Moore, who quit Greenpeace in 1986, has launched a scathing criticism of the activist group which he insisted has lost its humanitarian roots.

His attack on the organisation he help create comes as former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson campaigns against the 'self-serving' and 'highly-paid' network of environmental press groups he calls the 'green blob'.

Dr Moore told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: 'My problem with Green peace is they have lost any humanitarian roots they had.[2]

With an income of €84,898,000, and offices in forty countries Greenpeace has more than a passing interest in continuing the mania behind climate change. Greenpeace is just one business built on the absurdity of preventing climate change.

Cores obtained during leg 42B of the Deep Sea Drilling Project exhibit freshwater sedimentary environments of long duration reaching back for more than three million years and only punctuated by eight brief invasions of marine diatoms from the Mediterranean (Schrader 1979) The marine phases universally correspond to high global sea level during warm climates that produced wave-cut terraces now elevated on the Caucasus coast and drowned soils in coastal outcrops around the Kerch and Tamanian peninsulas (Arslanov et al- 1983).[3]

According to scientists, global warmings have been going on for millennia. It should be obvious that human effort cannot change the progress of nature. Facing climate change, one would think that evolutionists would accept that the best course of action is adaptation. Why then the irrational attempt to prevent nature from doing what it is bound to do? It seems clear that advocates of climate change are in it for the money. Foolish governments disadvantage their citizens only to be seen as politically correct. The dramatization of catastrophic results of climate change may contain some truth, but it is not man that has brought this about, it is nature. Genuine science has evidence of repeated cooling and warming of the earth’s climate.

A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions. ….

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a focus on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.[4]

Proponents of anthropomorphic climate change among other things, blame industry and cattle for increased CO₂. The study by MIT demonstrates that CO₂ increase is not due to human activity. It has been established that warming and cooling of the climate is cyclical. Global climate change is inevitable. Whether human activity increases warming is a moot question; the climate is changing and there is nothing humans can do to prevent it. Time and money should be diverted to mitigation of likely catastrophic events rather than supporting useless activities of climate change fanatics. According to historical and prehistorical information, sea levels will rise with climate warming. Governments need to consider the likeliness of future catastrophes and plan mitigation strategies. If the threats are real it is absolutely criminal to ignore them by opting for current political correctness.

I do not believe the evolutionary time table. I subscribe to the creation of the universe in six days as recorded in Genesis. Scientists who go along with the evolutionary theories will not be persuades by scriptural evidence, and they ignore evidences from their own belief system. Believers should not buy into the human causes of climate change, which is flim-flam, and a financial enterprise. There is abundant evidence to indicate that the world goes through cycles of warming and cooling. For those people who are so arrogant as to presume they can change the path of nature, there is a warning from antiquity –the tower of Babel. It seems that people at that time thought they could accomplish anything, but, God put a stop to their conceited ambitions.

We can learn from Habakkuk who began his complaint suggesting God was tardy and not involved.

O LORD, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not listen? Or cry to you "Violence!" and you will not save? Why do you make me see wrongdoing and look at trouble? Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise. So the law becomes slack and justice never prevails. The wicked surround the righteous--therefore judgment comes forth perverted.[5]

Habakkuk didn’t care for God’s response; he again complained; if God used the Chaldeans to punish Judah it would be that the wicked would swallow those more righteous than they. God issued a reply, “Look at the proud! Their spirit is not right in them, but the righteous live by their faith. Moreover, wealth is treacherous; the arrogant do not endure…[6] The Lord outlined the misdeeds of the Chaldeans, lastly focusing on their pagan idolatry. “What use is an idol once its maker has shaped it--a cast image, a teacher of lies? For its maker trusts in what has been made, though the product is only an idol that cannot speak! Alas for you who say to the wood, ‘Wake up!’ to silent stone, ‘Rouse yourself!’ Can it teach? See, it is gold and silver plated, and there is no breath in it at all. But the LORD is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him![7] Hearing the plan of God to bring the Chaldeans to justice, awakened within Habakkuk praise for the justice of God;

Though the fig tree does not blossom, and no fruit is on the vines; though the produce of the olive fails, and the fields yield no food; though the flock is cut off from the fold, and there is no herd in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will exult in the God of my salvation. GOD, the Lord, is my strength; he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, and makes me tread upon the heights.[8]

Environmentalism is a religious cause. A number of people pushing the environmental agenda are pantheists. Believers should not be duped into thinking that climate change is a godly cause –it isn’t. The climate change program must not be confused with sensible stewardship. Greenpeace “has been branded an 'evil organisation' which has 'lost concern for humans'…”[9] other organizations of similar ilk must be included in the same classification. Not caring for people goes against the teaching of Jesus; Jesus was known for his love and concern. He wasn’t involved in causes, he was the living representation of God. Our duty is to influence people to seek God, not chase godless causes designed by unbelievers.

---

[1] Rom 8:20-22

[2] Richard Spillett for Mail Online

[3] CATASTROPHIC FLOODING OF THE BLACK SEA, William B.F. Ryan, Candace O. Major, Gilles Lericolais, and Steven L. Goldstein

[4] Is Global Warming Part of Earth’s Natural Cycle? MIT Team Says “Yes” – A Galaxy Insight

[5] Hab 1:2-4

[6] Hab 2:4, 5

[7] Hab 2:18-20

[8] Hab 3:17-19 

[9] Richard Spillett for Mail Online

Evolution verses Design

From 1849 Darwin stopped going to church, decided he was agnostic, and later wrote:

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

It is not difficult to see why a person would seek alternate understandings of life and the here-after, with the threat of everlasting damnation hanging over all but a few. The Church and perverse doctrines have a lot to do with people’s rejection of Jesus and God. Belief in a Church is not the same as belief in God. Any time man gets into the arena of God’s responsibilities he will be confused and often misled. God made it clear through his Son on earth that love is the most important attribute. We are called to honour God, and obey his will. God’s will, was demonstrated in the life of Jesus. As disciples of Jesus, Christians are required to exhibit God’s love in their lives. We are called to walk by faith, showing God’s love and grace in the way we live. The existence of God cannot be established by natural science. Notwithstanding, the universe in all its wonder and intricacies is evidence of the Creator. Darwin’s hypotheses provided a platform of pseudo-credibility to atheists and godless in so-called “Christian” society. It should be noted that evolution cannot be established as fact by scientific rules that haven’t been adjusted to accept doubtful theories.

Karl Popper, echoing David Hume, argued that no amount of empirical evidence is sufficient to establish that a law of nature is true.  Some subsequent observation of the world might contravene the proposed law, demonstrating that it fails to hold universally after all.  Popper held that the importance of empirical research in science arises from its ability to falsify, not confirm, hypotheses. Cognitive scientists of science have provided evidence that, Popper’s analyses notwithstanding, scientists often exhibit confirmation bias. They seek out and emphasize evidence that supports their hypotheses, and they dismiss contrary evidence as artifacts of incautious observations or experimental designs.[1]

Popper to my unscientific mind, seems to be saying what is true in many fields of research, “You See What You Believe. Your causal beliefs about the world influence what you see.”[2] It is evident in the field of evolutionary science no one pays any attention to Popper. Evolutionary scientists expect the common public to accept their findings even though some of them are biased and others purely illogical. The same may be said of creationists.

If evolution were true, we would expect animals to have similarities. Animals have similarities. Therefore, evolution is true.

This set of statements is equally illogical as saying that it is raining, because the streets are wet. It is actually a well-known logical fallacy, known as the Affirmation of the Consequent. Yet many high school biology textbooks rely on this illogical set of statements as their so-called evidence for evolution. The better explanation is the true explanation – that animals have similarities because they have a common designer – God.[3]

Bayes’ theorem… Why are homologies evidence for evolution instead of common design?

This prediction of homology is rather unique to evolution. If biological creatures were designed & created in some kind of workshop instead, there is no reason why the designer would be forced to work within the constraints of heredity.[4]

The results of Bayes’ theorem are strongly biased by initial assumptions and values assigned each hypothesis. In the above quotation common design is discounted because of the author’s bias; “there is no reason why the designer would be forced to work within the constraints of heredity.” Why not? It is abundantly not only possible, but probable that design would repeat successful structures, with the least amount of variation possible. Or maybe the author has never heard, “if it aint broke don’t fix it.” I spent a couple of hours watching some pseudo-scientist demonstrate by application of Bayes’ theorem that the hypothesis of evolution is far more plausible than design. I do not understand all of the aspects of Bayes’ theorem, but it was evident to me that the assumptions used favoured evolution greatly.  The homology argument as supporting evolution is completely illogical. It cannot be firmly established that evolution is the only process leading to similarities. Occam’s razor was used by the instructor I was watching to favour evolution:

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

In every aspect of the universe design is evident. There are no mathematical rules based on random accidents. In the application of Bayes’ theorem assessing the likelihood of which hypothesis is better, i.e. evolution or design; the numerous assumptions upon which evolution is based greatly outnumber the single assumption of design –which is design. I was amused by the obvious bias of the Bayes’ theorem instructor’s glib discounting design to elevate the probability of evolution. False science now suggests that evolutionary change occurred during the “gaps.” No one was there to see it, there is no evidence supporting it yet the instructor accepted the assumption as scientific? I understand that Bayes’ theorem is used in computer programs for predicting probabilities. One has to keep in mind when using either computers or Bayes’ theorem, the cautionary adage “garbage in – garbage out.”  The application of Bayes” theorem to establish evolution as being more probable than design only works for scientists if the multiple assumptions of evolution are ignored. I would suggest that design goes a lot further with sticking with what works. Everything on earth apart from energy is made up of matter; matter is made up of atoms; atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and so on.

  Homology is a product of divergent evolution. The two species were once the same species at the point where they have a most recent common ancestor. Over time, individuals in the population evolved through either some type of selection or isolation from the rest of the population. The species, even though they diverged at that point, still retain some of the characteristics of the common ancestor. These are the homologies.

  Convergent evolution is the origin of a homoplasy. These similar traits evolved independently of each other and are not found in the common ancestor of the two species being examined. Instead, each species evolved the trait after diverging and becoming separate species.

Some causes of homoplasies are species living in similar environments, filling the same types of niches, or through natural selection.

  Analogous / Convergent Structures. Some biological characteristics are analogous (also called "convergent"), which means that they serve the same function in different species but they evolved independently rather than from the same embryological material or from the same structures in a common ancestor. An example of an analogous structure would be the wings on butterflies, bats, and birds.[5]

The “science” of evolution steadily evolves in an effort to obscure reality, and patch inconsistencies within it. “Popper held that the importance of empirical research in science arises from its ability to falsify, not confirm, hypotheses. …. scientists often exhibit confirmation bias. They seek out and emphasize evidence that supports their hypotheses, and they dismiss contrary evidence…”

The homology thesis of the evolutionists is based on the logic of building an evolutionary link between all living things with similar morphologies (structures), whereas there are a number of homologous organs shared by different groups that are completely unrelated to each other. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs, which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.

  Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and the structural similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. For example, the octopus and man are two extremely different species, between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure and function. Not even evolutionists try to account for the similarity of the eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor.[6]

Evolutionists claim that design lacks the facet of prediction. Prediction – Darwin said something, which was later found to be true –that proves evolution. Actually I would suggest it proves design. By looking at the design of a flower, Darwin “predicted” there would be some creature found with the ability to reach its nectar and pollenate similar flowers. The design of the flower and its survival necessitated a means of pollination. That’s common sense, not support of evolution which defies common sense.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.[7]

Beginning from the point of view that God exists, evidence for his existence is seen in the design and orderliness of the universe. Without the design and orderliness of the universe scientists would not be able to do their work. It is certainly inconsistent for scientists to utilize the exactness of predictability to land a camera on an asteroid, and then deny design. Evolutionary scientists depend on design to come up with their hypotheses.

From its beginning to its current postulations, evolution has been, and is, the easiest alternative to believing in God. Evolution removes any need for accountability to a higher authority. Evolution confirms non-belief for atheists. It is evidently more appealing to those who choose to be godless to have evolved from slime than to admit a connection with God. As Darwin said, “We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities... still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.” That notion meets the needs of atheist, agnostics, and the godless. But, I believe people are made in the image of God. People differ from animals in that they are accountable to God, and are endowed with an eternal spirit. 

Evolutionary science must cling to it hypothesis of common ancestry of all living species, even though it is highly improbable, if not impossible, because the alternative offered by design subjects man to an inferior position under a superior being. Evolutionists can deny all they want that their hypothesis is fact based –it isn’t. Evolution is based on unfounded assumptions. It is very much a belief system. Design has more evidence supporting it than evolution has for its hypothesis. At any time design manifests itself all around us, but there is not one living example of evolution. One might say that evolution falls through the gaps.

---

[1] Study Shows a Bias for Evidence of What We Want to Be True, Robert N. McCauley Ph.D.

[2] Art Markman Ph.D. https://www.psychologytoday.com

[3] www.creationmoments.com

[4] https://philosophy.stackexchange.com

[5] https://www.thoughtco.com

[6] http://www.mythofhomology.com/myth_of_homology

[7] Heb 11:1-3

Shout Louder

The BBC this morning featured various stakeholders in the Paris Climate Accord addressing Trump’s possible pull out of the Accord. No doubt he will do whatever garners him the most attention. President flip-flop has no ideology other than self-aggrandizement. The accusatory rhetoric of stakeholders is totally biased to their ideological position –saving the planet from ultimate disaster. I disagree with most of what president Thump has to say on climate change, but I also believe that no matter how absurd the president is, someone needs to throw a wrench into gears of the religion of climate change. My point though, has little to do with climate change and more to do with the supercilious attitude of those promoting this “inviolable” cause. They take the position of judge and jury, condemning every opposite view.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.[1]

Listening to the “holier than thou” proponents of climate change, I get the message –that anyone who disagreed with their purpose in the slightest way is stupid, ignorant and blind to their facts. Bombastic rancor has become the approach used by rabid environmentalists and modern atheists.

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.”  What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven.  Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false.  But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow.  In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.[2]

In typical atheist jargon this blinkered atheist recognizes that he may be wrong. Disingenuous causes as well as those based on suspect science utilize bullying and intimidation to promote their agenda. Atheists try to make Christians feel as though they are uninformed, and part an ignorant minority. In order to accommodate non-belief, science has had to come up with more malleable standards for what is accepted. Unabashed at the flimsiness of their “proofs” they plod on in a fog of unproven claims. A theory is validated by peer consensus, which in other disciplines would be considered “group-think”.

The things that science has taught us about how the world works are the most secure elements in all of human knowledge. Here I must distinguish between science at the frontiers of knowledge (where by definition we do not yet understand everything and where theories are indeed vulnerable) and textbook science that is known with great confidence. …. In recent times, the courts have had much to say about the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. In one instance the school district decided that students should be taught the “gaps/problems” in Darwin’s theory and given “Intelligent Design” as an alternative explanation. The courts (Judge Jones of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania) came down hard on the side of Darwin, ruling that “Intelligent Design” was thinly disguised religion that had no place in the science classroom.

…the word evidence is used much more loosely in science than in law. The law has precise rules of evidence that govern what is admissible and what is not. In science, the word merely seems to mean something less than “proof.” A certain number of the papers in any issue of a scientific journal will have titles that begin with “Evidence for (or against) . . .” What that means is, the authors were not able to prove their point, but are presenting their results anyway.[3]

The judge who ruled “Intelligent Design” to be a religion was blatantly biased. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary one definition of religion is: “…a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” In every way evolution is faith based and promulgated with great ardour.  Atheists fight against teaching creation in schools because the theory of evolution is founded on speculative science. The Study by National Academy of Sciences assures the reader of the integrity of scientists by distinguishing between, “science at the frontiers of knowledge (where by definition we do not yet understand everything and where theories are indeed vulnerable) and textbook science that is known with great confidence.” So the theory of evolution is science of “great confidence”? Which is the same as saying that, scientists understand everything about the formation of the universe –everything? “What’s that saying, fools rush in….?”

According to Kanazawa modern scientists disagree with the Study’s finding on evidence:

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

There is no way to convince evolutionists who believe they are right, that evolution is faith based, even though it obviously is! Evolution is on the frontier of knowledge, because it is impossible to know everything which occurred in the beginning. There is no “knowledge” of what took place, there is only one’s belief based on “evidence”, which is interpreted differently by different scientists. If there was consensus there wouldn’t be, micro-evolution, macro-evolution, and cataclysmic evolution. Excuse my lack of faith in the scientists dealing with the cosmos. The science of the cosmos is based on the same geological doctrine of uniformitarianism. Incredibly everything started with a big bang initiated by an unknown event, and nothing in the cosmos has changed or deflected in 13.8 billion years to sway the straight line of calculations. Quite amazing; something comes from nothing and stays constant ever after. The primal unknown event leading to the “big bang” was never repeated, as instantaneously chaos became order. In an instant the rules governing everything in the entire universe were established so that in later eons scientists could by those rules determine whatever they chose. I don’t think so!

I began writing in response to the religious fervour of climate change prophets to Trump’s possible decision to pull out of the Paris accord, which he did after I started writing. The point I wanted to make is that proponents of climate changes self-righteously condemned Trump and everyone else who disagrees with any climate doomsday prediction. For a moment I felt quite isolated; until from the serenity of my aloneness, I called the climate gurus, pompous idiots! That made me feel better.

It is difficult not to be affected by condemnation and scorn dished out against Christians. It is also quite apparent that in western society Christianity is the main target of ridicule. I question why as a Christian I felt the bite of contempt from godless attackers. I guess it is because I want to be accepted and respected for who and what I am. That is simply human, and that’s the problem. I may be taking my commitment to Christ to casually, downplaying that life is to be spirit led in this carnal world. Jesus spoke of storing treasures in heaven, which should be my aim, more than seeking societal approval. Jesus warned his disciples that they would be persecuted, that doesn’t mean I will be persecuted like they were, but the principle is the same for all believers today.

If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world--therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, 'Servants are not greater than their master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.[4]

Rather than being surprised by the attitude of atheists and godless people toward Christians, we should be concerned if Christians are seen to be just like everybody else. “Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.”[5] Jesus’ statement does not suggest we should be obnoxious to invite insult; “that’s plain stupid.” One must also bear in mind that criticism of a church is not the same as criticizing Christ. Churches are fallible institutions, and in some cases criticism may be justified. As human institutions, churches have done some very bad stuff. The crusades are a prime example of gross evil perpetrated and authorized by a church. Blanket scorn of “Christians” is not necessarily scorn of Jesus. Some “Christians” do not behave as they should, but promote their own agendas and causes. Each person is commissioned to be a light reflecting God’s love through Christ. Each believer is a citizen of God’s kingdom and a child in God’s family, the world can only see Jesus through his disciples.

…through Christ all believers are freed and reconciled with God and their neighbour. The limits set by nation, race, class and - one may also add - property no longer stand. In the community the believer has restored to him the lost image of God, so that there is no longer

Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian (the allegedly sub-human race in antiquity, see above p.5), slave, free man, but Christ is all and in all (Col.3.11; cf. Gal. 3.28).

The revolutionary force of statements like this, which founded a new community in antiquity, can hardly be measured. Boundaries were overcome here which hitherto had been regarded as impassable throughout antiquity. But precisely because in reality they are already free, slaves are now not to seek to become freemen quickly, nor are Gentiles to go over to Judaism and vice versa. Were they to do this, they would be giving recognition to the old forces of this world, which have been robbed of their power and whose end is imminent.[6]

The Word resides in believers, it cannot be institutionalized. Churches have to shed the pretense of being a path to God. Jesus commissioned people –individuals to carry the message of hope to those who need to hear it. If churches are not careful they get in the way and rob people of their right to live their lives as God’s message. The power of belonging to God’s kingdom energized the first converts to live the message as they went throughout the world. The apostles and others set things in motion, Paul travelled to distant places, but it was slaves, merchants, ordinary people, and Roman soldiers who carried the Word with them to the far reaches of the first century world. Looking back to the early centuries of this era, it is obvious those Christians, living at that time in those societies, were a small minority. Their primary citizenship was in God’s kingdom, which made all the difference. I want citizenship in God’s kingdom to mean more to me than being accepted in my society. I want to realize that the approval of God is a much greater treasure than the approval of man. I want to experience the all-surpassing freedom found in Christ. I want to grow in confidence that God’s grace and love placed me in his kingdom.

---

[1] Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis, www.forbes.com

[2] Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”, by Satoshi Kanazawa, www.psychologytoday.com

[3] Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition National Academy of Sciences

[4] Joh 15:18-20

[5] Luke 6:26

[6] Earliest Christianity, by Martin Hengel, p.188

Bible Belief

Research reveals that Biblical literalism is strongly correlated with a host of social maladies and inhumane world-views. For instance, people who think the Bible is the literal word of God are more likely to physically abuse their children, harbor hatred of homosexuals, deny the evidence for climate change, love semi-automatic assault weapons, oppose women’s equality, oppose humane treatment of animals, oppose universal-subsidized health care, and to vote for incompetent, unintelligent, unhinged men for president.[1]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) now believe the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word," similar to the 26% who view it as "a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man." This is the first time in Gallup's four-decade trend that biblical literalism has not surpassed biblical skepticism. Meanwhile, about half of Americans -- a proportion largely unchanged over the years -- fall in the middle, saying the Bible is the inspired word of God but that not all of it should be taken literally.[2]

I have been unable to find any of the “research” Zuckerman used in his defamation of people who believe the Bible is literal. I am not interested in the semantics of how one views the Bible, let’s just say that it is God’s story, from creation to redemption. I might also point out that the actual research he used from Gallup is of American society. The information may suggest that there is a problem with the way Americans think, rather than their view of scripture. I doubt that one’s view on biblical literalism is the only factor leading to: physical abuse of children, hatred of homosexuals, denying climate change, loving semi-automatic assault weapons, oppose humane treatment of animals, oppose universal-subsidized health care, and to vote for incompetent, unintelligent, unhinged men for president. That sounds to me more like being a republican than a Bible believing Christian. The list also fits white supremacists better than most other groups. It also reflects atheistic beliefs, since if there is no God, the survival of the fittest is key. Regarding the election of the current weird president, it took a whole lot more people that just those who believe the Bible is literal to put him in office. A country that elects a bombastic buffoon as president will have to live with the fall out; he is the American president. I wouldn’t be blaming Bible believers for crimes of society, the American president doesn’t believe climate change is real. He’s against health care, he’s all for making the rich richer. As an atheist Phil Zuckerman clings to anything disparaging about Bible believers. I suggest that he look at American society, it just may be that immorality and baseness keep pace with the increase of godless people.

I don’t agree with Zuckerman’s rationale, I do however recognize that many who profess Christianity come across more political than spiritual. I can’t speak for all churches in the US, but I can about some with which I am familiar. It’s my belief that Jesus applauds acts of kindness, the consideration of people in need, and support of those who are vulnerable. I don’t understand how a disciple of Jesus would be against poor people receiving medical help from the government. I also don’t understand why a believer would be against social programs. It certainly doesn’t look good for “Christians” to support policies which advance the rich and wealthy, but do harm to the working class and poor of society. Anyone having a modicum of understanding of Jesus’ teaching will see that professed Christians do not always support those teachings. “Christians” of every stripe are giving atheists and other godless groups ammunition against God. It is incredulous that the current American president owes part of his success to “the religious right”, that’s politically right, not religiously correct. What characteristic of this man was most appealing to Christians? Maybe his morality? Possibly his business ethic? Might be that he’s very rich. It couldn’t be his campaign promises, since those were against social programs. I don’t know what it was that appealed to the religious people of America causing them to vote for this man. He is certainly not the epitome Christian virtue, but then very few of us are.

"In the Western religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — the focus is: 'What do you believe?' There is always a tremendous focus on doctrine and teachings," he says. "In the East, Buddhism and Hinduism in particular, the leading question is, 'Do you know God?' It's much more experience-based."[3]

In India I saw the grotesque deities of Hinduism, the thousands of idols and shrines littering that country, and I ask myself, how is it that pagan idolatry has captured the essence of Jesus’ teaching, and western religions focus on intellectual concepts devoid of spirit. There is something terribly wrong when Christianity is seen in the same context as Judaism and Islam. Unfortunately I don’t think the problem is with the author of the above quote.

I think that the church in America today is so obsessed with being practical, relevant, helpful, successful, and perhaps even well-liked that it nearly mirrors the world itself. Aside from the packaging, there is nothing that cannot be found in most churches today that could not be satisfied by any number of secular programs and self-help groups. Christless Christianity. Sounds a bit harsh, doesn't it? A little shallow, sometimes distracted; even a little human-centered rather than Christ-centered from time to time, but Christless? Let me be a little more precise about what I am assuming to be the regular diet in many churches across America today: "do more, try harder." I think that this is the pervasive message across the spectrum today. It can be exhibited in an older, more conservative form, with a recurring emphasis on moral absolutes and warnings about falling into the pit of worldliness that can often make one wonder whether we are saved through fear rather than faith.[4]

It bothers me greatly to realize that Christianity has become so insipid and common that it is listed as just another western religion. In fact, none of the three “Western religions” are really western. Judaism and Christianity are Middle Eastern, and Islam is Arabic. That any one of these religions is considered western should cause great concern for adherents of any of the groups. Christianity has suffered the greatest from syncretism, Judaism and Islam do not permit modernization of their doctrines. The Jews did not, and still do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, they are obviously not Christian. Islam worships the moon god, and follow the teachings of a man who had political ambitions which required unification of Arab tribes. That was accomplished by focusing on a single deity, Islam is not Christian. The critical feature of Christianity, as the name suggests, is its focus on Christ. When Christ is taken out of Christianity all you are left with is insanity.

The major changes in spiritual practice over the past half century have been largely window dressings. Pick a trend—megachurches, seeker churches, satellite campuses, vacation Bible school, children's church, affinity group ministries (e.g., ministries for singles, women, men, young marrieds), contemporary worship music, big screen projection systems, EFT giving, cell groups, downloadable sermons, sermon outlines in bulletins, Alpha groups. All of the above have simply been attempts to rely on marketing strategies to perform the same activities in different ways or places, or with particular segments of the aggregate population. Whatever difficulties were present in the larger institutional setting that spawned these efforts are invariably present in the smaller or divergent efforts as well.[5]

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel![6]

I do not want to leave the impression that either Frank Viola or George Barnar are hypocrites. The point I want to make is that similar to the religious leaders of old, most modern efforts to reform Christianity ignore the primary deception that –Jesus designed the church. The idea that by reforming or improving the church one is somehow restoring Christianity is as ridiculous as swallowing a camel. The church is a human institution, it has nothing to do with Christianity. Jesus did not build the “church”! His entire mission concerned the kingdom of God. It is time we stopped being fooled by the erroneous translation of Greek words. Some Christians formed societies to avoid persecution, however, Christianity was never intended to be institutionalized.

…the Christians encountered by Pliny recognized that their meetings came within the scope of the edict against collegia, at least potentially a subversive political club, a view later espoused by Celsus. Celsus also saw them as a disloyal Jewish sect; others may have seen them as a rather more respectable burial society, and so forth. Christianity was diverse; people are likely to have noticed diverse aspects of the strands they encountered, and interpreted them in terms of differing models from their respective social contexts.[7]

I agree with Viola and Barnar’s findings which suggest to me that attempts to resuscitate the church have failed. Unfortunately many churches represent Horton’s “Christless Christianity”. Not all though, there are churches focused on Christ, which have a fellowship of believers, and support people in their walk with Christ, but even those will not evade the stigma of institutionalism. The Roman Church adopted the hierarchical structure of the Empire and/or Jewish priesthood, both of which were foreign to Christianity. I believe that despite persecution by the church, Christians have lived as citizens of God’s kingdom either secretly in the church, or hidden away from its influence. To avoid persecution Christians were forced to go underground to hide from the scrutiny of the church. I am confident that what Jesus told his disciples concerning his kingdom is true, “the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”[8] The church as the imposter of the kingdom is becoming evident. People are leaving the traditional church by droves.

The religiously unaffiliated, called "nones," are growing significantly. They’re the second largest religious group in North America and most of Europe. In the United States, nones make up almost a quarter of the population. In the past decade, U.S. nones have overtaken Catholics, mainline protestants, and all followers of non-Christian faiths.[9]

The share of Americans who do not identify with a religious group is surely growing: While nationwide surveys in the 1970s and ’80s found that fewer than one-in-ten U.S. adults said they had no religious affiliation, fully 23% now describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular.”[10]

The only thing that concerns me about failing churches is that some will equate it to failing Christianity. Christianity is not failing, Christianity is personal, and it can never be institutionalized. As the many facades of Christianity crumble, and the debris of denominations is cast aside, the love of God will still be seen in his disciples. The godless mass will revel thinking they have finally destroyed God, some believers may feel that God has been defeated. The world has been in this situation before; pagans have partied, and Christians have wept. No one is going to shake the God of heaven. He’s seen it all before; it is he who laughs at atheists.  

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools;[11]

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.[12]

A favourite passage of mine comes from the Old Testament, it is an interaction between God and one of his prophets.

"What are you doing here, Elijah?" He answered, "I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away." …. Whoever escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall kill; and whoever escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha shall kill. Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him."[13]

There is significant meaning in what Jesus told people, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.”[14] Believers have a personalized cross, its purpose is the link to the Lord, one’s service of worship. Honouring God through Jesus, reaching out to the vulnerable of one’s area. It is not looking for comforting meaningless talks in an air-conditioned auditorium. It means to be committed as Jesus was to serving others and honouring God.  

…there seem to be two ways in which a truly Christian reformation could come about. It could come about through some terrifying persecution of the Christian Church — a persecution that would rid the Church of those of little faith, of the status-seekers and respectability-hunters, of the deadwood who enjoy the club atmosphere, of the ecclesiastical hangers-on and the comfort-searchers. Once the Church becomes the most uncomfortable institution in the community, only those who really matter will stick with it. At this point, one would expect the Church to come back to those basic principles of love, faith, and hope that have made martyrs out of men.[15]

Berton wrote in 1965, he saw something few of his contemporaries noticed, and which has got steadily worse over time. Now, over fifty years later, the church is falling apart from internal rot. The name of Christ will be slandered because the church has presented itself as the face of Christ. Christianity will be mocked. But, nothing will overpower God’s kingdom.

Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.'[16]

---

[1] Bible Belief in Decline, Phil Zuckerman Ph.D. https://www.psychologytoday.com

[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/210704

[3] More U.S. Christians mix in 'Eastern,' New Age beliefs, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion

[4] Christless Christianity, by Michael Horton, p. 17

[5] Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, Frank Viola, George Barnar

[6] Mat 23:23, 24

[7] Making Sense in (and of) the First Christian Century, F. Gerald Downing, p. 142

[8] Mat 16:18

[9] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/

[10] The factors driving the growth of religious ‘nones’ in the U.S. Pew Research Center, September 14, 2016

[11] Rom 1:18-22

[12] 1Co 1:18 

[13] 1Ki 19:13, 14, 17, 18

[14] Luke 9:23

[15] The Comfortable Pew, Pierre Berton

[16] Mat 25:34-40