The Other Shoe to Fall on Homosexual “Rights”

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events

Anthony Kennedy, the octogenarian senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and the Court’s swing vote, was widely expected to announce his retirement this past Monday. Unfortunately, Kennedy decided not to retire. His continued presence on the Court is likely to have huge negative ramifications for Christians in the United States, given a case that the Court decided to hear in its fall term, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111.

I believe that the reason why Justice Kennedy decided not to retire is precisely because he wants to rule in October against Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop Lakewood, Colorado, and a grandfather of three. Phillips is a “cake artist” who creates spectacular cake designs. He also is a committed Christian who refuses requests to create cakes to celebrate Halloween, or to bake with alcohol. When a homosexual couple asked him in 2012 to create a designer cake to celebrate their upcoming wedding, Phillips refused. He said he would be happy to sell the couple baked goods for sale in his shop; he just would not create a custom cake to celebrate their wedding. He said he does not discriminate against homosexuals, but he also does not use his artistic talents to promote messages which are contrary to his religious beliefs. While the homosexual couple could have bought a cake from another bakery—in fact, another bakery made them a cake with a rainbow design for free—they decided to sue Mr. Phillips in order to punish him and other people of faith like him. All of the lower courts have ruled against Masterpiece Cakeshop, which makes it likely that the five socially liberal justices on the Supreme Court will follow the same line of reasoning. Ever since the incident occurred, Phillips has faced serious harassment, loss of business, and even death threats against him and his family.

Justice Kennedy had been signaling for months that he would retire at the end of the court’s summer term; supposedly he decided at the last moment not to do so. I suspect that Kennedy tricked his conservative colleagues into thinking he would retire in order to get them to schedule the case against Masterpiece Cakeshop for the Court’s fall term. Kennedy is afraid that his homosexual (LGBTQ) rights agenda will be reversed by his replacement, and he wants to force everyone in the country to conform to this agenda before he retires by means of a very restrictive, precedent-setting ruling. That ruling will state explicitly that the court-ordered prohibition on “discrimination” against homosexuals (really, an objection to their lifestyle) supersedes First Amendment freedom of religion. Then a row of dominoes will start to fall, as homosexuals demand admission into Christian colleges and seminaries, Christian non-profit groups, church membership, and even church pastorates. Pastors could be punished for refusing to perform weddings for homosexuals. Homosexuals will also have the power to close Christian businesses by requesting services which they know will be refused, and then having the courts fine these businesses until they are bankrupted. In addition, biblical preaching and teaching against homosexuality could be considered criminal hate speech, and Christian counselors could be punished for telling their clients that homosexual acts are sinful. After all, Mr. Phillips is being punished not for actively opposing homosexuality, but merely for refusing to support it.

It should be noted that the Courts have never interpreted anti-discrimination ordinances as broadly as they are now interpreting them with reference to homosexuals. Many churches have never allowed women to be pastors, elders, or deacons, and some Christian seminaries still do not admit female students or accept female faculty members. The courts have never ruled that women must be admitted to these positions because of laws (or court rulings) against gender discrimination. Nor have the courts ruled that a baker in Michigan would be discriminating against Ohioans if he refused to create a cake to celebrate Ohio State’s victory over the University of Michigan. Even on the issue of racial discrimination, a baker who does not refuse service to people because of race but declines to create a custom cake with a “Black Lives Matter” message would not be punished by the courts, since we have a right to free speech and are not compelled to promote controversial political messages. There is a different agenda in play on the issue of homosexual rights which makes different reasoning and standards apply to that single issue than to any other issue. This is because the appropriateness of homosexuality, unlike the existence of the female sex, the existence of different races, or the suitability of a sports team, is at its root a religious/spiritual issue. The goal of homosexual advocates is not merely to gain legal and social acceptance, as their agenda was once presented. Homosexual advocates are really seeking conversions—first, an ideological conversion (requiring a change in religion for some), but also a conversion of lifestyle. The ultimate goal of the homosexual movement is to create homosexual feelings in everyone by (1) teaching that homosexual desires and acts are a good thing which should be accepted and celebrated; (2) presenting images of homosexuals and homosexual romance throughout the media and in public settings (which those who have been indoctrinated will view with admiration); and (3) teaching children from about the supposed goodness of homosexuality from their earliest ages, and encouraging or forcing them to experiment with homosexuality (in order to change their natural desires). In other words, homosexuals are promoting their lifestyle as the superior one, with the aim of making everyone “LGBTQ” and not having any straight people around. Perhaps few advocates would say this outright, but it is clear from their activism that this is what they are doing.

Biblical Christianity is the main obstacle to the acceptance and propagation of homosexuality in Western society; therefore, it has become the primary target. Islam is sometimes condemned by homosexual advocates for its intolerance of homosexuals, although it is more often celebrated because of its intolerance of Christianity. With regard to the legal issues, judges have become theologians, taking sides in this spiritual battle which, at its very core, pits biblical Christianity against its opponents. Liberal judges and activists are seeking to force conversions to their side, not just in ideology but also in practice. They show no tolerance for what they view as despicable heresy, and they seek to censor and suppress it. If the desired laws are not passed by Congress or ratified by the states, then it is up to the courts to “protect” the homosexual agenda by prohibiting opposition to it. Homosexual “rights” are seen as a person’s most basic and fundamental legal rights, which means that all of one’s other rights may be taken away for refusal to support the homosexual agenda.

Given what is happening today, with the prospect of the loss of legal status for Christians in the United States, the significant question for Christians is how we ought to respond. This will be the subject of my next post.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

The March for Science

22 Saturday Apr 2017

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

biblical view of science, science and the Bible

Scientists around the world today are participating in the “March for Science,” holding banners such as “Science – A Candle in the Dark” and “Science is the Answer.” Although this event coincides with Earth Day, the planning for it began at the anti-Trump Women’s March in January. The March for Science will be followed by a “Week of Action” from April 23 to 29 that will include voter registration drives and asking people to sign an environmental voter pledge. The message behind these rallies is that science represents objective truth which should shape one’s (supposedly) subjective religious and political beliefs. Essentially, science becomes one’s religion and politics. Some observations:

The scientific method cannot be used to prove itself—that is circular reasoning—nor can it give absolute certainty. We all start with foundational beliefs; faith in God and His Word is entirely coherent and rational, and gives absolute certainty where science cannot.
Scientific dogma is constantly changing; good theories are refined, bad theories are overturned, and new theories are being put forth. The history of science shows how dangerous it is to label one generation’s understanding of a particular scientific theory as unchangeable, absolute truth.
There is a huge difference between what is observed in science and how these observations are applied to theology, history, and politics. Science itself does not teach that there is no God, that the earth is billions of years old, that life evolved, that the United States should join a climate treaty, or that nuclear weapons are a threat to world peace. These are all interpretations that some scientists make on the basis of reasoning outside of their own scientific observations. Many of the questions involved are clearly outside the domain of science (e.g., “What does Genesis 1 teach?” “What are the political and economic costs of reducing carbon emissions?” “What is the deterrence value of nuclear weapons?”). Scientists have lost a lot of credibility by casting as scientific dogma conclusions that properly belong to the realm of other disciplines. In particular, mainstream scientists have created powerful enemies for themselves by joining the political and religious left, and calling their political and religious views “science.”
As is typical throughout academia, the majority opinion, that of the so-called “mainstream” scientists, is represented as “the” scientific truth, when in fact there are many scientists who strongly disagree with the mainstream view on issues such as evolution, the age of the earth, climate change, and vaccines. Scientists lose credibility by refusing to recognize the legitimacy of scientific debate, and by casting the majority opinion as the absolute, unquestionable truth. Historically, science has made the greatest progress when it has allowed freedom of research and thought, while its progress has been most hindered when it refuses to allow any deviation from current scientific dogma.
While science can improve physical quality of life, it cannot meet man’s deepest needs, which are spiritual. History shows that technological development does not improve the condition of the human heart, or even make people happier or more satisfied. While science has produced many good and beneficial discoveries, it is limited to the physical sphere and therefore cannot help man spiritually. Only God can do that.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

The earth’s design for life

04 Saturday Mar 2017

Posted by Steven Anderson in Creation, Current events

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

aliens, extraterrestrial life

A couple of weeks ago, there was a widely-disseminated news story about the discovery of seven “Earth-like” planets orbiting a distant star, Trappist-1, which supposedly proves that there is nothing special about man or the earth, which supposedly proves the existence of alien life, which supposedly proves that there is no Creator and the Bible is false. This is not the first time a discovery of an “Earth-like” planet has been announced; such announcements, complete with bogus “artist’s concepts,” have been coming out for about ten years now, with some of the more recent being Kepler 452b, Proxima b, and Kepler 186f. The first supposed “Earth-like” planet was Gliese 581c, whose discovery was announced in 2007; within a couple of months, astronomers realized that Gliese 581c could not support life, but they found another planet in the same system, Gliese 581d, that they said was just right for life; after Gliese 581d proved to be too cold to support life, the discovery of the better-situated Gliese 581g was announced in 2010, with one astronomer telling the press that “the chances of life on this planet are almost 100 percent.” Further investigation, however, showed by 2014 that both Gliese 581d and Gliese 581g were mere illusions and do not even exist. News stories about the discovery of planets where life could possibly exist date back to 1996, shortly after the first extrasolar planets were discovered. The two planets heralded at that time were not Earth-like and proved to have serious problems for habitability; the one deemed most suitable for life was estimated to have a surface temperature of 185°F, and is a gas giant eight times the mass of Juipter.

Though the latest planets were discovered through a telescope in Chile, many of the new planetary discoveries have been made using NASA’s Kepler spacecraft, which was built expressly to look for Earth-like planets in hopes of finding evidence for alien life. Many of the missions of NASA and the European Space Agency now have a theological aim—specifically, the aim of supporting atheism. The director of astrophysics at NASA said when Kepler was launched, “Kepler will answer a profound and fundamental question about our place in the universe”—a theological question. The meaning of this statement is that NASA wants to use Kepler to support their deeply held belief that life and the universe were not the product of special creation, the earth is not unique, and the same processes which led to the formation of the earth and the evolution of life on the earth led to the formation of innumerable other earths with life elsewhere in the universe.

It may be asked, however, does the discovery of “Earth-like” planets imply that there is life outside the earth? The answer is a resounding “No!”—first of all, because the earth is uniquely designed for life (hence, these planets are not truly “Earth-like”); and, secondly, because life cannot arise by evolutionary processes.

The earth is the ideal size to produce the perfect gravitational force necessary for life. Studies of astronauts have shown how zero-gravity impairs human health; presumably gravity that is too low or too high would also be harmful to human health. In addition, a planet that is too small, like Mercury, will not have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere in place; gases will simply escape into outer space. And an atmosphere is needed not only to have breathable air, but also to provide pressure to hold liquid water in place and prevent it from escaping; the low atmospheric pressure on Mars causes water to boil away. A planet that is too large, such as Jupiter, will trap light gases that are poisonous to life. A thick atmosphere and strong gravity will also create surface air pressures that are oppressive for life. For these reasons, scientists look for planets that are similar in size to the earth when searching for extraterrestrial life. The seven recently-discovered planets do, indeed, appear to be similar in size to the earth.

Venus is similar in size to the earth, but its atmosphere consists mainly of greenhouse (polyatomic) gases which render its surface temperatures unbearably hot for life. The earth’s atmosphere, by contrast, has exactly the right composition for life. It has just the right oxygen/nitrogen ratio to maintain suitable air temperatures and support life processes. It also has just the right amounts of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and ozone for life to exist. It contains just the right amount of greenhouse gases (less than 1%), so as to retain some warmth but not too much. The atmosphere sustains life, regulates the climate, and protects life from harmful radiation. There is no other known planet with abundant free oxygen. With regard to the seven newly-discovered planets, the authors of the study concluded that they probably formed far away from Trappist-1 and then migrated closer to the star, which means that their composition is probably more similar to planets like Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus, than to the earth—in other words, they likely do not have abundant oxygen.

Not just the composition of the earth’s atmosphere is important, but also the composition of the its crust. The earth’s crust contains minerals such as iron, calcium, and sodium that are essential for life; other planets lack one or more essential minerals.

The earth has the ideal axis of rotation to have the widest possible zone of habitability between the poles. It has the ideal rotation period for the length of the day and night, keeping nights from getting too cold, and days from getting too hot. And the earth has the ideal period of revolution around the sun, so that its seasons are the perfect length (winters and summers are neither too long nor too short). Critically, its orbit is close to being circular; if its orbit were strongly elliptical, temperatures would be too hot for part of the year and too cold for part of the year. While the earth’s orbit takes it slightly closer to the sun during fall and winter in the northern hemisphere, the climactic effect is offset by the greater amount of water in the southern hemisphere.

The most striking feature of the earth, from a scientific point of view, is its abundant liquid water at the surface. Temperature and atmospheric conditions must be just right, and also very stable, in order for water to exist in liquid form. Further, just the right amount of water is present so that the earth is neither too dry nor completely covered with water, and land surfaces receive regular rainfall though the hydrologic cycle. Liquid water has not been observed as presently existing in significant quantities anywhere else in the universe. This is significant, because scientists believe life cannot exist without water. The search for extraterrestrial life is therefore a search, first and foremost, for a planet or moon with the right conditions for liquid water to exist. But not only does the earth have water, its water is suitable for life because the earth’s crust has the right blend of minerals (e.g., the oceans are not too saline for life to exist).

Having a planet with abundant water, of just the right size, just the right atmosphere, the ideal axis of rotation, the ideal rotation period, and the ideal period of revolution is not enough to support life. Life on the earth is dependent upon the sun’s energy to provide warmth and to allow organisms to convert sunlight into food through the process of photosynthesis. The earth is situated an ideal distance from the sun to keep it the perfect temperature for life (i.e., a temperature where liquid water exists in abundance and is not too hot). The case of Trappist-1, the star which the seven newly-discovered planets were found orbiting, is much different. Trappist-1 is a dwarf star, only one-twelfth the size of the sun. Scientists believe that at least some of the seven planets are the right distance from Trappist-1 to potentially have liquid water (i.e., the surface temperature may be between the freezing point and the boiling point). However, the surface temperature of a planet is determined not just by its distance from a star, but also by the composition of its atmosphere. Since scientists have never found a planet with a diatomic atmosphere like the earth’s, speculation that the newly-discovered planets may have such an atmosphere has no basis in observational science.

The sun, crucially, provides abundant light for life on the earth. However, the light from Trappist-1 on the newly-discovered planets is only about 1/200th the strength of the sun’s light on the earth—something similar to a permanent twilight, and certainly not enough light to support the earth’s ecosystems. The light from Trappist-1 is also much redder than the sun’s light, which results in even weaker photosynthesis. In addition, because the planets are so close to Trappist-1, they do not rotate, but rather are “gravitationally locked” or “tidally synchronized,” meaning that one side is always facing the star and the other side is always facing away. The result is a very uneven distribution of temperature, with half of the planet being very cold and very dark, the brightest part of the planet being very hot, and only a dim sliver of the planet with a pleasant temperature. However, that small zone with a pleasant temperature would likely be constantly beset by powerful winds.

A larger problem with dwarf stars like Trappist-1 is that they are usually variable stars whose energy output is very inconsistent. This means that a planet orbiting one those stars would alternate from being frozen solid (when the star’s energy output wanes) to being burning hot (when the star’s energy output increases). In addition, M-dwarf stars (the type where most of the new planets are being discovered) periodically emit powerful flares of far greater intensity than any solar flare. Since planets have to be very close to dwarf stars in order to have surface temperatures which could allow for liquid water, the effect of these flares would be absolutely devastating to life on those planets (if it existed). The sun, by contrast, is not just another star; it differs from every other known star in that it has an extremely consistent energy output, creating the stable conditions needed for life. The sun is also just the right size to give the earth the perfect balance of warmth and light.

While the earth relies on the sun to produce the light and heat needed for life, the sun also produces damaging radiation. The earth has a magnetic field of the ideal strength to keep radiation from the sun (and other celestial bodies) from damaging life. Also, without a magnetic field, solar radiation would strip the earth of its atmosphere over time. This magnetic field is created by electrical currents within the earth. While the earth’s magnetic field has weakened considerably since Creation (electrical currents encounter resistance), it still exists at a strength which gives good protection to life. But while life cannot exist without a magnetic field to protect it, a magnetic field that is too strong would create catastrophic physical damage (e.g., melting the earth). A magnetic field must exist at the right strength to be right for life. As for the seven recently-discovered planets, they are gravitationally locked, and gravitationally locked planets likely do not have magnetic fields, meaning that they cannot protect their atmospheres or their surfaces against radiation.

Not just the sun, but also the moon plays an important role in supporting life on the earth. The moon is the perfect size, composition, and distance from the earth. It is 400 times smaller than the sun, but also 400 times closer to the earth than the sun, so that it appears exactly the same size as the sun in the sky. It gives enough light to keep nights from being completely dark, but it is not so bright as to make sleep difficult. The moon moves about 1.5 inches further away from the earth each year (lunar recession), but basically stays in the same place over time on a biblical timescale (though it would have moved off into space long ago on an evolutionary timescale). Critically, the moon stabilizes the earth’s rotation, keeping the poles consistently at about 23.5 degrees, which in turn stabilizes the earth’s climate and produces seasons. This stabilization occurs because the moon orbits the earth in nearly the same plane as the earth orbits the sun (only 5.145 degrees of difference) and is relatively large in comparison to the earth. By contrast, the satellites of other planets are generally far smaller than the planets they orbit, and they orbit these planets around their axis of rotation (and thus do not provide stabilization). But the 5 degrees of difference between the moon’s orbital plane and the earth’s is also important, because without it the earth would experience a total solar eclipse every new moon; as it is, total solar eclipses are rare.

Somewhat surprisingly, the other planets in the solar system are also necessary for life on the earth. The largest planet, Jupiter, is particularly helpful—it is too far away to pull the earth or the moon out of orbit, but its gravity deflects most of the asteroids and comets that come hurtling in our direction. It was for this reason that the scientific community got excited in 2002 over the possibility of extraterrestrial life when a “Jupiter-like” planet was discovered orbiting the star 55 Cancri. However, the orbit of this planet is much more elliptical than the planets in our solar system, meaning that it would cross the orbit of any “Earth-like” planet in the system, disrupting its orbit and thereby rendering conditions for life impossible. While the earth and other planets in the solar system have low orbital eccentricity (making the earth’s temperature and orbit stable), most exoplanets have high orbital eccentricity (i.e., are highly elliptical), except for the ones that are very close to the stars they orbit and are therefore gravitationally locked. In the case of the seven planets revolving around Trappist-1, Danny Faulkner notes, “Numerous simulations revealed that the system likely would disrupt within a half-million years” because of gravitational interactions among the planets. Obviously the evolutionary timescale requires far more than 500,000 years for life to evolve.

Finally, the Milky Way is an ideal galaxy for life, and the sun is in an ideal location within the Milky Way. Our night sky is just dark enough, with just the right number of visible stars, none of which is excessively bright, and which are distributed fairly evenly throughout the sky.

The earth has the perfect conditions for life to exist. These conditions are so specific, there is probably no other place in the universe that has these conditions—that is, there are no other earths. Speculating that planets which are barely detectable may have conditions suitable for life to exist is not scientifically responsible. But the conditions for life to exist are different than the conditions for life to evolve. In fact, it is absolutely impossible for life to evolve; one of the most basic principles of biology is that life only comes from other life. The most fundamental characteristic of the earth that makes it able to support life is that it already supports life, diverse life. Living things on the earth depend on other living things to survive and provide balance to the earth’s ecosystems; new life arises when existing life reproduces. The Bible teaches that all life is ultimately sourced in God the Creator, who not only created biological life, but also fine-tuned a planet and a universe to support it. The discovery of “Earth-like” planets, which in fact are not truly Earth-like, is not a discovery of extraterrestrial life and does not provide supporting evidence for Darwinian evolution.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

A review of The Ark Encounter

19 Thursday Jan 2017

Posted by Steven Anderson in Creation, Current events

≈ 1 Comment

Most people have by now heard of The Ark Encounter, a full-size replica of Noah’s ark in Williamsburg, Kentucky that opened on July 7, 2016, and that has already been visited by more than half a million people. The Ark Encounter was constructed by the creation apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis under the leadership of Ken Ham. I visited the Ark Encounter for the first time this past Wednesday.

The reconstruction of Noah’s ark at The Ark Encounter is of far superior quality than any previous attempts to draw or reconstruct the ark, such as the Noah’s Ark on the island of Ma Wan in Hong Kong, which I visited in 2010 (see photo in the gallery below), or the half-size and full-size floating arks built by Johan Huibers. It is the largest wood-frame building in the world, and its size is very impressive—both as you look at the ship from the outside, and as you walk through it on the inside. Great efforts were made by the scientific experts at Answers in Genesis to reconstruct the ark as accurately as possible and to show that it was both feasible for ancient builders to construct and capable of holding and sustaining eight people and two of every kind of land animal and bird. Rigorous scientific analysis was conducted to calculate the number of animals that would have been on board, the amount of food they would have needed, and the space that Noah and his family would have required. Attention was even given to such details as water collection, waste disposal, ventilation, and lighting. Models were constructed by engineers to test various hull designs for their seaworthiness and the amount their contents would be rocked in rough seas. Efforts were also made to be faithful to the biblical text, and to take the Genesis account seriously. The Ark Encounter is very impressive, and is worth visiting if for no other reason than to see how large Noah’s ark actually was (assuming that the long cubit used by the Answers in Genesis builders was the one used by Noah, which is likely). It is also an incredible feat of engineering and ingenuity.

Answers in Genesis has done great, groundbreaking work to raise awareness of the biblical story of origins and to defend the scientific credibility of the biblical account. The Ark Encounter is the most visible and already the best-known work that Answers in Genesis has ever produced. It is too big and too famous to be ignored, and secular scientists and the media are increasingly being forced to grapple with biblical creationism. Countless Christians, including both laymen and clergy, have become convinced through the ministry of Answers in Genesis and The Ark Encounter that it is indeed possible that God created the world only a little more than 6,000 years ago, and that He destroyed the world with a deluge of water only a little more than 4,500 years ago. The Ark Encounter should be considered a great success merely for the impact it has had as a public proclamation of the biblical history of origins.

Answers in Genesis places great emphasis on scientific accuracy, museum-quality artistic representations, and professional media productions. There is a nice exhibit inside The Ark Encounter on the Ice Age, for example. Answers in Genesis does not, however, hire experts on Bible scholarship or archaeology. One sees in the bookstore that Answers in Genesis assigned someone with an M.A. an engineering and no seminary training to write a book on the tower of Babel, and they assigned someone with a Ph.D. in astronomy to write a book on hermeneutics. With regard to The Ark Encounter, while Answers in Genesis is faithful to the basic biblical storyline, they never go beyond this to the realm of detailed exegesis of the Hebrew text. They also appear to have done little serious (i.e., expert) archaeological research, apart from matters which have a direct bearing on the construction of the ark (such as the length of a cubit and ancient shipbuilding techniques). As a result, the representations of life aboard the ark, the clothing of Noah and his family, and their tools and household items, is simply said to be an artist’s guess at how these things might have been, based on a non-expert understanding of the technologies and cultures of ancient times. Someone who has done serious study of ancient artifacts, as I have, can see right away that some of these artistic representations do not match extant ancient artifacts or cultural patterns. In fact, for representations of writing on the ark, the Answers in Genesis artists have simply made up a nonsense script of letters which never existed and which mean nothing; in my opinion, an attempt to (re)create Proto-Semitic writing would have been better. It also would be nice to see real ancient artifacts displayed, or reproductions of ancient artifacts, rather than “artists’ conceptions.” Some errors also existed when reference was made to the Hebrew text of Genesis, such as the assertion that we cannot know whether the text means there were seven or fourteen of every clean animal (there were fourteen), or that the name “Methuselah” has no prophetic significance (this name means “when he dies, it shall be sent,” a name given by the prophet Enoch, who was Methuselah’s father; and Methuselah did indeed die as a sign in the year of the Deluge after living longer than anyone ever had).

The biggest archaeological gap in The Ark Encounter is that no attempt was made to find or excavate the remains of the actual ark of Noah, which could yield precise information about the ark’s size, shape, construction materials, and construction methods. The Ark Encounter was built on the basis of biblical statements about the ark, our knowledge of ancient shipbuilding, and scientific testing of various possible design features. Answers in Genesis has shown virtually no interest in the thorough research done by their friend Bill Crouse and others which demonstrates that both ancient tradition and modern archaeological investigation overwhelmingly supports the identification of Mount Cudi (a.k.a. Cudi Dag, Cudi Dağı, Mount Judi, Mount Qardu) as the landing site of Noah’s ark. (See the article by Bill Crouse and Gordon Franz in the Fall 2006 issue of Bible and Spade, available here or here. The same issue contains a counterpoint article by Richard Lanser which makes the case for Mount Ararat. See also this 2013 blog article by Gordon Franz, the articles here and here by Timo Roller, and these articles by S. C. Compton.) I found it somewhat strange that The Ark Encounter said nothing at all about whether remains of Noah’s ark might still exist today (as many claim), nor did it mention the various traditions and theories about specific landing sites for the ark. It would have been nice to see the artist’s portrayal of the landing site of the ark match one of the traditional landing sites. The Ark Encounter’s portrayal of the first settlements after the Deluge should also have shown an authentic scene from Turkey, with drawings to match archaeological remains from the most ancient settlements in the area. Some photographs of the traditional landing sites could also have been included.

View of The Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky

Me standing below the door of The Ark Encounter

Ramp inside The Ark Encounter

Center of The Ark Encounter

Roof of a deck on The Ark Encounter

A son of Noah refilling a feeder

Hallway on the side of a deck in The Ark Encounter

Display in The Ark Encounter

A leaf from the London Polyglot Bible, in the Voyage of the Book exhibit

The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky

Noah’s Ark in Hong Kong from a ferry boat

The major upside of The Ark Encounter is the attention it brings to the historicity of the biblical account. The major downside of The Ark Encounter is that it blurs the line between the historical and the conjectural. Children will have trouble understanding that when they see and hear an animatronic Noah describing life aboard the ark, this is merely someone’s hypothesis concerning the way things on the ark might have been, and that virtually none of what is heard or seen in the dioramas is specifically described in the Bible. It is a mistake to think that what is seen in The Ark Encounter is what actually was, or that the Bible affirms that it was so. Many people, both children and adults, will come away from The Ark Encounter thinking that Noah’s wife was probably named Emzara, when in fact this name comes from a Jewish legend that likely has no historical basis (from The Book of Jubilees 4.33, a pseudepigraphical work composed by a Pharisee between 135 and 105 BC). People will also assume that details such as the way Noah and his family are dressed are archaeologically accurate, when in fact their clothing was likely more similar to the standard robe and tunic of the ancient Near East. To their credit, Answers in Genesis does make an effort to distinguish between the things they have hypothesized or simply invented and the things that the Bible teaches. Still, when people walk through an exhibit which describes Noah’s life before he began building the ark, many will believe that this is indeed what Noah’s life was probably like, when in fact it is all a fairy tale. Ditto for the exhibit which describes the ark’s living quarters, and which says, e.g., “Ham enjoys building things with wood and metal, and he is the most ambitious of the sons. His wife, Kezia, is also a hard worker, and she is more interested than the other women in dressing up and looking her best.” There really is no reason to include these fictions, which detract from the credibility of the more plausible conjectures concerning the use of a system of ventilation on the ark, a rainwater collection system, and a process for sewage removal.

One issue many people have with The Ark Encounter is its high ticket prices. I understand that Answers in Genesis spent $100 million on the construction of The Ark Encounter, and it needs to recoup these costs. It is also an expensive, high-quality operation which requires a lot of money to run (including tight security, with three bomb-sniffing dogs). There is a price to pay for quality. Donor plaques are everywhere (a common practice, but one which violates Matthew 6:1-4 and James 2:1-9). The Ark Encounter has been called the world’s most expensive gospel tract. For a large family, the cost of visiting The Ark Encounter ($40 per adult, which starts at age 13) could easily run into the hundreds of dollars, especially if two-day passes are purchased which include admission to the Creation Museum or if tickets are purchased for such extras as the zip line, the “fossil find,” the camel rides, or the planetarium show. The single restaurant onsite charges $12.99 for lunch and $16.99 for dinner (which starts at 1 pm). Parking is $10. And most visitors will have travel expenses and a hotel bill. The United States is certainly the only country in the world where there are significant numbers of people who are willing to pay these prices for a chance to see a replica of Noah’s ark. Still, with half of Americans earning less than $30,000/year, it will be difficult for many to pay. I would suggest that The Ark Encounter offer a discount for pastors, missionaries, seminary students, and/or seminary professors. It currently only offers a 20% discount for active members and veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces, which can be used to purchase up to five tickets. Veterans also receive free admission on Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day. This practice is rather puzzling, since the United States military has nothing to do with advancing the mission of the church. Christian organizations should favor soldiers in the Lord’s army. Also, while it is important to reach everyone with the message of Genesis, it would seem especially advantageous for Answers in Genesis to reach pastors and other Christian leaders if it wants to maximize its influence on the church.

In the category of miscellaneous criticisms, I found some of the background music (which plays constantly) objectionable and did not care for the movies. I also questioned whether it would have been necessary to keep each pairing of animals together in small cages, like a zoo, after they had all come to Noah and walked on board the ark voluntarily. Perhaps many of them could have been kept together in large pens or holds. I also found it odd that there was no exhibit to explain why The Ark Encounter is built with a wooden fin on the bow and a skeg on the stern—a shape which will appear strange to many (explained here). Nor were there exhibits to explain how the ark was constructed, how its boards could have been held together, what type of wood was used, or how it was pitched. There was not even an explanation of how The Ark Encounter itself was built, or any information about the huge logs used as posts in the center of the structure. On the upside, I found the food in the restaurant to be better than some of the online reviews had said (all of the complaints were about the hamburgers, before the restaurant switched to buffet-style dining). The zoo was also nice, and free with admission.

In spite of these criticisms, I found my visit to The Ark Encounter to be an enjoyable and educational experience, and I highly recommend visiting this amazing edifice at least one time. The Ark Encounter is a landmark in the modern creationist movement, if it is still only a model to be improved upon. It is a truly unique place; there has not been an opportunity to see anything like it since the original ark of Noah rotted away. Even people who do not believe the biblical account of creation will likely enjoy seeing the ark and the exhibits inside of it. The nearby Creation Museum is also well worth a visit, preferably the day before your visit to The Ark Encounter, so as to provide the background information necessary to understand The Ark Encounter. If you want to avoid large crowds, do not visit on Saturdays or holidays. Be prepared for a lot of walking, although motorized carts can be rented by those who need them. While a scholar who is hoping to find an archaeological museum at The Ark Encounter will be disappointed (outside of the excellent “Voyage of the Book” exhibit, presented by the Museum of the Bible), one can still enjoy The Ark Encounter after realizing that it was designed for scientific accuracy within a biblical framework, not for archaeological or language accuracy. Above all else, it stands as a giant witness to an unbelieving culture that Bible’s account of the origins of the world is true, and that it really was possible for an ancient man to build a great ship which could contain two of every kind of animal in the whole world.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

Does the Bible allow a woman to be President?

03 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Bible, Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

feminism and the Bible, feminism and the election

The upcoming presidential election in the United States is unique in that a female candidate—Hillary Clinton—is featured at the top of a major party’s ticket for the first time. This is reflective of a huge upending of values in American culture, as it was less than 100 years ago when the U.S. Constitution was amended to give women the right to vote. Even thirty or forty years ago, if a woman was nominated for president, many evangelical Christian leaders would have spoken out against her, arguing that it is unbiblical and immoral for a woman to be president of the country. Most evangelical seminaries did not even admit female students before the 1980s or 1990s. Yet I have not heard any Christian leaders so much as even raise the issue of whether the Bible allows a woman to be president during this election cycle. How quickly our values have changed!

Today, either it is taken for granted that it is it is morally acceptable for women to occupy positions of leadership, or else there is so much hostility to the contrary position that no one on any part of the political spectrum dares even to raise the issue, not even on talk radio or on social media. Yet for much of the history of the United States, most people in the country believed it would be morally wrong for a woman to be president. In fact, most leaders of most countries in all the history of the world have been men, so this is not just a viewpoint unique to people who historically lived in the United States.

Since we as Christians are to be guided by God’s Word in all that we believe and do, the answer to the question of whether it is morally permissible for a woman to be president can only be resolved through a study of what the Bible has to say about the issue. One of the clearest statements in the Bible on the role of women is 1 Timothy 2:12—But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. This verse gives a blanket prohibition against women exercising authority over men. While Paul is speaking of rules for the church, if women are not permitted to exercise authority over men or even to teach in the church, surely it is also morally impermissible for a woman to exercise authority over an entire country. Paul explains the reason for this prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. First, it is because Adam was created before Eve, which set the man in a position of primacy. Second, the fact that Eve was deceived by the serpent while Adam was not shows that men have a greater capacity for discernment than women and therefore a greater inherent ability to lead. These are principles which would apply just as well to the issue of women occupying positions of leadership in government as they would to the issue of women as leaders in the church.

The New Testament does not comment directly on qualifications for political leaders, since the early church had no role in the governance of the Roman Empire. In the Old Testament, politics and religion were closely linked in the nation of Israel, although here again it was not the responsibility of the people to choose their rulers. The Old Testament does not give a list of principles for choosing a king; it says only to appoint the king chosen by Yahweh, who was to be an Israelite (Deut 17:15). To understand the criteria by which God chose kings, we can examine the choices which God made.

It is striking to the modern reader of the Old Testament that every king of Israel and Judah appointed by God was male. God never appointed a woman to rule over his people! There was only one ruling queen in the whole history of the Israelite monarchy—the wicked Athaliah, who usurped power in a coup and was overthrown by the high priest in a counter-coup. Some point to Deborah as an example of a female leader. Judges 4:4 identifies Deborah as a “prophetess” who was involved in the activity of judging. As a prophetess, she did not speak her own judgment and her own message; when people came to her with disputes, she would inquire of Yahweh and return His answer. In this sense, she was like Huldah (2 Chr 34:22-28). These prophetesses were not set in positions of authority over men; they were simply relaying messages from God to them. It does not seem that Deborah actually preached to a mixed audience, or was teaching the Law to the people. It is significant that Deborah called a man, Barak, to lead the army of Israel into battle (Judg 4:6).

Another means of understanding the criteria by which God chose leaders is to look at criticisms of leaders by the prophets. In Isaiah 3:12, God’s people are said to be pitied when women and children rule over them. However one may interpret this verse, the presence of female rulers is definitely viewed as a bad thing. God is saying that Israel will lack qualified leadership.

Interestingly, one of the qualifications for being a king chosen by God was not to be a true believer or worshiper of Yahweh. God anointed Jehu to be king over Israel because of certain good things he would do, even though Jehu was an idolater who never repented of the worship of Jeroboam’s golden calves (2 Kgs 9–10). God anointed Jehu in order to destroy the dynasty of Ahab and the religion of Ahab, which was something that apparently no believer in Israel could have done so effectively. While God disapproved of Jehu’s idolatry, He promised him a four-generation dynasty for the good that he did (2 Kgs 10:29-31).

Despite the fact that it was possible for a woman to be a prophetess, almost all the prophets were men, and every significant prophet and writer of Scripture was male. All the priests, the temple musicians, and official temple servants were required to be male. All of Israel’s military commanders and warriors were male. The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was a mark that only males could receive. All of the twelve disciples chosen by Jesus were male, and all of the later apostles were male. In the church, women are barred from positions of authority and teaching, not only by 1 Timothy 2:8-15, but also in the qualifications for elders/pastors (“husband of one wife,” 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:5-6) and by 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, which prohibits women from speaking or asking questions during church services and commands them to be in subjection to male authority. The idea that women should be in subjection to the men who are in authority over them is not just something that applies within the church; Paul cites “the Law” as the basis for this command in order to show that it is not something new or culturally-specific (1 Cor 14:34). Scripture presents women as designed to occupy a role in support of men (cf. Gen 2:18).

From a biblical point of view, the answer to the question posed in the title of this post is obvious: “No way!” Why, then, does it seem that most Christians have no problem with women in positions of leadership? The answer is different for different individual Christians. Some Christians just never have heard a different point of view than the one they were taught by the culture around them. But in too many cases professing Christians simply do not care what the Bible says, and they are not serious about doing everything God wants them to do. They have already decided to commit to egalitarianism, and are not open to considering arguments to the contrary. Following this pattern, as our culture continues to move away from God, increasing numbers of Christians are adopting similarly anti-biblical positions on other cultural issues, of which the most flagrant is acceptance of homosexuality.

Finally, a disclaimer: while some people may view this post as “sexist” or “bigoted,” it is intended to be about the Bible’s teaching on women in positions of political leadership, not about my personal opinion per se. Feminists are actually divided on the issue of the Bible’s teaching about the role of women. On the one hand, there are many Christian feminists who attempt to read the Bible as a feminist book. But there are also many non-Christian feminists who would argue that the Bible is a biased, chauvinistic book which was the product of male-dominated societies and cultures. Thus, the view that the Bible prohibits women from positions of political leadership is not inherently a feminist or anti-feminist viewpoint. However, as a Christian believer I do take what the Bible says as the definitive standard for faith and practice, and I encourage other Christians to do the same.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

Could Donald Trump be a successful pastor?

11 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events, Ecclesiology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

make church great again, Pastor Trump, Reverend Trump, Trump Church

I do not desire to wade deeply into the politics of this year’s election season in the United States. I don’t see political action as something that will truly help people or solve the world’s problems. But the thought occurred to me the other day: what if Donald Trump had decided to start a church instead of running for president? Could the Trumpster succeed in the pastorate, as he has in politics? Trump is a businessman with a pragmatic, “do-whatever-it-takes-to-win” mentality. If he had decided to become a pastor, he might buy a beautiful building for his church, or, more likely, build a grand new one himself. He would hire experts who would tell him how to set up a church, get it running, and attract the initial congregation. He would find a way to get ordained. He would hire musicians to play whatever kind of music seemed most suitable. Every church service would be an impressive show, maybe with a steak dinner following. Experts on homiletics would write Trump’s sermons, which he would deliver with gusto. Sunday evenings might feature a concert in an outdoor amphitheater and fireworks afterward. Trump’s controversial comments on Muslims and politicians would make the news and lead people to believe that he is standing up for what is right. He would belittle pastors and churches who oppose him in order to get people to leave those churches and come to his church, which would be so much better.

With a high divorce rate among evangelicals and so much tolerance of sin, it is unlikely that most people would be bothered by Trump’s divorces, beauty pageants, casinos, and so forth. The standard of morality espoused by Trump would basically match what most people already believe and would give church members considerable freedom to live as they please. Trump’s theology would be somewhat erratic, novel, and idiosyncratic, but would likely be tolerated by many. In any case, Trump could not be voted out by the congregation, since he would own the church building. Perhaps he would offer perks for faithful members, such as free vacations at one of his resorts. Maybe he would give away raffle tickets every Sunday before the worship service, with a drawing held afterward. If the number of congregants started to decrease, he would immediately find out why and would shift course to bring them back. Big names would frequent Trump’s church to offer seminars and lead retreats. The church would have classes on financial responsibility and wealth creation, seminars on marriage and parenting, addiction recovery groups, a food pantry, and even Bible studies. Some of the teaching would seem very sound. The church would have a large counseling staff to help people work through their problems, and all of the counselors would be fully credentialed and experienced. Everything would be done first class. The youth group would take fun trips and compete for college scholarships; adults would go on cruises and take tours of the holy land. Trump’s staff would ghost-write books for him, which would make the bestseller lists. All things considered, I think if Donald Trump had decided to become a pastor instead of running for president, he would be widely regarded as a very successful pastor with a well-run church and a large following. Trump’s church might look very much like other prominent churches in the country, but with everything done bigger and better.

Many popular pastors of megachurches (and their wannabes in smaller churches) do in fact have the same pragmatic mentality as Donald Trump. I would suggest that these pastors and their followers have lost sight of what really makes a church successful. First and foremost, the church belongs to Jesus Christ, not to pastors or congregations, which means that things must be done His way, not our way. The church’s aim is to please Jesus Christ, not to build a personal empire or garner a huge following. The ends do not justify the means when it comes to church growth, if numerical growth is not the true goal of the church.

Decisions about how to do things in churches and Christian schools have now for decades been driven by pragmatic considerations about expansion and money. If starting a Saturday night service will bring in more people, then let’s do it, and let’s say that it doesn’t matter what day of the week you come to church. If having a rock band and a dance team attracts more people than having an organ and a choir, then let’s have the rock band and dance team. If most people now approve of women preaching, then let’s allow women to preach. If hosting a $100/plate dinner will raise funds for the building, then let’s have the dinner. Many other examples could be cited. The problem is that the church is not making its decisions by asking such questions as “What does God want us to do?” or “What does the Bible say we should do?” The questions driving the church’s decisions are ones such as “What will make the church grow?” and “What will bring in money?” It is time for the church to start making decisions again based solely on the Bible, and not on what people think is right or what will make a church “grow.”

There is no doubt that applying pragmatic strategies to achieve growth in a church can produce results. One reason why the Mormons have survived and expanded in spite of their patently absurd theology is because they require members go on evangelistic mission trips (two years full-time after high school) and to give ten percent of their income to the church. The Jehovah’s Witnesses require their members to do door-to-door evangelism. It is, of course, a good thing when Bible-believing Christians go on mission trips, give tithes to the church, and evangelize. However, the Bible requires that such things be done voluntarily; making them compulsory is a pragmatic shortcut to achieve church growth. Growth produced by shortcuts is always shallow and superficial, since it is not rooted in an overarching commitment to faithfulness to God and to His Word.

I may well end up voting for Donald Trump for president this fall, in spite of not agreeing with him about many things. But I would never vote for Donald Trump (or any of the other major candidates, for that matter) to be my pastor. It may be okay to vote for the least worst candidate for president (if your conscience allows you to do so), but the Bible sets forth qualifications for the pastorate that every pastor must meet. Donald Trump does not meet the biblical requirements to be a pastor, as stated in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:7-9. Of course, Trump is not a pastor and has not said that he wants to be one. But I think if he had tried to become a prominent pastor, he could have gained wide acceptance. There already are many talented, pragmatic people who have made a name for themselves in the pastorate and are widely considered to be successful pastors, who nevertheless do not even meet the basic biblical qualifications for becoming a pastor.

We need to stop measuring success by numbers and fame, and start measuring success the way God measures it—by faithfulness to His Word.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

The Secular View of Human Life

22 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christian view of human life, euthanasia

Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, introduced legislation this past week to legalize assisted suicide (now called “physician assisted death”). Assisted suicide is also legal in places in the United States and Europe. This is just the latest manifestation of the consequences of abandoning the biblical view of human life as intrinsically valuable due to the fact that man is created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27; 9:6; James 3:9), as well as the explicit rejection of the ten commandments as a standard of morality. Assisted suicide may be seen as the next logical step following the legalization of abortion more than forty years ago.

Secular morality is riddled with irreconcilable contradictions and arbitrary value judgments. But certainly the theory of evolution teaches that man is just another animal. Ultimately, man is nothing more than a highly organized collection of matter in a meaningless universe. As such, human life only has the worth that man himself assigns to it. The criteria for assigning worth to life might be the perceived good of each individual, the good of the majority, or the good of the ruling class. In the context of contemporary Western liberal thought, the ruling class and the majority are one and the same, and therefore life should be treated in the way that the majority believes is best for itself. Many believe that a life of suffering is not worth living, and therefore it would be best for themselves personally if they could decide to end their lives when they lose hope or no longer find life pleasant. They also believe that caring for the elderly, the handicapped, the terminally ill, and others with serious and chronic medical conditions is an economic burden and a useless drain on the resources of the healthy.

I am not convinced that caring for the elderly, the sick, and the handicapped is in fact an economic burden. There are very many people who are employed to care for the sick and the elderly; viewed from this perspective, taking care of those in need is actually a positive economic activity which creates jobs. Further, caring for the elderly, the sick, and the handicapped is, from a biblical point of view, a blessing and a privilege, and therefore well worth the cost (cf. Matt 25:35-40). The people who are cared for enrich the world through their interactions with caregivers, as well as by other means. By contrast, the secular establishment talks about how much money is generated by activities such as sports, gambling, rock concerts, and other forms of entertainment. These activities are actually the real drain on the economy, since they generate no useful goods but are hugely expensive. Not only are these expenses completely unnecessary, they are counterproductive, since they promote lawlessness and immorality while taking time and money away from productive enterprises. The truth is, secular people simply like entertainment and do not like having to care for suffering people, since they lack love, and this is the real reason why they portray entertainment as a positive economic activity and caring for the elderly as an economic cost. Similarly, secularists view religion as a waste of time and money, when in fact it is a lack of (true) religion that is leading the world to destruction.

From a secular point of view, one could make a very good argument for infanticide. One could argue that babies born with serious birth defects would be better off having their lives terminated, since they would never enjoy life as adults, and would simply be a burden to their parents and other caretakers (there is no love for people in the secular mentality). Non-Christians would not accept the objection that man is created in the image of God, thereby making all human life precious, and that God has strictly forbidden the taking of human life (other than in self-defense or as judicial punishment for murder). It therefore seems very likely that infanticide will soon be practiced in the United States.

It also seems likely that laws which mandate involuntary euthanasia will soon follow laws which permit voluntary euthanasia. There was, in fact, talk of a “death committee” established under Obamacare to decide when seriously ill patients should no longer receive medical care. One of the consequences of government-run health care programs in a secular country is that an antichristian standard of medical morality is imposed upon the entire populace. If the government decides that it is not worth the financial cost to care for certain seriously ill patients, it would seem reasonable from a secular point to euthanize patients, rather than “pulling the plug” and watching them die slowly and miserably. But from a biblical point of view, man has no right to take human life; someone who does so is a murderer and must be killed by the authorities in retributive justice (Gen 9:5-6).

It is not only those who are physically sick whom the majority may judge to be unfit to live—a whole class of people may be deemed undesirable and therefore targeted for extermination. In Nazi Germany, this was the Jews; in leftist America, it would be evangelical Christians.

In many ancient pagan societies, the preferred form of entertainment was blood sport. There is no reason to think that the gladiatorial shows of the Roman Empire could not be revived in the United States. From a secular point of view, life has no ultimate value, so if two fighters give their consent they should be able to fight to the death. We are already seeing increasingly violent sport-fighting around the world, often with serious injuries to the participants. The wicked want to give expression to their wicked desires to harm others, and to watch others be harmed, and they have no love for those involved.

The movement to legalize drugs is another manifestation of the secular view of the cheapness of life. On the secular view, it is okay to destroy one’s mind, one’s health, and even one’s life if one obtains pleasure in the process. The rise in the murder rate and the suicide rate in the United States is also due to a view of human life as cheap.

One of the basic assumptions behind the push for assisted suicide is that there is no afterlife and no judgment for sin—once a man dies, he ceases to exist forever. But the Bible teaches that death will only end a person’s suffering if that person goes to heaven. For those who go to hell, their suffering will only be greatly intensified (Rev 14:9-13). The assumption that man is wholly physical and that death ends life forever is also behind the movement to cremate or even compost dead bodies. If we believe that our bodies are connected to our souls and will be raised someday, then we should want them to be treated with reverence. For more on this issue see this post and this one. It should be noted that the idea that man is simply a complex machine is absurd, since no machine can achieve consciousness or make voluntary decisions by a self-determined will. Man’s consciousness and will can only be explained by means of an immaterial soul.

It is not just the atheistic Western worldview in which life is seen as cheap. In the Shinto/Buddhist Japanese worldview, suicide is often seen as honorable, and large numbers of young Japanese men volunteered for suicide missions during World War II. In the Islamic worldview, suicide bombers may be seen as martyrs for their god. It is only in the biblical Christian worldview that life is seen as intrinsically precious and valuable. In the midst of ever-changing morality in society around us, let us remember the Bible’s teaching about human life: (1) Man is created in the image of God, which makes him different from the animals (Gen 1:26-27); (2) God forbids murder (Exod 20:13); (3) Life’s sufferings have positive value for followers of Christ (1 Pet 3:14); and (4) All men’s bodies will be raised and judged when Christ brings history to its final consummation (John 5:28-29).

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

A new direction in American foreign policy?

06 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

election 2016, Republican primary

I don’t typically write on politics, even though my bachelor’s degree was in political science. But this year’s presidential election in the United States potentially marks a watershed moment in the modern history of international relations. It appears increasingly likely that Donald Trump will win not only the Republican presidential nomination, but also the general election for president. If Donald Trump is elected president, I believe we will see a radical change in American foreign policy. While only time will tell exactly what would happen in a Trump presidency, here is how I read Trump’s agenda.

Donald Trump is an American nationalist. His nationalism resonates well with voters, although I do not believe it is entirely reflective of biblical Christian principles. Trump wants to grow America the way he grew his business, which means giving competitors bad deals. When he talks about “winning,” that means other countries will be losing. When he talks about bringing jobs and money back from overseas, that means underdeveloped countries will be losing those jobs and money. That might be good for the United States economy, at least in the near term. But Trump does not seem to be bothered by the idea that his policies may hurt the livelihood of people in other countries or that they may be ethically problematic. He seems only to view the economies of other countries as tools that can be used to grow the United States’ economy.

Ever since the United States became the most powerful country in the world, it has generally tried to be a good neighbor to the rest of the world. A classic example was the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe with U.S. dollars after World War II, in contrast to the Treaty of Versailles which France and Britain used to punish Germany after World War I. I think that would change under a President Trump. Trump would seek to take advantage of the rest of the world for the United States’ economic profit. This is similar to the mentality of the Chinese government, which Trump has said on many occasions is “smart.” While his intentions alone are troubling from a moral point of view, the scary part is that Trump’s plan would probably work. The United States has incredible military and economic power, and if this power were ever abused there would be little the rest of the world could do about it. Trump would get his way. He could take oil from Iraq and Libya, he could take jobs and factories from Mexico, and he could force major corporations to relocate their headquarters and assets to the United States. He would also seek to manipulate global monetary policy in ways which remain to be seen. Gone will be the days when America helps other countries free of charge; under Trump, they will receive a bill for all expenses incurred. Further, since American society does not have the biblical Christian values that it once did, it is likely that the majority of the American public would approve of Trump’s efforts to enrich them at the expense of others. Trump’s agenda probably could not be stopped by either external or internal opposition.

The result of Trump’s actions would likely be to force the rest of the world to coalesce into regional blocs so as to be able to defend their interests on the world stage. The United Nations would become far less important, while Russia, China, and the European Union would organize and strengthen regional alliances in order to compete with the United States and each other. A new arms race would also ensue, as other countries recognize the need to build up military power in order to better resist the United States’ bullying. Sometime down the road, this bullying would lead to the destruction of the United States by those who hate it—but in the meanwhile Americans would enjoy great material prosperity.

A disclaimer: I am not writing this post as part of the anti-Trump campaign, although I plan to vote for Marco Rubio in the Michigan primary on Tuesday. Trump certainly has some un-Christian and un-presidential character qualities, and I have significant disagreements with some of his proposed policies. However, the Democratic candidates are directly hostile to biblical Christianity and pose an immediate threat to the ability of Christians to practice their faith, so I plan in the general election to vote for (not necessarily endorse) whomever the Republicans nominate. Thus, this article is essentially an observation on what may be coming in a Trump presidency, a call to awareness.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

A biblical perspective on extraterrestrial life

03 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Creation, Current events

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

aliens in the Bible, Star Wars

Extraterrestrial life is a topic of great interest in modern Western culture, as evidenced by the recent success of the new Star Wars movie. While various people have differing conceptions of what aliens are or may be, the secular scientific conception of extraterrestrial life is one of biological life. Thus, in what follows in this post, by the terms “extraterrestrial life” and “aliens” I am referring to biological life, not to spirit beings.

Space agencies such as NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), along with numerous privately funded enterprises, have spent untold billions of dollars on programs designed to find life outside of the earth. Why are so many resources devoted to a search for something that has never been proven to exist? It is because extraterrestrial life is a key component of an atheistic, evolutionary worldview. That is, if the earth is the only place in the universe where life exists, then it must be a special creation; man does not exist merely by accident. If, on the other hand, life arose by means of natural processes, then these same natural processes would have given rise to life in many other places, both in our own solar system and throughout the universe. Because evolutionists reject the idea that life is a special creation, they believe that life probably evolved in other places in the solar system (including Mars, comets, and Saturn’s moon Enceladus), and that life almost certainly exists in other places in the universe. At the same time, many people have considerable doubts about the existence of extraterrestrial life, since none has ever actually been found. Thus, the huge, decades-long search for extraterrestrial life by mainstream scientists is actually a search for evidence to support the assumptions an atheistic worldview.

A second motivation for the search for extraterrestrial life is that atheists, who claim not to believe in God, nevertheless sense that there is a greater reality outside of the earth and its physical processes. There must be other sentient beings out there, in possession of superior forces which we do not understand, and with knowledge and intelligence that far exceeds our own. Virtually no one believes that man is totally alone, without other intelligent beings in existence somewhere else. Fairy tales about aliens, presented in the context of evolution’s mythological history of the universe, have gripped the popular imagination in the same way that pagan legends and cosmogonies gripped the imagination of ancient man.

Far from confirming evolutionary theory, the search for extraterrestrial life has only raised more doubts and questions about Darwinian evolution, since it has come up empty-handed. First, the physical search for life on Mars and elsewhere in our solar system has found nothing; scientists are so desperate to find extraterrestrial life that merely the discovery that there is water on Mars, or that there has been water on Mars in the past, is trumpeted as powerful evidence that there is or once was life on Mars. In fact, water does not produce life; living organisms can only be produced by other living organisms (or by a special creative act of the living God). In addition, Mars is an extremely inhospitable environment for life; if large numbers of living organisms were transported from the earth to the Mars and then released, they would all die quickly.

Second, the search for communication signals from intelligent aliens living on planets outside of our solar system has found no such signals. One might object that we simply lack the technology to detect communication from the distant places where extraterrestrial life may exist. However, in fact we do have the technology to detect communication signals from across the Milky Way, or even from other galaxies, so the fact that we have not detected any communication from aliens is a great puzzle to SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) researchers. The Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico is capable of transmitting and detecting narrowband signals across a range of many thousands of light years. Although estimates vary, some sources claim that Arecibo could detect a duplicate of itself at the center of the Milky Way, or, with minor system improvements, could communicate with a hypothetical twin all the way on the edge of the galaxy; see this page and this one. Arecibo is nearly capable of trans-galactic communication, and we have the capability to build a more powerful system (Cyclops) that could certainly be used for trans-galactic communication. The first Arecibo Message, intended to establish communication with intelligent extraterrestrial life, was transmitted in 1974 to a cluster of stars 25,000 light years away. Other messages have been sent since then, and Arecibo has been used to search for messages sent in our direction. (Apparently scientists assume that alien life must be friendly; they do not seem troubled by the possibility that by revealing our existence to a powerful and evil race of aliens, they may enslave man or wipe him out.)

The reasoning behind the use of Arecibo and similar projects for SETI runs as follows (from my friend Rodger Young): “very broadband signals as used in TV broadcasting are attenuated fairly quickly and most estimates are they could not be decoded outside our solar system. But narrow-band frequencies can transmit much farther. The most intelligent way to announce our presence to whoever-is-out-there would seem to be to broadcast at a single frequency, sending by binary signals something like the set of prime numbers that would show the whoevers that ‘Hey! We’re here; let’s try to communicate.’ ” If life on earth evolved by natural process, then life should have evolved in many other places by means of these same natural processes, and the trajectory of extraterrestrial civilizations should be similar in many ways to ours. Young states further, “According to the prevailing (evolutionary) viewpoint, there should be many, many civilizations out there who have evolved up to, and beyond, the point where they would have such broadcasters and receivers. If so, they would have the same curiosity about contacting other intelligences. One Web page estimated the number of stars in our galaxy as from 100 billion to 400 billion, although Wikipedia (‘Milky Way’) says this may be as high as one trillion. If only one out of a million such stars had planets capable of supporting life, then any theory that says that, given the right conditions, life will spontaneously evolve, should predict hundreds of thousands of sites in our galaxy where life has evolved at least to the level where we are now.”

Unfortunately for the theory, as Young states, “No signals have been detected. This is in spite of the fact, explained above, we are now capable of listening to a good part of our galaxy. . . . In summary, the lack of communication from out there, even though we have the capability to receive it, is a very, very great puzzle to the SETI people.”

For Christians who believe the Bible, it comes as no surprise that the search for extraterrestrial life has failed. It is clear from the creation account in Genesis 1 that everything in the physical universe was created for man. The earth was specially made to support biological life, and the sun, moon, and stars were created for the benefit of life on the earth. Further, all plant and animal life on the earth was created for the benefit of man, who is the center of the physical creation. Biological life outside of the earth—which is never mentioned or implied in the Bible—would serve no purpose, since it would be of no benefit to man. And for life to exist elsewhere would require a special creative act of God (life cannot evolve from non-living substances), and also a planet, a solar system, and galaxy designed to support life, requiring many more special acts of God. Such special creative acts of God would surely merit mention in Scripture, yet the Bible presents God’s plan of the ages as entirely about His dealings with man. Christ only became incarnate as a man, and He only died once, for Adam’s race, not for fallen folk on other planets (Rom 5:12-21; 6:10; 1 Cor 15:22; Heb 2:16). History also involves angelic (spirit) beings, which were created to be intermediaries in God’s dealings with man (Heb 1:14). However, the history of the universe is centered completely around life on earth; and when Christ returns to the earth, He will destroy the whole universe and create a new heavens and a new earth (Matt 24:29; 2 Pet 3:10-13; Rev 6:12-17 et al.). If intelligent life exists in the universe outside of the earth, surely it would have to be given due consideration at that time. The fact that it is not mentioned may rightly be taken as an implication that it does not exist. In addition, every time the Bible describes the final judgment and the eternal state, the only persons mentioned are men and angels (Rev 20:7-15 et al.). In eternity, God will move His throne from heaven to a new earth (Rev 21:1-3), and His throne will be situated in a New Jerusalem, which is the capital city of the nation of Israel (Rev 21:22-23), although the nations of the earth and the kings of the earth may enter the city freely (Rev 21:24). There is no mention of aliens. The names of the twelve tribes of Israel are written above the gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:12), and the names of the twelve apostles are written on its foundations (Rev 21:14). Everything about the eternal state of the righteous has to do with man and the earth, while the angels continue in their role as ministering spirits (Rev 21:12). There simply is no room in the Bible for aliens.

“Wait a minute,” someone might say, “the Bible just does not say anything about extraterrestrial life. The Bible therefore allows for its existence.” But the Bible does in fact deny the theories of extraterrestrial life in the shape that those theories took in the ancient world—legends, for example, about the gods of Greco-Roman mythology, their feats in the universe, and their identification with celestial objects (cf. Acts 14:15-17). The Old Testament repeatedly and emphatically denies the reality of the gods of pagan mythology and their supposed feats and dwelling places (2 Kgs 19:17-18; 1 Chr 16:26; Isa 44:12-20). But ancient man did not possess the telescopes, rockets, and other technologies which are necessary to understand the nature of celestial bodies outside of the earth. The ancients did not know that Mars is a planet similar in size and shape to the earth; to them, it was just a light in the night sky, no different from the stars except for its strange motions. Had ancient astronomers understood the nature of our solar system, extrasolar planetary systems, and the Milky Way galaxy, and had they known that there are an unfathomable number of stars and galaxies in the universe, they might well have postulated the existence of extraterrestrial life as modern secular science envisions it, and the Bible likely would have made a statement on that subject in response. But the Bible’s denial of ancient theories of extraterrestrial life are sufficient to disavow analogous theories in their modern form.

Additional resources regarding a biblical perspective on extraterrestrial life may be found on the Answers in Genesis website.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

Lessons about compromise from the book of Daniel

05 Saturday Sep 2015

Posted by Steven Anderson in Bible, Current events

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

prophet Daniel, uncompromising

Following the legal redefinition of marriage by the United States Supreme Court, other legal cases have quickly arisen in which the religious liberty of Christians to refuse to accept homosexual “marriage” has been challenged. It is certain that many more religious liberty cases will be brought to the courts in the months and years ahead, as the culture and government of the United States becomes increasingly antichristian and anti-Bible. The book of Daniel is especially timely in this milieu, since it describes how a young Jewish man named Daniel and three Jewish friends of his maintained their devotion to God after being taken by force from Jerusalem to the pagan city of Babylon and impressed into a pagan king’s service.

Most Christians are familiar with the story in Daniel 3 of how three Jews—called by their Babylonian names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego—were thrown into a fiery furnace for their refusal to bow down to a giant idol. This idol was set up on a great plain before a huge crowd of people—probably the officials in King Nebuchadnezzar’s government—and the king demanded that everyone bow down to his idol or face death. To the pagans, there was no question that they would bow down to the image, rather than die. They had no religious loyalty that was greater than their concern for their own personal safety. But Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego stood tall and strong while all the others bowed their knees to the king’s idol. After these three Jews spurned an offer of pardon from the king if they would change their minds, the king ordered them thrown into a blazing hot furnace (probably a brick kiln). But God honored the commitment of these three young men and brought them out of the fire completely unharmed, to the king’s utter amazement. Nebuchadnezzar responded by acknowledging that the Jews worshipped the Most High God, and he promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in his government.

Many modern Christians may struggle to understand why Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did not bow down to the idol. Indeed, some other Jews might have obeyed the king’s command, since there were only three people present at that occasion who did not bow. Here are some of the rationalizations that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego could have considered:

They could have thought, “It is understood that this is not about changing religions; this is just a symbolic act of political loyalty toward the king. The Bible says we are to obey and respect the governing authorities.”
Or, “All that matters is what is in my heart. I can pray to Yahweh when I kneel, and not actually be worshipping Marduk at all.”
Or, “Marduk is just the name the Babylonians use to refer to the Supreme Being, whom we call Elohim. I can bow down to Marduk in recognition of the Babylonian attempt to give expression to ultimate reality, even though my understanding is more complete than theirs.”
Or, “That statue is just a piece of metal, and not an actual god. I would not actually be worshipping another god by getting on my knees in front of it.”
Or, “I didn’t have a choice! They forced me to do it!”

The human mind is superb at thinking of excuses and rationalizations, so you may be able to think of others. The problem with all of these rationalizations is that they represent compromise with the world’s demands for the sake of personal expediency, usually by reinterpreting an absolute statement in the Bible (Exod 20:4-6) through the hazy “postmodern” view of reality.

(Some might suggest that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego could have resigned their positions in the Babylonian government, since the demand to bow down before the idol in Daniel 3 was evidently a test of loyalty for government officials. However, this may not have been possible, since they were working as conscripts [Dan 1:1-7], not as voluntary employees.)

This is not the only example in the book of Daniel where Daniel and his friends demonstrated an absolute refusal to compromise. Daniel’s insistence in Daniel 1 that he would not eat the king’s meat or drink the king’s wine might seem strange to many today, especially since Daniel faced the death penalty for not complying. There are many people who supposedly know how the world works who would say that Daniel’s refusal was foolish, stupid, and petty. In fact, however, none of these people has achieved the greatness that Daniel achieved—a greatness which was achieved through a recognition of God’s sovereignty in the affairs of men, rather than seeing only natural processes at work. In fact, Daniel’s persistent adherence to the law of his God at any price was the entire key to his success in life and to his career in government service.

Many times in American evangelicalism we have seen preachers who seem very theologically sound and fervent when they are in their prime, but who become much less dogmatic in their later years. In Daniel 6, however, we find that when Daniel was a very old man he was still standing strong in his refusal to compromise. In that chapter, Daniel’s enemies in the Medo-Persian government tricked the king into signing a law which prohibited people from making requests to any God or man but the king for a thirty-day period. This law was likely presented as a test of loyalty to the king, although those who made the law were actually seeking to trick the king into deposing Daniel against his own will.

Once again, Daniel had a number of options available to him that might have seemed very palatable to a modern Christian. Daniel was not required by the new law to renounce God, or to pray to the king. Had he simply quit praying out loud, he would have been a law-abiding citizen. Even if he had continued to pray out loud, but had done so privately, he could not be charged with wrongdoing. He could have thought, “I am having such a great influence for God in this government, it does not make sense for me to lose it by insisting on praying in front of everybody.” But Daniel knew that he only had a great influence for God because he had a strong public testimony for God, and because he was a man of uncompromising character. Hence, Daniel refused to pray to God with his window shut. Daniel did not hide his faith or keep his mouth shut about his God when it might be offensive. He was an open servant of the God of heaven, and all the world knew it. The fact that Daniel’s enemies knew he was praying to his God suggests that he prayed out loud, and probably in the Aramaic language instead of his native Hebrew tongue. He may also have read his Bible out loud—not out of pretension, but as a testimony to the world. If Daniel had begun praying in secret as soon as the king banned all prayer to God, this would have communicated that God was not more valuable to him than his life. Thus, Daniel chose to pray publicly even when he knew it would result in a death sentence.

Most people in this world covet money, power, and prestige. But Daniel and his three friends demonstrated throughout their lives that, although they were given great honor and privilege, they were always willing to give it all up in a moment in order to avoid the slightest compromise of their principles. The only thing that really and truly mattered to Daniel was his God. The stories in the book of Daniel teach that God blesses a refusal to compromise, but they also set forth examples of absolute faithfulness—”we will obey God even if He does not deliver us.”

For a more detailed study of the book of Daniel, see my book Dr. Anderson’s Interpretive Guide to the Major Prophets (available here).

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

TruthOnlyBible

~ About the Bible, Christianity, and current events

Category Archives: Current events

The Other Shoe to Fall on Homosexual “Rights”

The March for Science

The earth’s design for life

A review of The Ark Encounter

Does the Bible allow a woman to be President?

Could Donald Trump be a successful pastor?

The Secular View of Human Life

A new direction in American foreign policy?

A biblical perspective on extraterrestrial life

Lessons about compromise from the book of Daniel

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: