Finnish Atheists give away porn. I am incensed

Last year The Finnish Humanist Union, together with the Union of Freethinkers of Finland, ran a copy of the British bus campaign: “There’s probably no God.  Stop worrying and enjoy life.”

Now one of the groups, the Free Thinkers, have come out of the closet and made a public confession of what they really mean with that slogan – and I am incensed!

Recently they organized an event where people were invited to exchange their Bibles for pornographic literature. They knew that a lot a people would notice this and that many Christians would react strongly. But this last PR trick should backfire because it is based on an extremely cynical and degrading view of human beings.

They forgot to take into account that most people know that the porn industry is based on exploitation of women.

Porn is about treating women as sexual toys for imbalanced and immature men. It is often associated with abuse of women, as the material is being produced, and, later, in the social consequences for both the participating women, but also by the fact that men begin looking at other women with a desire to dominate the ones who are in their vicinity.

Porn creates more post-traumatic stress in women who come out of prostitution and the porn industry, because once you participated in porn it stays around. It is not a secret action that you can walk away from and try to forget. These pictures will be accessible to anyone who is willing to pay and they will stay around for a long time and disgrace any person who wants to change direction in life. Porn is therefore a pernicious form of prostitution.

There are groups that defend pornography, like liberal feminism that confuses porn with the free speech, and some gay/queer voices who want to eradicate gender distinctions to promote their own agenda.

The Free Thinker campaign has nothing to do with liberation from religious oppression. It is the very opposite – it is about creating a society that removes protection for the weak and vulnerable. This atheist drive seems to be driven by a fundamentalist Darwinian view of man: If women can be exploited, let’s have fun with them! It does actually sound like the bus advertisements last year. Is that the kind of society we want to live in?

This is one of the problems with atheism: If there is no higher moral code, then anything can be right. You cannot call someone a morally bad atheist. There are decent atheists, and I know some of them, and there are evil atheists. You could call someone a bad Christian, because Christians, and lots of nominal Christians, sometimes act like the devil. But then you know that he or she is denying the faith. But how do you objectively evaluate atheist morals? It cannot be done, and post-modernism is an attempt to solve that problem.

I am a father of two wonderful young ladies. I love and respect them deeply. To them and my wife I vow to fight this kind of sleazy campaign to my dying breath.

The Church – An Attracting or Alienating Force

Let’s not get into a  mode of denial: If people would be open to God, they would soon encounter  the church, as it is often perceived, as a strong alienating factor.  News media report scandals, heresies, moral failures, hate messages and financial irregularities on an almost weekly basis, so what do we expect a seeking or doubting person to believe?

Jesus promised to build his church in such a way that the most destructive forces on earth (the gates of hell) would not prevail against it. There is an enormous contradiction between what Jesus promised and what is perceived as the church today. Is there an honest way of explaining this problem? I believe there is!

The Church is an organic reality, not an institutional entity. Being organic in its nature does not mean that it is unorganized. It means that it is more highly organized than an institution can be. There will most certainly be organization that is a necessary and good outflow of any dynamic life, but it is not to be confused with the essence of the church.

Anyone who seeks for the one true church in terms of institution will be sorely disappointed be it the Roman Catholic Church, the so called Orthodox churches, Baptist denominations, etc or the sects like Jehova’s Witnesses. It actually seems like the sectarian tendencies (using a broad sociological definition of sect) increase the more a group defines itself as the one true church.

The church as it is revealed in the Bible is a highly complex, dynamic organism that has some fundamental characteristics:

- It is made up of people who confess that Jesus is Lord. In New Testament times that was more than a religious slogan. It meant that Jesus and not the Emperor or local culture was the standard for life. You could get yourself into prison for such a confession. (1 Cor. 12:3)

- It is constituted by the presence of the Holy Spirit who lives in the believers (1 Cor. 12:13 where the term baptism refers to becoming a member of the church – the one body).

- Its life or activity emerges as the members use the spiritual gifts they have or will receive. (1 Cor. 12: 4-31; Rom 12:1-8).  This means that it will be led by leaders, taught by teachers, pastored by pastors etc in such a way that all members are working interdependently and supporting each other.

- If a local expression of this church is out of sync with the vision of Jesus, he might close it down at his own discretion. (Rev 2:5)

The church seen as a Biblical organism can be organized in a number of ways – Episcopal, Congregational, Presbyterian, etc. It can be found in all kinds of highly institutional or less institutional settings that can, if they function properly can give service to the Church – or it can be an obstacle or embarrassment to the Church. There are local churches by the millions who express this dynamic Church, there are millions of Christians who experience this kind of true community and who live with the necessary high spiritual, moral and intellectual integrity that must accompany the confession of having Jesus as Lord.

We make a mistake if we defend what is morally wrong or corrupt in the institutions, but we are obliged to support, protect and associate with the body of Christ wherever we encounter it.

There is only one true Church, and it might be nearer you than you ever imagined.

Do Photons have mass?

Do photons have mass? I didn’t even know that they were Catholic!
Woody Allen

Roger Penrose

Watch this. Enjoy. Penrose is one of the greatest mathematicians. He is not a Christian – but listen to what he says!

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454718/roger_penrose_the_initial_entropy_of_the_universe/

The Dawkins collapse

Dawkins’ argument in  ”The God Delusion”

There is a fascinating aspect of the Universe: It must have very specific properties which allow for biological life to exist. That those properties would be there is statistically highly improbable. It therfore looks like the Universe was created for intelligent human beings to appear. It is like the Universe was waiting for us and was fine tuned for our existence. This is one aspect of what is called the Anthropic principle.

This is a challenge for atheism and Richard Dawkins tried to find a way out of his dilemma in his book “The God Delusion”. This is his own summary of the arguments:

RD. 1. It is a challenge to the intellect to explain the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe.

Comment: He is really saying: Since we are not allowed to believe in God we need to find other intellectually satisfying models to explain how the our universe that supports life could come into existence.  But it is not all that simple.  Roger Penrose, the well known mathematics professor at Oxford commented on the likelihood of the universe having usable energy at the Big Bang to form our universe that supports life.  It would need to have an accuracy of 1′ followed by 10^123 successive `0 ‘s. In order to write down all the zeros we would need all the separate protons and neutrons and all other particles in the entire universe and it still would not be enough. It sure does look like someone had planned this. If this is the only universe there is, this was one in a 13.75 billion year opportunity. Had that opportunity been missed we certainly would not be around and could not have this debate. It looks like there are other factors than intellectual pursuit that motivate Dawkins. What is more intellectually honest: To believe the most likely or the most unlikely scenario?

RD 2. We are therefore tempted to attribute the appearance of design to an intelligent designer.

Comment: If we were to follow the direction of the evidences it is not a temptation. It would be the logical conclusion. A classic theist would argue that it is good and necessary to ask questions and do research about the origin of the universe. Ruling out an answer that looks like an obvious possibility just because someone does not like it looks like a seriously unscientific approach. Argument null and void!

RD 3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis raises the question of who designed the designer. We need a model that works from the simple toward the more complex. The underlying assumption is that a designer must be more complex than the object he designs.

Comment: This is no temptation at all, unless temptation means that we are headed in the wrong direction. The third point rests on the faulty assumption that we should define designer from premises that we learn from natural science. That is a major mistake that might fool people who are not aware of what classic Jewish and Christian theology have taught for thousands of years: God is eternal, all powerful, all knowing and actively present everywhere. These attributes express who he is and are not “parts” of God and he cannot be subdivided into different parts. When humans think about God with assumptions based on their experiences from the created universe they tend to think of God as infinitely complex, but when they think about God in a way that is based on God’s revelation of himself they see clearly that God is One, in the deepest sense of the word. Argument null and void!

RD 4. The ingenious and powerful explanation is therefore Darwinian evolution by natural selection. It shows how life evolved gradually from simple beginnings. That is why some see an illusion of design in living creatures.

Comment: Darwin did nothing of the kind. Darwinism states, that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. We can have all kinds of opinions about Darwin and Darwinism but one thing is absolutely clear, and Dawkins himself is on record for having acknowledged that evolution does not answer the question about how biological life began.  Argument null and void!

RD 5. We don’t have an equivalent model for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could give the same kind of explanation for physics as Darwin did for biology. It would be less satisfactory because it presupposes a great deal of luck. But the anthropic principle makes us postulate far more luck than we are comfortable with.

Comment: For all of us who love cosmology the theory of a multiverse is intriguing, but we must not forget that it is a hypothesis and most likely completely untestable.  Until this theory is verified, and in all probability it never will be, it is useless as an argument against the more probable alternative – the one of an intelligent designer. Argument null and void!

RD 6. We should not give up hope of finding a better model for physics, something as powerful as Darwinianism is for biology. But even though we don’t have that model yet, the weak model we do have is self-evidently better than the improbable hypothesis of an intelligent designer.

Comment: We should certainly not give up hope of finding better models for physics. They are desperately needed and would open up exciting possibilities. The problem with Dawkins’ faulty reasoning is not that he wants the science of physics to move forward but that he is using manipulative tactics to argue against those who believe in God. It is a modern version of the Emperors New Clothes. He does not even have a weak model to argue for -it is non-existent. Thus far those who believe in God are far more reasonable in their belief than Dawkins is.

Dawkins summarizes his argument in these words. Read them carefully:

If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion – the God Hypothesis- is untenable.

The consequence of that is by necessity: If the arguments above are null and void they have no bearing on whether there is a God or not, but they do prove that the best arguments from the atheist camp are hollow, intellectually dishonest and manipulative.

There most certainly is a God. Stop worrying and trust Him.

Reclaim the Church

There is a crisis of confidence in the Roman Catholic church because of abuse, cover-ups, denial, attempts to belittle honest questions and stupid comparisons between the reports of clerical abuse and anti-Semitism.

The crisis of confidence is not only toward the Roman Catholic Church; it is felt among many denominations and for a variety of reasons like lack of relevance, shallow teaching or the panicky attempt to please everybody. If the church is equated with an institution, any institution, we are in deep trouble. I for one would give up and retire to a hermitage (of course together with my wife).

But there is a real Church! I have seen it in the persecuted House Churches in China, in the poor but faithful Anglican Church in Maseno, Kenya, in worshiping with Baptists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and Pentecostals in Sweden and with creative, energetic and seeker oriented churches in the USA. I have seen the church that Jesus talked about, and I am both proud and exited over it! It is expanding faster than ever before in history and its witness about the Gospel of Jesus changes lives all over the world.

This Church witnesses about Jesus, makes disciples, sees God answer prayer, serves the poor, treats people with respect. The members of one House Church movement in China give ninety percent of their income to the poor. A church we relate to in the USA served ten thousand meals to the homeless over the Easter holiday. These churches sometimes see people healed in answer to prayer, families restored and broken people regaining hope. But they have no patience with people who profess to be believers and behave as the devil himself!

The Church was born on the first Pentecost after Christ’s death and resurrection. That was when God sent the Holy Spirit to come, fill and live in all followers of Jesus (Acts 1). The apostle Paul drives this reality home when he teaches about the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14. It is the presence of God’s Spirit that constitutes the Church. That means that it is not the organization, even if it has the stomach to call itself the one true church that (and quite a few make that claim) constitutes the church. It is not the hierarchies or even the right doctrine that do the trick- no person, group or decision making body can make it happen.

Jesus builds his Church (Matt 16:18) and the way He does it is fantastic, beautiful and powerful. Just take a few seconds and think about the fact that the fastest church growth today is in China and Iran- where it is forbidden and as in the case of Iran with converts risking capital punishment.

There are by necessity local expressions of this church – it is real, made up of real, flesh and blood-fallible people. It is organized differently in different places, because institutional organization is secondary to the high level of complexity that characterizes all forms of life. So when we truly believe in one universal/catholic Church we must by definition include all local expressions of those congregations who believe the historic Christian faith and who live accordingly. At the same time we must dare to distance ourselves from anyone or any global, national or local group who by its teaching or life style denies the essence of the Gospel.

- In Revelation 2-3 Jesus tells the local churches what he expects from them:

- A love for God and people, expressed in action (Ephesos)

- Steadfastness during persecution for believing in Christ (Smyrna)

- Bringing Biblical teaching and alternative values to society (Pergamum)

- No negotiation about sexual morality (Thyatira)

- Spiritual alertness (Sardis)

- Keeping Christ’s word rather than being financially well off (Philadelphia)

- Full commitment to following Christ, rather than its own traditions (Laodicea)

These are the signs to look for in the Church. We should never be satisfied with anything less.

I have seen the Church. Secular society might not want to notice it, but I see that Jesus did not make an empty statement when He promised to build the Church. So don’t just watch! Join and commit yourself!

It is time to reclaim the Church!

The Resurrection of Christ – it is for real!

On Easter Sundays churches hear the proclamation: ”Christ is risen” and they will appropriately respond: “He is risen indeed”. The interpretation of the statement will however vary vastly between revisionist churches and those churches that confess the classic Christian faith.

The first generation of Christians claimed that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical/physical event that meant that the Jesus, who was executed by crucifixion was brought back to life, left the grave, talked to people, ate regular food and spent forty days after Easter to further explain the teaching of the Old Testament to his disciples.

A short outline of the Easter events shows how challenging, revolutionary and life changing the resurrection of Jesus was:

1. Jesus understood that he would be executed by crucifixion and promised that he would be resurrected on the third day (Luke 9:22). The resurrection was therefore not a chance event, but one that validated the claims and teachings of Jesus.
2. The opponents of Jesus knew that Jesus expected to be resurrected and although they did not believe it would happen they took action to hinder any attempt to fake a resurrection. They therefore got permission to officially seal the tomb and post Roman guards there so that it would not be possible to steal the body. (Matt. 27:62-66)
3. Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish High Court) asked Pilate for permission to bury Jesus. He wrapped the body in a linen shroud and laid it in his own (future) tomb.
4. The Jewish religious leaders, the Roman authorities and some disciples of Jesus knew exactly in which tomb Jesus’ body was laid. (Matt 57-66)
5. The morning after the Sabbath there was an earthquake; an angel rolled away the stone that was used to block the entrance of the tomb; the Roman guards fainted. (Matt 28:2)
6. A number of witnesses, women and men realized that the tomb had been opened and was empty. One example: There were at least four women who observed the course of events, but not at the same time. There is total agreement between the women and the men who came later:  the resurrection was real. At the same time we see different perspectives describing what happened which shows that the Gospel writers did not try to create a streamlined story. (Matt 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-9; Luke 24:1-12;  John 20:1-18)
7. Although the body of Jesus was gone the linen that had covered the body was left in order. It had been covered with about one hundred pounds of ointment that was drying and it thus looked like an empty cast. (John 19:38-42)
8. The Roman guards reported what had happened to the authorities. (Matt 28:11)
9. The disciples did not expect Jesus to have been resurrected but Jesus surprised them by one appearance after another for forty days – a distinct period of time that ended with Jesus’ ascension. (The Gospels and Acts 1:1-11)
10. On the day of Pentecost Peter reminded the citizens of Jerusalem that Jesus, whom they had crucified, had been resurrected. He did that a few weeks after the event and if he had lied the authorities could easily have produced the body of Jesus to prove that Peter was wrong. Instead the Church was born on that day and has been growing ever since. (Acts 2:14_47)
11. The last witness was the Apostle Paul who was a vitriolic critic of the Christians. He did his best to stop the spread of the faith but encountered the risen Christ, became a believer and lived the rest of his life talking about the love of God that changed his life. (Acts 9)

The resurrection of Christ was a real, historic event.

Christ is risen indeed.

Happy Easter

Lennox, Danielsson and Fine Tuning

The new apologetic network Apologia in Sweden arranged for a good debate on science and religion Saturday March 27. Professor John Lennox and Credo Director Stefan Gustavsson represented the Theist side while Professor Ulf Danielsson and Swedish Humanist Chairman Christer Sturmark argued for atheism.

Let me review one of Ulf Danielsson’s arguments, since he was a new acquaintance to the audience. Danielsson is Professor of theoretical physics at the University of Uppsala, a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science and a brilliant scientist.

Professor Lennox claimed that one of the strongest pointers to an intelligent Creator of the Universe is what is called the Fine Tuning:

”Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature — like the strength of gravity — and the beginning state of the Universe — like its density — have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in an early universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life. This observation is referred to as the anthropic principle, a term whose definition has taken many variations over the years.”  (Owen Gingerich)

While it is important to emphasize that the fine tuning argument is not and should not be used as a scientific proof that there is a God it does serve as a pointer toward God. In the biblical world it is God Himself who reveals Himself to people.

The fascinating turn at the debate was Professor Danielsson using the concept of a multiverse (many parallel and continuously appearing universes) to say that there might be a solution to the dilemma of a simple materialistic explanation of the universe. While the debate whether or not we live in a universe or in a multiverse is a totally kosher science issue, it is not a logically valid argument in a debate on science and religion. There might be a multiverse, but no one knows whether it is so or not or what the basic philosophical consequences would be for such a discovery. Some people like Danielsson believe it is likely while other cosmologists reject the idea. As of today the concept does not tell us anything of the relationship between faith and science. All we got out of this part of the debate was that Danielsson prefers not to believe in God, but then we are talking about preference, not of a rationally based conviction.

Do watch the debate and you will see that one thing that comes out of it is that Danielsson’s reasons for not believing in God are more personal/existential/psychological than anything else. That is his perogative, but the way he argues seems to support our belief that faith in, or active denial of God (we are not talking about doubt) is grounded in what goes on in our own hearts.

Want to read more? Here is a good article by  Owen Gingerich:

http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning/

A recommended book:

There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,

by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese. You can buy it on Amazon.co.uk

You must read this!!!!

This is a blog by my friend John van Dinther. Quite unbelievable and very challenging.

http://synergistic.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ayaan-hirsi-ali-is-doing-it-again-and-richard-dawkins-is-on-her-side-battling-fundamentalic-islam/#comment-446

Knowing God: A moral, not an intellectual issue!

Intro:

So how do people get to know God? The Bible has some surprising answers and the apostle Paul is taking us on a thought provoking journey into the mysteries of the human mind. God is revealing himself but people suppress that revelation in so that they can justify their lifestyles to each other and God allows that. They become so bound up in their reasoning that they even are unable to change. But God also sends Christians who will present the Gospel, which is a message that comes with the power to believe and to change. God goes more than the extra mile to set people free.

Before we read what Paul has to say we need to remember that the message of the Bible is being validated right before our eyes through what Jesus said about the return of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, so even though the message of Luke or Paul is not politically correct it would be wise to listen carefully. It might be that it is our culture, rather than the Bible that needs to be modified if we are to live in sync with spiritual reality.

Paul in Romans

In Romans chapter one Paul is telling why he is so eager to introduce people from all nations and cultures to the Gospel. The reason is that the preaching about Jesus is the only message that can set people free from the destructive behaviors that makes live miserable to people, separates them from God and brings judgment. The Gospel is not only a message; it is power, because when it is received by faith it brings people into a personal, dynamic relationship to God. The idea is that it is impossible to have a neutral, formal or impassionate knowledge of God. Only God himself can overcome the stubborn resistance of humans and recreate them to become his children.

Paul says that he wants to preach the Gospel because people refuse to accept the obvious reality of God’s existence and instead suppress the truth (Rom 1:18). There is a revelation of God available. It does not tell us all we need to know about God, but it is enough to know that there is a God, who has eternal power and who ought to be worshiped (v 20).

Even though the revelation of God through creation is just basic it is so clear and indisputable that those who suppress it are without excuse and place themselves under judgment (v 20).

Believing in God is therefore not just an intellectual, but a moral question. That is an extraordinary statement that will have enormous consequences for the Western church.

Paul’s reason for writing this is not to bash atheists or pagans but to explain why he is eager to preach the Gospel. Those who turn away from the knowledge of God are by definition under God’s judgment, and the first result of that judgment is that God lets people have it their own way and will have to live with the consequences of their choice. They are not hit by a celestial lightning but are just left alone. The final consequences will come later.

God’s will is however to liberate and bless people so he sends his servants to preach the Gospel about Jesus Christ. As the preaching is done he works in people by his Spirit to persuade them to accept it and believe. By doing this he goes far beyond any sense of duty, goes the extra mile and leads stubborn people to receive not his judgment but his love. That is what the rest of the letter to the Romans is about – a move from man’s rebellion and rejection of truth to a faith in Christ that transforms life.

Paul seems to say that we need to present truth, the rational, historically validated message of the Bible. If we don’t do that we will reinforce unbelief. But real change can only happen as the unbeliever is presented with the Gospel, the message/power of God.

Here is the text – and it is challenging:

_—¹⁴ I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians,^[ both to the wise and to the foolish. ¹⁵So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

The reason for Paul’s eagerness

¹⁶For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ¹⁷For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

The human condition

¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven

against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,

who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

¹⁹For what can be known about God is plain to them,

because God has shown it to them.

²⁰For his invisible attributes,

namely,

his eternal power

and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

So they are without excuse.

²¹For although they knew God,

they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him,

but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

The result before encountering the Gospel

²⁴Therefore God gave them up in the lusts…