Frames of Reference

Atheism and the Poison of Liberal Theology

yeager — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:54:46 +0000

For some reason, atheists aren’t happy unless they convert religious people to their dogma. Why? I don’t know, but they frequently display intolerance, expressing a deep conviction to win converts to the religion of atheism. Here’s a statement which isn’t very remarkable, except for the revelation of the methods atheists should use to win converts.

If we want to change the mind of the believer then the most effective way is to drive a wedge between their arguments for the existence of God (i.e., natural theology) and the other things they believe based in the Bible.

Once we do this the believer will see very soon afterward that those arguments for God’s existence don’t make a good case. What I’m doing undercuts their faith at the most fundamental level.

And so first we must make them liberals, then agnostics and then atheists. If we attempt to argue them from Christianity to atheism in one fell swoop we will not do it.

Make them liberals? We’re not talking politics, liberals means liberal Christians, and may or may not relate to a political view. “Liberal Christianity” might not be familiar to you, but it’s taught in major seminaries across the country. For them, denying the foundational concepts of orthodox Christianity is all in a days work, and these people exist as Christians in name only.

Atheists do quite well creating liberal theologians. Just watch any show “investigating” Jesus, the Bible or similar and you’ll see professors from national seminaries denying the inerrancy of the Bible, resurrection of Jesus, virgin birth, and more. These aren’t in any meaningful way Christians, as atheist Christopher Hitchens says I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Those “liberal Christians” aren’t Christians, any more than calling yourself the President gets you a ride on Air Force One.

The cult of liberal theology is dangerous and heretical. As Paul warned Timothy these have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof. These liberals are ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 2:7), with corrupt minds, and disapproved concerning the faith. They may have a PhD and other accolades, but they’re utterly unqualified in basic Biblical knowledge.

Liberal Christians may posses the warm-and-fuzzy felling of religion, but share nothing with Jesus except ripping off his name.

Once you start accepting liberal theology like Isaiah didn’t write the book bearing his name, replacement theology (where the church replaces the Jews and Israel in God’s plan), Daniel was really written later or other liberal theology garbage, it’s at that point you’ve denied God and become an atheist, not later. Liberal theologians deny most of the major tenets of Christianity — how can they call themselves Christians?

The progression from orthodox Christianity, to liberalism, finally arriving at atheism can be subtle, as the change to atheist actually comes in the first step after rejecting the foundational tenets of Christianity, not the last small step to atheist.

In a warning, the atheist notes his techniques don’t work on the traditional Christian, those who reject liberal theology and stand firm on the Word of God. But if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything — including the cult of liberal theology.

Stand firm on the truth, and reject liberal theology which has nothing in common with Christianity except the name — liberal scholars have created their own religion and abandoned Christianity. For more information, Walter Martin has a message titled “The Cult of Liberal Theology” available at http://waltermartin.com.

Abortion and the Healthcare Debate

yeager — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:53:25 +0000

With all the debate over health-care, what’s really going on behind the scenes? You sure won’t find out watching CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, or CNN. One of the sticking issues remains abortion — should the Federal government pay for it? The two sides have been arguing back and forth, but recently the mask has come off the pro-abortion side, revealing what they really want.

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

If that’s how Democrats view the life of the unborn, it’s not too much of a stretch to see what they’ll do for senior citizens who also require large amounts of health-care. The talk of “death-panels” and such has been over-hyped, but the principle remains — reduce the money spent by not providing care (“rationing”), increasing abortion (“don’t be punished with a baby”), substituting less-effective treatments (“take a pill instead of having the operation”), or other means.

Democrats health-care plans are no longer simply about taking over the system — it’s also about a huge increase in abortion to “keep costs down”. That’s their cost-control system in the bill — abort more babies so the government won’t have to pay either the cost of the mothers pregnancy, or the child’s health-care.

Democrats are now (as John Loeffler says) entering the final “naked runner” phase, where everyone sees what’s really going on, but Team RePO (Reid/Pelosi/Obama) hopes it’s too late for the awakening of the people to foil their diabolical plans as they sprint naked and unmasked for the finish line. Will it be too late?

Will the country get what it deserves? Or will God grant mercy one more time?

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

The bill (without a miracle) will likely pass. Team RePO has already stated they’ll do whatever it takes to pass it — and that includes bribes and payoffs, intimidation, and ignoring the will of the people — Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase, intimidation, arm-twisting, bribes, and more are all fair game, and could soon be law of the land if the bill passes. Today the House is 5-10 votes short, but after some one-one-one, most of those Congressmen will fold like a cheap lawn chair and do the bidding of Team RePO over citizens, voting for unprecedented corruption.

And what’s on the mind of Team RePO? Increasing abortion (after all, Obama doesn’t want you to be “punished with a baby” — better to terminate the child instead) which puts $$$ to organizations like Planned Parenthood (it’s completely unrelated these groups can be large donors to Democrats).

That’s the legacy they’ll leave us, along with massive debt, from this health-care bill. Don’t be deceived, it doesn’t take 2,100 pages to make a few changes in insurance policy:

Remove Pre-existing condition exclusions.
Remove barrier to competition across state lines.
Improve coverage.
Reduce costs by tort reform.

That could be a 20-page bill. It’s all the payoffs, new government control, increased abortion, and other surprises awaiting in the bill which take the other 2,000 pages, most of which Congressional members haven’t read.

Don’t be fooled — this bill is most definitely not about health-care. You may like that or not, depending on which side you’re on.

Q&A - Is the Best Bible Translation Personal Preference?

yeager — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:24:50 +0000

The Bible translation debate continues to create questions — how do you pick a translation to use? Are they really different?

This is really a confusing and disheartening issue because different people say different things with equal intent and support. I’m beginning to feel its an issue of simple preference?

It’s not a personal preference issue. Since the two textual bases differ, at most one is correct (or they’re both wrong). For example, if you say the sky is orange and I say it’s blue, I’m right and you’re wrong. If you say it’s orange and I say it’s purple we’re both wrong. But we can’t both be right in either case.

It’s not the KJV, it’s Textus Receptus verses the Alexandrian base text.

Since Textus Receptus and Alexandrian texts differ, they can’t both be correct. As to the Alexandrian base (today usually referred to as Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland, or UBS) we have an extensive article on Bible translation detailing these issues (it’s also available as a PDF).

It might surprise you to know many seminaries and/or pastors deny the virgin birth, resurrection, return of Jesus, and more. These so-called “modern translations” frequently follow those liberal theological ideas as they abandon orthodox Christianity. Westcott-Hort denied the creation and Eden, believed themselves Christs, and more.

Whatever you may think about textual analysis, the Bible translation discussion is most definitely not simply personal preference. All translations have problems, whether you use KJV, NKJV, NASB or NIV understand how your translation came to be, what textual base was used, and why they translators chose what they did.

Avoiding Logical Error - There is No God

yeager — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:38:35 +0000

Atheists frequently don’t recognize contradictions while attempting to defend the logical inconsistencies created by atheism. Atheists claim there is no God; after the statement is made (usually as an unproven “fact”), and the logical contradictions of that statement are pointed out to them, instead of admitting they made an error they go to great lengths to disavow the problem. Here’s a case in point during an exchange with an atheist who claimed there is no God, and when he was made aware of the the logical absurdity of the statement “there is no God”, he responded thusly:

@darrinyeager Pay attention, please: most atheists do not assert that gods do not exist. You’re attacking a strawman, coming off as ignorant

He accused us of using a strawman (an argument deliberately misrepresenting his position). But is that true? First, consider the definition of atheism:

athe-ist (n.) A person who believes that there is no God.
ag-nos-tic (n.) A person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena.

First, an atheist by definition believes God does not exist.

Next, let’s go to the replay booth and see what this same person said about the existence of God:

The good news is, there’s still #nogod.

@misscleva But there is no god, silly!

Upon further review we’re discussing exactly his claim — “there is no god”. Either he didn’t understand his own words (or didn’t mean what he wrote), doesn’t understand the definition of atheism, doesn’t understand logic, uses dialectic instead of didactic thought, or he’s simply confused about what a strawman is (or a combination of any or all of them).

Atheism remains trapped by it’s logical absurdities. It persists because atheists have a deep seated need to deny the existence (for many, even the possibility) of God. Unfortunately, this desire to deny God forces them into bizarre contradictions no amount of verbal twister can free them from (even contradicting themselves), and they remain oblivious to the logical contradictions in their position.

That’s not very free-thinking, is it?

Avoiding Logical Error - Science and Confirmation Bias

yeager — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:27:01 +0000

Errors in logic must be avoided if you wish to have an open mind and use critical thinking. This of course means you must be open to all possibilities, forming opinions based on logic and analysis instead of preconceived ideas; confirmation bias can arise during analysis by making assumptions based on what you want to see, instead of evidence and logical deduction.

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month.

So what does that mean? An example from a recent study asking the question “how did religion evolve?” provides an example of confirmation bias. Try and notice the error(s) while reading.

Religion evolved as a byproduct of preexisting mental capacities, and not because it fulfilled a specific function of its own-though it can facilitate cooperation in society, a study concludes.

Why religion emerged among early humans remains a source of contention among scholars. Many scientists believe religion is ultimately based in the brain, but that still leaves unclear how and why these behaviors originated and how they may have been shaped during evolution. Some archaeologists think religion came about partly as a strategy by some people to grab power, simply by claiming some sort of secret knowledge.

Notice the error? They made (at least) two assumptions, and the data in their study “confirmed” their bias that religion somehow evolved from natural man — not God — because they failed to consider (or look for) what contradicted their beliefs:

Evolution is true.
No God exists.

Evolution remains an unscientifically proved assumption; it can’t explain how we got here scientifically (that is, with verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments). The study looked where it wanted to — to an unscientific method. A classic case of confirmation bias.

Second, if God exits, the bias in the study renders it not only useless, but dangerously misleading. We’ve written much on atheism already, but in brief atheism is by definition illogical as it’s impossible to state as fact God doesn’t exist unless you posses all knowledge in the cosmos. Atheists (by definition) lack critical thinking skills and fail to employ logic in their reasoning.

It’s neither scientific nor free-thinking to exclude vast areas for consideration, and it this case it’s an example of confirmation bias — so much so the study becomes worthless.

Carl Sagan's Belief in Spite of Facts

yeager — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:40:47 +0000

Carl Sagan provides many quotes loved by both atheists and evolutionists in an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of God and religion in general. Here’s a popular Sagan quote:

You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief isn’t based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe. Carl Sagan

We’d agree as the God denier Sagan himself provides supporting evidence in another of his famous quotes:

The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.

Sagan believed in the (now discredited) theory of the infinitely old universe — the eternal existence of the cosmos simply isn’t true. The universe did have a beginning — the question remains when and how, both of which are currently subject to considerable debate.

Sagan held the wrong belief (as far as we know) up until his death — in spite of evidence to the contrary. Why? Because his world-view (secular atheist) required it. Even after most accepted the “big bang” theory, Sagan didn’t — he couldn’t — because it conflicted with his world view. His belief wasn’t based on evidence or science, but a deep seated need to validate his worldview (also a case of confirmation bias, a subject we’ll take up in future post).

… Hoyle dislikes the idea because, as he puts it, “The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the universe that openly invites the concept of creation”. Barry Parker sums up the feelings of most cosmologists: “If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ‘creation’ of some sort is forced upon us” (Herren, Fred “Show Me God” page 107–108)

You frequently can’t reason with atheists and evolutionists — their belief isn’t based on evidence, but on a deep seated need to deny the existence of God, as Carl Sagan brilliantly demonstrated. You have to admire Sagan, however, not many people (especially those claiming to be scientists) would continue to hold an absurd position to suit their worldview, when abundant evidence proves them wrong.

It’s sad many quoting Sagan miss the irony.

Presidents' day Honors Washington and Lincoln

yeager — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:33:35 +0000

President’s Day adds to the vast lack of historical knowledge of the average person, as well as general historical confusion.

In 1971, Congress passed a bill to rename Washington’s birthday Presidents Day, and to celebrate it on the third Monday of February instead of the actual date of Washington’s birth — Feb. 22. The holiday also was designated to honor Abraham Lincoln, whose Feb. 12 birthday was celebrated in many states but was not an official federal holiday.

But that was nearly 40 years ago. Now, it seems, many Americans are unsure exactly why their schools and banks and post offices are closed on Monday. Asked which presidents were being honored, people on the street provided many answers…

Originally Presidents Day was known as Washington’s birthday, but later Lincoln was added to the mix. As usual, Congress messed with what was known as Washington’s birthday to help create the confusion. But in any event, President’s Day honors Washington and Lincoln.

Arguably Washington and Lincoln are the two most important Presidents in history (and the best). Never forget.