DISQUS

Very cool stuff dude! Thanks for sharing it! Isaiah 53 is an amazing piece of writing, and Matthew Henry's thoughts on it really help bring some great perspective to it!

I regularly share in my testimony that getting saved doesn't mean that everything is going to be a bed of roses. If it is, then those roses probably still have their thorns...

I am (largely) evangelical myself, and I agree that the message cannot be watered down so that you can become more successful in 'winning converts'. So, Amen! Preach it brother!

Looking forward to the new direction dude!

Dude! I look forward to seeing some of the stuff that you mentioned. I'd love to hear about these conversation that you had, and hope to see some of the new stuff that you've been pondering! The time away is refreshing sometimes, and usually helps to get some new direction...

Welcome back! You rock dude!

LOL! Rick, you crack me up! Thanks for the pointers! I'll google it, or do what my wife told me.... just put a piece of cardboard over the monitor. Anyway, I think my instructors are looking more for content anyway, so it should satisfy my requirements. But I will certainly do something different for future videos. Thanks!

Rick,
LOL! I am trying to keep the videos interesting with a little creative flare like that... And I hear you on the glare... I tried to keep my head turned enough so that it wouldn't be an issue. I'll have to keep playing with that, to see if there is some way that I can avoid that. Any suggestions? Hopefully it doesn't take away from the message though!

By the way, I love your blog! I added it to my blogroll, and will try to visit regularly to see what you are up to! Thanks!

Rick,
Thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts! I agree to your point of this coversation being quite tiresome. I'm still not sure what one commenter's point was...

I also think quite a bit about C.S. Lewis's works. He always has a great way of reasoning through things, and Mere Christianity is one of my favorite books of all time. I'll get some links to these resources posted here soon.

Thanks for sharing your experiences! I agree with you completely!

Thanks for stopping by Marcus! And thanks for the references. I'll try to post some links in a little while...

Jim,
Thanks for stopping by! I think that you make some great points! And no worries on the typos...

arensb,
If you want me to define God, then I would say that there are a lot of things that God is. But let's just start with "creator of the universe". And by that I do not mean that he is the "big bang" either. IF the big bang could be scientifically proven (which is not likely since no one was there to experience it), then I would say not that God IS the big bang, but that He caused it. If you plan to test that, then I only ask you to do so with an open mind, and without bias towards one side or the other. However, getting and objective point of view on this from a naturalist scientist would be impossible, since they would reject the idea as not possible in the first place. But I have yet to see how they have actually disproved God.

By "more" (which I thought that I have been clear on) I simply mean more to things than what we can see and measure (scientifically). Many of history's great scientists used science to help them understand God better. Therefore science is not something separate from God as modern popular thought would lead one to believe. But what I mean here is that when I see things like the precision used (and required) to sustain life here on earth, I believe that it was not a random event. Science can measure things like the oxygen levels, the tilt of the earth, temperatures, etc., while my belief simply goes beyond those simple measurements. Make sense?

You also make the assumption that I don't care whether my beliefs are right or wrong. That is a misrepresentation of what I've said. I feel very strongly about what I believe. What I said is that in the end, IF I am wrong, then I am okay with the consequences. Being okay with the consequences of being wrong is not the same as not being sure what I believe as you've tried to accuse me of. I have confidence in what I believe, and I am VERY happy with how I live.

I will stop by your site, and check out both of the references that out put here. You have my word that I will be absolutely respectful.

Wow... still trying to corner me into your reasoning...

According to your worldview, love is simply a feeling/emotion. I would define love in a much deeper sense. While I believe that God does feel love, I would not limit him to that definition.

Again, all you are doing is proving my point that we look at the world differently. But you've spent a lot of time here on my site trying to back me into a corner in my reasoning with something that is completely not relevant to my actual post. What's your point? Do you have a need for me to recognize that you are right (to feed your ego)? Or are you trying to 'convert' me to atheism? Would I be welcome at your blog trying to convert you (and/or your readers) to Christianity?

Funny = God doesn't exist because you don't believe in him.

arensb said:

Meanwhile, you presented two parts of a definition — that God created the universe, and that God is love — which look incompatible, and haven’t attempted to resolve this problem.

I've said:

I don’t understand how being a creator and being love are in conflict with each other. You make it sound like He can only be one or the other, but not both. Can a man not be a husband and a father at the same time?

I've shared your perspective on this with several people today... who all laughed and asked what you were smoking... Not only have I addressed the question (and am getting tired of repeating myself), but have pointed out the flaw in your logic.

arensb,
Much of what you are asking for here is specifically the point that I was trying to make in this post. I don't know that I can ever give you something that you will accept because we look at the world differently. If you want something specific, I would almost respond with 'everything' shows me this. But you would not see anything beyond what you 'see'. Sorry, but I simply cannot go down that road with you here, and this was not the intent of this post in the first place.

The point that I was trying to make was about how you and I see the world in different ways. You probably won't like this, but I think that your responses are filled with inconsistencies. You disagree with my assessment on behavioral psychology, but then you support the idea with your example... I know that when a friend asks you to lunch that you don't based the decision on external stimuli, but also internal stimuli as well. That's part of the 'formula'.

while you have not outrightly stated this, you seem to support the idea of evolution... through which life has evovled due to a series of 'chemical reactions' over time. But then you deny that this happens in what we refer to as 'decision making'.

Look, you and I will never see eye to eye on this. I don't expect you to understand what I believe because we are operating under different assumptions.

I am quite happy in my life, and feel like I am a productive contribution to the world around me. I strive to impact the world in a positve way. And in the end if I am wrong about God, then I am okay with that.

However, I am perplexed by your unwillingness to ask the question, "what if there's more?" I just think that is very closed-minded (if I can be completely honest). Science has yet to actually disprove God, but I don't think that you are willing to accept that either.


P.S. I actually love this discussion! Maybe we can start a blog together where we actually explore things like creation vs. evolution, and present both sides of the discussion. Let me know what you think...

Broseph,
The bottom line after reading your entire comment is that (as I touched on in my last comment) I agree with you. People SHOULD question everything. I know that I do, and in the end feel that my faith is stronger as a result of that questioning.

I also cannot speak for the many that have given Christianity a bad name. I am disgusted by what many have done "in the name of Jesus". But I am not them. I also do not believe that they represent the actual message of the Bible. I actively serve and minister to not only people's spiritual needs, but also their physical needs (as Jesus did). I hate that many others have spoiled that message, and if it means anything I am sorry on their behalf.

But for me following God has nothing to do with blindly following some other person (a pastor, preist, or other religious leader). It is about following God... the one that I believe is responsible for our being here in the first place.

I hope this helps to clear up my position on what you addressed, and please let me know if I missed anything that you specifically wanted to know. Thanks for sharing!

Brospeh said:

If you say that it is illogical to examine the other side of an issue (i.e. ‘What if God does not exist?’), then how are you gaining a complete representation of the world?

This is another misrepresentation of what I have been saying. In fact the whole intent of this blog is to spur on 'personal examination' and to challenge people to know what they believe. I agree that people should challenge things, and know why they believe what they believe. I think that it is important to take a rational approach to faith. Again, I feel like I am being labeled by the common assumptions that are made about Christians. I understand that many Christian fall into this 'because the Bible says so' mentality, but that is certainly not me, or what I challenge people to be through this blog.

Broseph,
You said:

When asked “why one should believe in God?”, the answer is most often “because he the Bible tells us so” or something of the likes. In fact, it seems that a precept for being religious is that you must blindly believe without examining the world for yourself.

I do not believe in God because the Bible tells me to. I believe in God based on my examination of the world. I believe what the Bible says, because it tells me a great deal about who the God that I believe in is.

I'll respond to more of your points separately, but wanted to get this out there. I think this is a fundamental difference in how we think.

arensb,
I don't understand how being a creator and being love are in conflict with each other. You make it sound like He can only be one or the other, but not both. Can a man not be a husband and a father at the same time? And you are making an assumption that the universe existed for a long time without any other beings in it. That is a whole other topic...

But even to your point about love existing beofre any living beings... I do not understand why you think that love cannot exist before people do. Could love not drive the creator to create something to love? People everyday fall in love with the idea of the "perfect partner" or a child that is yet to even be conceived. Isn't it that "love" that drives these people to seek it out and find what does not yet "exist"? People fall in love with ideas all of the time, so a physical existence of something is not a requirement for love to exist.

Also I am not worshiping an emotion, or a expansion of space. But one of the point that I was trying to make in this post is exactly this issue. I don't expect you to understand what it is that I worship, because you simply do not see the universe the same way that I do. You limit your understanding to what you can see and measure. I know that there is more to it than that. I worship an awesome, loving, all-powerful creator, which you will never be capable of understanding as long as you limit how you look at the universe.

Sorry, but I did not intend to "dodge" any questions. And I was not trying to get out of it by responding with "technicalities". So thank you for clarifying what you were trying to ask. I had a hard time making sense of the question to start with.

So to answer "what difference does it make"? Bertrand Russell (an atheist) said that "unless you assume a God,the question of life's purpose is meaningless." In other words, if God exists, then life actually has a purpose (which is defined by the God that created us, just as the inventor of an object defines the purpose of it). Without a God, then there is no purpose. Life exists for no reason whatsoever. Everything is random chance. In fact, then true behaviorism is likely true, meaning that you really don't have any control over anything that you do because it is all just a "chemical" reaction to other outside stimuli. Really, without a God, life would be a meaningless, mechanical existence.

And to your final question, I don't think that there is anything that could lead me to conclude that God does not exist. I know that there is more. If you watched the video in this post, then I am one of those that cannot believe that all there is, is all limited to what we can see. It has taken me a long time in my life to finally come to this conclusion, but I frimly believe that real "higher thinking" starts when you can ask the question, "what if there is more?". This is the only thing that I challenge you to do...

arensb,
What I mean by "God" is the being that created everything the universe. And your question about a universe that "contains" that entity vs. one that doesn't... That statement assumes that the God is subject to the universe. The universe is the universe. But one that is defined by man's own limited reasoning is one that has no meaning, purpose, or hope.

Regarding the moral absolutes, the Bible was not written to be a step-by-step book of rules, but as an insight into the nature and character of God. It is from this unchanging character, that we draw the absolutes. But if you do want a list then since the Bible teaches that "God is love", then the description of what love is (and is not) from 1 Corinthians 13 is a good start...

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

It does not take much to read the Bible (particularly the life of Jesus) and understand what the moral absolutes are without needing a speciifc list of what they are. But I also understand that some people may have difficulty figuring this stuff out (since our minds are limited)...

Blake...
Seriously, that would be like a bicycle questioning the existence of the bicycle maker (or even better, the inventor). From my worldview, the logic is simply not there.

Mark,
Thanks for stopping by! I did not even notice the alleged "bra strap"... But you make some great points about it! I think that even my overlooking something like that only shows how numb that we get to stuff like that.

I cannot answer whether they are intentionally trying to market the product with sex appeal or not, but I do know that the heart of the music seems to be very genuine. Many of or best modern worship songs these days come out of Hillsong, which is where Fraser is from.

Thanks for pointing that out!
Dan

Thanks everyone! I know that this is a powerful image...

Dude, you rock! I have just been thinking about this in light of Reformation Day coming up, and plan to post something on my site to honor that day as well.

Rock on! God bless!
Dan

Lance,
I agree that other "gods" are certainly a deception that draws us away from the One True God. Often they fulfill selfish desires (i.e. the serpent's appeal to Eve about eating the apple). Often I see people evaluate which religion they should choose based on how good it works for them.

You make a great point! Thanks!

Dan

Ike,
Thanks for the reply. And I do feel like I must clarify a bit as well. I am not saying by any means that 'good works' replace 'grace' when it comes to salvation. I agree with you 100% that salvation is by grace alone. I also believe that the natural response to salvation is (should be) 'good works'.

With that said, I've got to go so that I can finish planning a ministry trip downtown to serve the homeless...
:)

Focused on Him,
Dan

Is the emphasis on good deeds at all necessary?

Umm... unfortunately, yes it is...
Too many Christians spend far too much effort trying to prove that they are right, rather than actually living the message of the Word. And (slightly in defense of this new print of the Bible) I do not know that it removes or demphasizes the need for salvation.

I am certainly not trying to defend this, but I get the sense that folks are against the idea of getting the Word into more people's hands. Dare I go as far to propose that Christians take advantage of this to continue to point out the Truth contained in the Book that someone might be getting in their hands for the first time? Or is it more important to show the world how good we are at being critical ot other attempts at sharing the Gospel?

I hate that people feel the need to make 'the book' more appealing to people... especially since it is a poor substitute Christians who should be making the Truth appealing to people...