Wednesday, March 07, 2007

News Roundup Follow-up 3/7/07

1. I found this brief video clip of Kirk Cameron's reaction to the "Jesus Tomb" fallacy quite good. Click on the link and go down the page. On the bottom left, click on "Kirk Cameron on Hollywood and Religion." He makes some excellent points about the fact that perhaps Christians should not completely shun Hollywood, but work towards contributing uplifting, encouraging, Christian redeeming type films and T.V. shows.

I know that it is often difficult for Christian filmmakers to break into the mainstream. They are often shunned on the outset, either for being a Christian believer in the first place (a definite no-no in Hollywood circles), and/or for the Christian content of their work.

Remember all the ridicule, accusations of anti-semitism, and derision that Mel Gibson had hurled at him before, during and after the SUCCESS of "The Passion of the Christ" movie?

Speaking of movies, I have to say that I was absolutely appalled by this years "Best Picture" winner. It was filled with bloody gore, continuous murders, drugs, gratuitous violence, lying, deception, intimidation, filthy language, disgusting, sexually explicit and insulting views towards women, and taking the name of the Lord in vain; to mention just some of what disturbed me about this film.


Absolutely NO REDEEMING VALUE from beginning to end!

It just shows how much deeper Hollywood has sunk into the pit of Satanic influence.

And, before anyone comes along and gripes that "The Passion" movie was filled with "gratuitous" violence, I'd have to say that you would be wrong. It depicted the truth about what happened to Jesus at the hands of the Roman soldiers; during his suffering before and after his crucifixion on the cross.

If you ever took the time to do an inductive Bible study of the passages that describe this horrific event, you would have to come to the conclusion that Gibson actually held back when it came to the horrendous beatings that Jesus suffered.

Yet, even then Jesus uttered those words that only He, as Savior and Lord of the universe could have possibly uttered, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they are doing." Remember that, next time you willfully sin against God.

Where are the movies like "Forrest Gump" these days; a film that several years ago actually deserved the Best Picture win??

2. I had found a rough draft copy of Sam Hunt's paper yesterday, but I hesitated to post the link. It came from a website that I haven't explored very thoroughly yet.

However, a quick glance at the links to the left of the page and the message board topics there indicate to me that it is a more "spiritual, new-age type" community rather than a Christian-oriented one. I didn't see any mention of Jesus Christ. It also appears to be connected to BeliefNet which is a site that generally presents a smorgasboard of interfaith "spiritual" beliefs. Not my kind of site...except when researching information about false religions, cults, and heresy/apostasy.

With that said, my second reason for being hesitant to post the link is because I also wonder how accurate this "rough draft" really is. It appears to have been written (or posted) in 2005. Hunt's finished paper debuted in late 2006 (from what I've read).

At the end of the page, is a link to purchase the entire, 84 page finished paper. I'm sure that the rough draft probably doesn't completely do the finished product justice. But I decided to include the link so that readers here will get an idea about what Hunt discovered through his research and how he applied it to the Genesis account in the Bible.

I know that the critics and naysayers will probably have a field day with this. So be it. I found it refreshing, fascinating and quite interesting! It is important to remember that Sam labels his finding as an hypothesis. I think it's nice to see a new hypothesis for a change, that supports the Biblical account in Genesis.

Jaded, I read your comment before typing this out and I wanted to share a link to a post that I did quite a while ago that explains Why I Can't Accept Evolution As Evidence of God. It is very important to realize that I reject the "macro-evolution" extrapolation of the evidence for "micro-evolution." Micro-evolution is compatible with Creation and does not negatively affect the Biblical account in Genesis.

FYI, the links to the Globe and Mail article now require you to purchase it. Plus, the link I placed to the "comment" section will not appear unless you purchase it. In addition, just to let you know how biased the comment moderator was, he/she refused to post my comment. Liberal media bias? Nah...there's no such thing now is there...

There are several additional links within that post that give further insight into my personal conclusions on this matter, but the crux of my reasons are described at the end of my original post:

Let me share with you why my investigation of theistic evolution turned me away from such a concept.

In addition to this, there are some articles written by Christian Apologist, Greg Koukl, on the subject of theistic evolution in the archive section at my message board. This may provide more detailed reasons for you to see my points.

Why I reject theistic evolution:

Jesus believed in and spoke about the Genesis account of Creation. That alone should be enough for Bible-believing, Word of Truth Christians.

Theistic Evolution involves the notion that God initially began creation and then used evolution to produce the universe as we know it. The big issue is with macroevolution which claims that all of life evolved fortuitously from a single cell made up of amino acids, RNA, DNA etc.; then through chance there were mutations that allowed lower, simplistic forms of life to become more complex specimens. We all emerged over time, from the slime into our present humanity. Is man in his origin the product of a purposive act of divine intelligence, or is man a cosmic accident? Are we creatures of dignity or creatures of cosmic insignificance?

Microevolution, the indication that there is a change, a progression involving different directions among various species that we can track historically is of no consequence with respect to biblical Christianity. It's the unsubstantiated myth of macroevolution that presents rational, logical as well as theological objections. One day this unmitigated nonsense will be totally rejected by the scientific community.

In this post, I will focus in on the theological objections to theistic evolution. A Christian (IMHO) cannot believe that he is a cosmic accident and at the same time believe in the sovereign God and the Creator God. Theistic evolution must make a complete allegory out of Genesis 1:1 - 2:4, for which there is no warrant. The suggestion that humanity is derived from a non-human ancestor cannot be reconciled with the explicit statement of man's creation in Genesis 2:7. Man did not evolve but rather was created from the dust of the ground. How can I know for sure? As a Bible believing Christian, I recognize that if Adam was not a real historical person, then the analogy between Christ and Adam in Romans 5:12-21 utterly breaks down.

Certainly Christ believed in a literal creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). (Christ would know, for He is elsewhere portrayed as the Creator- (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2,10.) Jesus Christ's words have the authority to be trusted in this particular matter as surely as His words can be trusted in other matters.

Romans 5:8 and John 3:16 reveals God's love for us through Christ the Redeemer. As far as Christianity is concerned, if there's no creation, then there's nothing to redeem. If we come from nothing and go to nothing, then we are nothing under any objective analysis. Nehemiah 9:6 explicitly rejects such a notion.


Jaded said...

Maybe that's the distinction that I was trying to make... I don't believe we are just a giant cosmic accident, but I do believe that evolution occurs. While macroevolution remains a theory with a "missing link," I think there's more than sufficient scientific evidence to prove that species evolve over time. And maybe that's exactly what God had planned to begin with. Skeptics generally think that the existence of evolution disproves the existence of God. I just think it proves He had more elaborate plans than we could ever know.

Albert Einstein said:
"A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Pope John Paul II said:
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish…We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be."

One a scientist, one a religious agree that the other must exist in order for each to remain relevant.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"While macroevolution remains a theory with a "missing link," I think there's more than sufficient scientific evidence to prove that species evolve over time..."

If you are referring here to macro-evolution, there is next-to-no evidence, not more-than-sufficient evidence, to prove it.

I, as a Christian, am against macro-Evolution for several reasons:

1.) First, I am a logical, rational, intelligent (I think, anyways... ;)) person. Therefore, I cannot believe in Macro-Evolution because it is illogical, irrational, and unintelligent.

2.) Second, I do not believe in Macro-Evolution because I do not have to. I think that some people think otherwise. They think that Evolution is simply "scientific" or "factual," when it is really science-fiction fantasy.

3.) Third, I can't believe in both the Bible and Evolution. Clearly, the Bible's Genesis account is intended to be taken literally. If I can't believe the first chapters of the Bible, how can I believe all the rest? (You should visit the "Answers in Genesis" website.)
The Theory of Macro-Evolution and the Bible are incompatible on numerous points:

a.) If death entered into the world with sin--if animals suffer because of sin--how did animals evolve through the cruel process of natural selection before sin entered into the world?

b.) "After their kind..." is repeated several times in the Genesis account. Not exactly Macro-Evolution.

c.) When did man become "in God's image"? Is man progressively evolving more and more "into God's image"? When did man gain a "soul"? When did man gain the capacity to sin?

d.) Why would an orderly, Sovereign God use a chaotic, chance process?

To try to make Macro-Evolution compatible with God is to do two very dangerous things:

I.) One, it limits God by saying He "must've used Evolution."

II.) Two, it compromises God's Word in order to add a false, ridiculous theory of man's.

Have faith in God and His Word, not the theories of man.

As for micro-evolution: I have no problem with that.

Jaded said...

Kingdom Advancer, I was responding to the comment Christine made to me in her post, about there being a difference between macro and microevolution. I was merely explaining that I don't believe in the randomness of Macroevolution, but that I do believe that microevolution occurs. If macroevolution were the answer, no link would remain missing. The link they've been searching for, in my opinion, is God.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Okay. That one sentence was just a little ambiguous. I thought you might've been referring to macro-evolution, and I thought I might as well address your comment in that way, just in case.