I have had several questions this week via e-mail and I will answer them all.

This reply is in response to the question, “Is abortion murder?” The simple answer is yes it is; but then that reply is always countered with a, “No, it’s not.” And we go back and forth from there.

Let me give you my own personal answer. I believe it is fool proof and one cannot logically argue against it. I will put the argument in syllogistic form and I will use two syllogisms to prove that we ought not abort a child. Remember, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true:

Premise one: Some say that a fetus is a human.

Premise two: Some say that a fetus is not a human.

Conclusion: A fetus might be a human or it might not be.

Well duhhh….that’s a no brainer. Well hold on now. Let’s make the conclusion the first premise in another argument.

Premise one: A fetus might be a human or it might not be.

Premise two: If one aborts a child, a human might be killed.

Premise three: We should never act in such a way that an innocent human might be killed (e.g., blow up a building if someone thinks that there might be a person in the building).

Conclusion: Abortion is wrong on the grounds that it might be a human being.

As I recall, your JW friends made the claim that those who accept money for preaching/teaching are in the wrong. They claim that they don’t accept money (true), but this somehow makes them obedient to God’s commands. Here is where I think they are wrong and should be challenged:

1 Timothy 5: 17—18 states,

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

This is a clear teaching that the church paid their teachers. A good teacher was even paid more. If one states that a preacher/teacher should not be paid, they need to reconcile why Paul stated that they are worthy of it. Are the scriptures wrong in its teaching or are the teachers wrong in their proclamation? Don’t let them lead you down a rabbits’ trail until they reconcile who is wrong. If they try to interpret this passage incorrectly, move on to a more direct passage:

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 9: 7—18:

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.

Now, it’s interesting that Paul says that he didn’t claim these rights. Some argue that because Paul did not claim the rights to monetary compensation…nor should anyone else (If the J.Ws hold to this…ask them about being married as a preacher {Paul wasn’t and this is why the Catholic priests aren’t}. The JWs hate the Catholics). Paul was making an awesome and true statement. One: it is the obligation of the church to pay those who teach/preach. Two: it is the obligation of the preacher/teacher to preach or teach. Three, if the one (the church) refuses to pay the two (preachers/teachers) it is irrelevant…the preacher/teacher must still preach and teach. Same holds true in marriage.  If a wife refuses to do what she is commanded to do, the husband is not free to disobey what has been commanded of him

What’s interesting is that Paul says that this is a boast. Now Paul cant boast that he preaches/teaches! That is an obligation and no one can boast to an obligation--because they must do it. So what is he boasting about? He is boasting that he is forgoing something that is rightfully his (payment)! Any preacher/teacher out there can do the same thing. That is, they can refuse what is due to them. That is a boast. But here is one thing they cannot do: Claim that anyone who accepts payment is acting outside of God’s commandments! That is a contradiction of scripture. Here is the good news—if a teacher is teaching that it is unlawful to accept money for preaching/teaching—don’t pay them! They are a horrible teacher that doesn’t understand the very thing they claim to be teaching. I hope this helps.

My five year old asked me a question that I thought was totally profound. Now those of you who know me may not be totally shocked by that. You might think a question pertaining to why a sponge would choose to live in a pineapple under the sea would throw me into a mental quagmire. No. The question was much more profound. Little Gabriel asked me, “Who made God?”

Wow! Now before you aspiring apologists shoot off with a quick, “No one! God is the a priori!” Let me remind you that five year olds have not yet grasped the idea of abstract thought…and I tried that. He simply stated that someone had to make God.

I don’t want to try to put something in his head that may or may not be there, but it seems to me that he is grasping the idea that every effect must have a cause. Apologists use this when they argue for the existence of God. Something in motion must be put into motion by an equal or greater cause. We, Christians, say that this first cause is God.

Now our friends the atheists are quick to shoot back, “If everything in motion needs a cause, then God would need a cause.” Bertrand Russell used this as one of his many proofs against the idea of God. So, he concludes, God does not need to be part of the chain of events. This means, and I hope I’m not offering up a false dichotomy here, that one of two things have occurred:

One, an infinite number of causes has happened to get us to where we are now. For this to happen, our universe would have to be eternal. I don’t believe many people hold to this view at all. An infinite regress seems illogical given the evidence: first, we have strong evidence that the universe had a start and we have real strong evidence it is coming to an end. Our universe, therefore, is finite. If there had been an infinite number of cause and effects to get us to this day…coupled with the fact that this universe is pulling apart…we would have self destructed a long time ago.

Two, there was a cause outside of our temporal existence that set things into motion. It had to be outside our time line…if not…it would be part of the chain of events (back to Russell’s argument). The first cause must then be eternal (that is, outside of time). If it is eternal, it needs no first cause. Now I don’t have the time or mental capacity to argue that this eternal first cause was God just that this eternal first cause must exist. Universe evolutionists argue that it was an eternal cosmic egg. It begs the question: If this cosmic egg was floating around for all of eternity…what finally caused it to blow? Because it did blow and is now dying, is it even eternal?

The point is this: Something, outside of time, eternal, and bigger then this universe (cant be equal…that would mean finite) must be the first cause. I just need help explaining that to little Gabriel.

thought i would share....

By Steve Turner

This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us.

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.

"Chance" a post-script

If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

One of the theme passages for our current sermon series is found in the book of Philemon. Paul states, “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.” (Philemon 6)

What a remarkable and powerful promise: that those who share their faith are the ones who have a “full understanding” of God’s goodness as it is found in Christ Jesus. It is still God’s desire that everyone be saved! It is still God’s plan to use the Holy Spirit that is found in you to convict the world of its sin! It is through you that He wants to work in mighty and powerful ways! Those that allow God to work through them in reaching the lost are those that I believe are “filled with the Holy Spirit.” I testify in my own life that when I’m obedient to the call to witness for Christ, I see Him work in great and wonderful ways! Praise be to God that I have had these “mountain top” experiences!

I pray that you too are willing to step out on a limb, invite your friends and family members to know our Savior God! Even if they say, “NO…!” you will still be blessed. Remember, the promise of a “full understanding” is not if they say yes, but if you say yes.

Christ be with you!

Pastor Mike

Here was your question: What happens after we die? Do we “sleep” until we are resurrected?

There are some who believe in a “soul sleep.” For example, the Jehovah Witnesses erroneously teach, among other things, that when we die we go into a time of hibernation if you will. When the end time comes the dead are awaken and sent to their eternal destination.

Some justify this position with many Old Testament passages (like Ecclesiastes 9). The problem with this is that though the Old Testament is God’s revelation to mankind, it is incomplete. Even during the times of Jesus there was a debate on whether or not we were resurrected (Acts 23: 6—8). So we must look at the whole scripture to get an understanding of what happens to us when we die.

Let me walk you through: Upon death there are two possibilities. I will only speak to one—those that are in Christ. Those that are in Christ go to Him in paradise/heaven in spirit form. Jesus promised the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that day (Luke 23: 43). Paul tells us that to be away from the body is to be with the Lord (2^nd Corinthians 5: 1—6; Philippians 1: 22—24). We are conscious, alert, awake, and in worship (Revelations 7: 9—10).

After an unspecified amount of time, God sends us back to the earth and we are resurrected into our new bodies (Revelation 20: 11—14). Those found to be in Christ go on to the new heaven and new earth. The two actually become one (Revelations 21).

It is interesting to note that Jesus, called the “first born of the resurrection" took this very same path—possible modeling what would happen to us. Right before He died, he released His Spirit (Matthew 27: 50), returned to get His body (all four gospel accounts), and returned to heaven with His body (He did this even before He would allow His body to be touched {John 20: 17})

It was a great weekend! This Saturday, in spite of the rain, FBC had a little fun with a block party! As you can see, there was a level of immaturity…from the pastor (and a few deacons—needless to say, those pictures have been lost). We have vacation bible school this week, so keep a praying.

Sermons have been updated. Check em’ out.

I plan to make three major posts this week. Now let me get back to my day off!

In Christ,

mike

Well, I'm done for this week.  I will talk to you all this coming up Monday.  I will monitor my blog daily...and will reply if needed.  See you next week!

In Christ,

mike

Here’s one theological question that I was asked this week: Is there any sin that is so bad that God won’t forgive us? For example, if a person rapes, tortures, and kills 12 women and then asks for God’s forgiveness, will God forgive him?

First off, I semi-addressed this issue in the last two messages that I gave. We will download these messages this Sunday on our church’s website: farmercitychurch.org. I encourage you to check it out.

Now let’s answer the question. Let’s just assume for a moment that there is a point in which a person can commit a crime (sin) so egregious that they could not be forgiven. Where would that “line” be? In my sermon on “evil”, we tried to find that point. We started with a homeless guy on the street asking for money. I asked, “If he is hungry, is it good to give him some money?” Some in the congregation said yes…while others said no. They said no because they assumed that the homeless guy would buy some beer and they didn’t want to feed that beast.

So I then asked, “Is it o.k. to give him a sandwich?” The answer was an overwhelming yes. That became the standard of what I should do, that is, that was “good.” From there I asked, “If I didn’t give him anything, was that evil?” “No.” was the answer. It was neither good nor evil; it was amoral. I then started adding things: What if I made fun of him? What if I laughed at him and kicked him…was that evil? What if I laughed at him, kicked him, and spit on him? What if I laughed at him, kicked him, spit on him, and then stabbed him (but he lives)? Some started saying that was evil. Finally, I said, “Given the fact that he was homeless, forgotten, and probably had no family, what if I kidnapped him, imprisoned him in my basement, gagged him so no one could hear his screams, tortured him for months, experimented on him, and then finally slit his throat….Is that evil?”

Overwhelmingly, the answer was yes. Now why here? Because we all have our own moral standards and the further you get away from that standard the more you see evil. Eventually, you get to a point that is so far from our standards, we all (but the most extreme relativist) come to a consensus: This must be evil.

Let me ask you this: By whose standards are we judged? Mine? Yours? Crazy Aunt Zelmas? No. We are judged by God’s standards! Here is the bad news: No matter what sin you’ve committed, you are infinitely away from God’s standards. He can’t stand to look at your sins any more then you can look at the sins of a rapist! He can no more let you off the hook for your sin then you would let Hitler off? Here is the point: No matter how far another’s crime is from your standard, it is finite compared to the distance that you are from God’s standard. And if you say that the other’s crime is too bad to be forgiven (though it is only a finite distance from your standards), then you shouldn’t be surprised to hear that your sins can’t be forgiven (after all, you’re infinitely off of His standards).

The bible says, “Your (God’s) eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong.” Habakkuk 1:13

I will leave you hanging with that….

Kenneth Kardong states the following about natural selection (the supposed method in bringing humans to their current evolutionary standing) in his college text book, “An introduction to Biological Evolution”:

“The weeding out of organisms by biological processes, without deliberate or directed human intervention, is natural selection. Organisms less suited to an environment, on average, perish and consequently do not pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Natural selection is an average event, a tendency for the less suited to die and thereby fail to reproduce. It is a process of elimination. The other side of that evolutionary coin is that organisms with traits serving them well fare better. The process, played out often over thousands of years, moves slowly by human standards.”

There are several things that I want to state about this fascinating passage. First, Kardong, who argues against the idea of Christian creationism in this book (pg. 3), points out that natural selection is only natural if human’s don’t destroy. I think this is a fascinating statement. See, from his perspective, humans should have evolved out of natural selection. This makes humans what? Part of nature! If we are put of nature, then our intervention and destruction of other life forms would be part of the natural selection process. Right? Of course.

Leave alone the fact that we have an instance of an evolutionist seeing humans as outside of nature, or supernatural, a theological perspective at that; what I want to point out is that within this text we have what must be an inferred moral truth: Humans should not be part of the destruction process. So, one side of the coin is “organisms less suited to an environment” die before transfer of DNA and humans can’t be a part of this process. If we are part of this process, we can mess up the “natural” process.

According to this text, there are two sides of the natural selection coin. The other side of the coin is that some organisms with specific traits fare better and do live to pass on its DNA. The author doesn’t say that these traits are “better” traits. That would be a fallacy in evolutionary thinking. No trait is better. At one time the trait of being a black (attribute) butterfly is better then being a white (attribute) butterfly.

Now the author did not say that humans could not interfere here. So either he thinks that we should be allowed to assist organisms survive until it passes on its DNA or we should not be allowed to assist organisms survive until it passes on its DNA.

Now I have to make an assumption here: Because of the clause on the first side of the coin (humans cant kill) and the lack of a clause on the other side of the coin, it stands to reason that the author thinks it is acceptable to help an organism survive until they pass on their DNA. After all, not stepping in and helping an organism survive is akin to killing it, that is if you could prevent it. For example, if I see a kitten playing near a ferocious dog and do nothing about it and the dog eats the kitten (as I sit by and watch while I eat my popcorn), would you not think that I was in the wrong? I hope so. I think the author would too, because not stopping a death of an organism when you could prevent its death (or extinction) is the same as being part of the destructive side of the coing. Hasn’t the author already stepped in by trying to stop other organisms (humans) from destroying life forms and therefore extended the life of otherwise weak organisms? Yes, he has!

So, I’m assuming that the following is true: Humans should not take part in destroying a weak organism (it would at the very least be weaker then humans) and they should help weaker organisms survive to one day pass on their DNA.

What’s wrong with this? From my perspective, nothing. It is wrong to destroy life and it is good to help weaker organisms survive. But I believe in an absolute moral law that was given to mankind by a moral law giver: God. Of course, I also believe that Kardong appeals to this moral law as well…even though he may deny its creator. Scripture states that all men have the requirements of the law written on their heart (i.e., we have a conscious) and Kardong shows that he understands what is right and what is wrong in this little piece that I quoted by his inferences (further, he sees mankind (who just happened to be made in the image of God) as outside of nature).

  The issue here is that Kardong and most evolutionists are inconsistent with what they say they believe. Starting with the a priori that evolution is true, we can not say that nature eliminating nature is wrong, but natural. Humans should be allowed to destroy life, especially their own kind (unless of course they want the future of their race to be corrupted with bad genes). Why not eliminate the weaker organisms or those organisms that have gone past the point of being able to transfer their DNA? Why help a defective organism survive? In the end, wouldn’t you be doing more damage to the whole?  Those that have evolved to the point that they understand this, need to get busy...right? 

Keeping in mind that we are accepting evolution to be true for the time being: Is racism wrong? Nope, natural. Is genocide wrong? Duh…no. In fact, preferable if one desires their species to come out on top. Is murder wrong? Is rape wrong? Is adultery wrong? Is polygamy wrong? Is assisted suicide wrong? Is forced euthanasia on defective organisms wrong? No. No. No. No.

Is allowing the stupid, the handicapped, homosexuals, the mentally retarded, the scrawny, and the weak to survive until they reproduce productive to humanities future? From an evolutionist’s perspective, the answer should be no. To not promote these things is species suicide. That’s why Nietzsche argued against religious people, specifically Christians. They do promote helping the weak. Furthermore, they believe in God…which shows a defect in the way they think…therefore, they should not be allowed to reproduce (his argument not mine…and don’t knock the guy…he’s just being consistent with his beliefs, as was one of his followers:  Hitler).

That’s why I find atheism illogical. The way things should be according to my previously held atheistic philosophy is inconsistent with the way things are. It goes against my nature to do the things that I said we must do if evolution is true. Furthermore, if we are the top of the evolutionary chain (true evolutionist would deny this), why in the world have we developed a morality that is counterproductive to the very thing that made us: Nature. On the other hand, if God made us, it would seem logical that we have that God’s attributes. It does seem consistent for us to see humans as outside of the natural circle. That does seem—logical.

What about homosexuality? Should the Church accept homosexuals? Should God accept homosexuals?

Let me first address a major problem that we have in the church: Gay bashing or gay hating. It is just plain wrong to hate a person for any reason. It is wrong to try to hurt or to want that person to be hurt—regardless of what they do.

Now, let me address the questions:

What do I personally think about homosexuality? I don’t think it sounds appealing at all. I wouldn’t do it and I think it goes against nature. When I was an atheist, one who accepted the doctrine of evolution, I believed that people who were born homosexual were born with a defect. I reasoned, if evolution is true and that true success is found in procreation, then it stands to reason that this is “nature’s way” (funny how even an atheistic evolutionist still has to find a way to connect with a creator) of removing specific genes from the pool. At the very least, we would have to say that homosexuals were nature’s biggest looser.  Success is defined as keeping one's dna going.   

Now to morality. As an atheist, I didn’t think anything was morally good or morally evil. So, I wouldn’t have had a moral problem with homosexuality—just a natural objection. But I have rejected atheism as illogical and wrong. I am now a theist and as a theist, I still don’t dictate what is good or what is not good. I believe that God does. So, if God says it is a sin…then I either have to believe Him or to disbelieve Him.

From my understanding of the Christian scriptures, God say’s it is a sin (Romans 1). I do believe that the Christian scriptures are true and are from God. So, I have to assume that He is right in His ruling. Homosexuality is a sin in God’s eyes.

Now there are many that find this to be intolerant of another person’s beliefs. I would like to quickly point out that that if it’s wrong to force one's belief on another, it is even more wrong to dictate to God what He should believe. Please don’t ask me to force my beliefs on God!  Why not just find a religion or make one up that you can mold your god (yes...little "g") to.  Of course, it wouldnt be a god worth following...after all...you are calling the shots. 

Others point out that homosexuals are born with this urge. They might be…but, I have to point out that I too have urges. If I’m allowed freedom to act on my urges just because I have the urges then this world is going to have a big problem. I have the urge to kill when I’m angry and to copulate when I’m excited. Because I have these urges, I am free to act on them? No? Come on! I was born this way!

So, should the church accept homosexuality? Again, I don’t think we can dictate to God what He believes to be true. The Church, which is His representatives on this earth, must abide by what He says. The Church should be open to letting homosexuals (sinners) in to their churches. The church should love homosexuals (sinners). The church should never turn anyone away, for to reject one person because of their particular sin, the Church would have to turn everyone away. That is a biblical mandate.

But, the church cannot ever say that homosexuality is not a sin. They can lead a person to Christ. Once that happens, once a person accepts Christ as their Lord (that means He is boss) and their savior (that means Christ owns them), the sinner has to abide by Christ. Failure to do so comes at a price…and yes, this could come down to 1 Corinthians 5. Especially if the sinner demands that God now conform to the sinner’s will.