Month: May 2012

Categories
Evangelism The Bible The Christian

Are You Sure That Twitter Account is Real?

Twitter bird

At times when dealing with someone who wards off simple truths with oddly complex arguments, it can be helpful to illustrate that same argument in a different way.  I had an opportunity to do exactly that when observing a conversation on Twitter between a Christian apologist and an atheist.  The typical points were raised: there is no scientific evidence for God, evolution is a better explanation of our origins, Christianity is about money and control over the “sheeple”, the Bible can’t be used as evidence, and who would want to believe in such a wrathful God anyway?

Below is one way to illustrate the absurdity of those challenges.  If we relate the universe to the Twitterverse, this is how those arguments would sound.  The twitter account names have been replaced with “Christian” and “Atheist” in brackets.

[Christian] perhaps you should reconsider your belief in the existence of [Atheist]. What looks to you like an account from an intelligent being operating outside the Twitterverse is more likely the result of a process of continuous evolution giving the appearance of intelligence.

A better explanation is that Twitter has evolved an ability to respond to environmental stimulus more efficiently than its competitors such as the Blogosphere, Tumblr, WordPress, etc. This evolutionary advantage has helped it multiply its accounts at a far greater rate than others. These findings make it clear that no explanation other than the normal interaction of electrons manipulating common alphabetical codes is necessary.

Another possible explanation is that the followers of this being known as [Atheist] are skewing the data in their favor, perhaps motivated by money-grubbing or to exert control and influence over other tweeters.

The only proof anyone has yet offered that he actually exists are words which claim to be written (or at least inspired) by him. Obviously they were fabricated by his followers. Why should anyone believe their claim, especially when science can account for these phenomena by appealing only to the known operation of semiconductors instead of some mythical Tweeter? If his followers wish to claim that anything outside the Twitterverse actually exists, the burden of proof is on them, not us.

Finally, why would anyone actually WANT to believe in such a mean, vindictive Tweeter? Many who still believe the existence of such beings find it much more satisfying to follow a more friendly, less judgmental one.

Categories
MetaV Version History

MetaV 2.1.1 Update

I have recently made a few updates to MetaV.  In the near future I will begin posting a detailed roadmap to lay out what improvements are planned in the short-term and long-term future.  Here are the updates in this version 2.1.1:

General

Strong’s Concordance

  • Renamed fields (see readme file)
  • Cleaned up StrongsIndex table where some IDs had random preceding or trailing characters
  • Fixed font formatting issue with Greek and Hebrew words
  • Cleaned up definition/description field
  • Added parts of speech (e.g. “noun”, “verb”, “adjective”, etc.) from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
  • Added language identifier

Special thanks to Nathan Smith for providing a script to convert the Strong’s XML files to an SQL-friendly structure.

People

  • Added surnames in “People” table
  • Added sibling, half-sibling, and child relationships (note:these could be determined before via a query but I found it’s easier to have them pre-defined in the table)
  • Filled in some missing references in “PersonID” field of main MetaV table
  • Indicated proper names versus man woman etc
  • Added PeopleGroups table to define tribes of Israel and Jesus’ Genealogy.  More groups will be added later.
  • Removed names not found in KJV from alias list for consistency with other tables.  (Some alternate spellings existed previously but do not correlate to the version chosen for MetaV.)

That’s all for now. Many more improvements are planned and updates will appear here as they are completed.

Categories
MetaV Vision

Imagine This for Bible Search

Knowledge Graph

Just watch this video, read Google’s write-up, and imagine a similar search tool designed to explore Bible knowledge.  Then, you’ll understand the idea behind MetaV.  But please remember…I’m not Google, so it’s going to take a while to get this far.

Categories
Minstry The Savior Traditions

Communion: Sharing Jesus Christ in Your Community

I want to focus on an aspect of communion that is inherent in the word itself: community. The word spoken in Jesus’s day was koinonia, which is translated not only as “communion” but also “fellowship,” “sharing,” “participation,” and “contribution”. Communion is so much more than a ceremony of remembrance.  It is about sharing the person of Jesus Christ in fellowship with one another.  Outside the traditional partaking of bread and wine, the ways we participate and contribute within Christ’s community have taken different forms over time.

Social Networking

Something that’s brand new to our generation is the phenomenon of online social networking.  It is blossoming at a rate beyond comprehension.  Last year, I found a map made by an intern at Facebook that gives an idea of the magnitude and complexity of online connections. I found it fascinating, even mesmerizing, to see nearly every country in the world defined only by soft blue lines indicating a connection between two people.  Facebook is projected to have a billion users by the end of this year – that’s one in every seven people from every corner of the world.

What are people doing in that community? Are they mainly sharing baby photos, celebrity gossip (Beliebers, you know who you are), promoting some social or political cause? Well, as of February, the page with the most engagement in terms of shares, comments, and “likes” is a page called Jesus Daily, followed by Dios Es Bueno! (God is Good) and The Bible. While that’s not exactly as spiritually deep as circulating Paul’s letters or Luther’s 95 theses, it shows that at least in some ways the people in this community are using it to spread the message of Jesus Christ.

Pamphleteering

If the Reformers lived in this millennium, it’s likely they would have used these technologies to spread their message, too.   We always hear about Luther’s posting of the 95 theses on the door at Wittenberg but don’t always consider how that message got around after that.  Around the time I was asked to speak for communion at our church, I came across a story in The Economist talking about the parallels between how we use social networks compared to how the reformers shared their messages through pamphleteering.

As an illustration, think about how something today “goes viral.”  You share an idea and it resonates with a small group of people who saw your initial post.  Those people in turn share that post with people they know, then their friends re-share it, and so it multiplies.  The printing press was the 1500’s equivalent of social media.  What started as a “post” on one church door was copied, re-copied, commented on and translated until in just the first 10 years over 6 million pamphlets by Luther, Calvin,  and others were distributed.  This is the way they shared the truth of Christ’s words in that era.

House to House

Now go back even further, before the printing press, all the way back to the first century A.D. How did Jesus’ disciples who witnessed his life and teachings first-hand make their message go viral? How did they share this earth-shattering experience within their communities and beyond into the whole world?  In that time, they didn’t post messages on church doors or distribute pamphlets because any sort of writing was extremely hard to come by.

Instead, what they did probably looked a lot like what the Bible describes taking place at the Last Supper.  Acts 2:46 says “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” Many met in the Temple, but more commonly they had fellowship in their home over a meal.  They participated in the first communion with Jesus in that same context.  He used that time for several purposes, one of which was to teach them a model of what it meant to partake of his saving blood and of his body.  The Gospel spread in a similar setting: in the homes of new followers of Christ who gathered together for fellowship, breaking bread, learning his doctrine, and praying with one another.

Communion within Families

All of these are ways we share life with the people in our own time. We do things with our peers, but we also do things with our family.  This, I think, is the most important way we build a Godly community.  Sure, it’s great to spend time with people our age but God’s truth perseveres through time by passing it from one generation to the next – from father to son and mother to daughter.  Want an easy way to do that?  Do what Jesus did!  Have dinner with them and make it a point to discuss how God is working in your life and the world around us.

The next time you share in communion, let me invite you to consider how you might use the connections you have to other people to express the love and joy that Jesus brings.  It may take a digital form. It may be written down on paper, spoken over a meal, or passed down from parent to child.  Whatever your community may look like, let it be a time of communion with the God who is everywhere in all things and all times.

Categories
Church Issues Fruits Sanctification The Christian

The Need For Counsel in the Church

I would like to suggest that the American church has two very important needs that are going mostly unmet and thus hindering the ability of the church to grow. This neglect leaves the church weak and unable to live boldly and without fear. I believe that if these two prerequisites were met the church could grow as vibrant and dynamic as the Lord originally intended it to be. Without them Christians are unsure of what they believe and are unable to apply biblical truth in the daily grind of life. These two essentials are apologetics (to strengthen our faith) and biblical counseling (to apply our faith in life).  This article will focus on the latter.

The goal of biblical counseling is to teach that the believer’s purpose is to please God and glorify Him (2 Corinthians 5:9) in all areas of their life in the midst of all circumstances, whether hardship or blessing. (Job 2:10) Because sin is the greatest obstacle man faces, we have ordered our lives around the desire to please ourselves instead of God. It is important to note that “counsellor” is not an office one holds in the church; counseling is a function of the church. It is the responsibility of every believer to initiate loving confrontation directed towards bringing about change from conformity to sin to conformity to biblical standards, principles, and practices.

This is what the apostle Paul would define as “nouthesis” as in Romans 15:14 and Colossians 3:. Paul wrote, “And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.” (Romans 15:14) and “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs…” (Colossians 3:16) Paul is saying that all Christians are to confront and encourage one another with the Word of God as a regular activity. As believers we have the wisdom, knowledge, and goodness from the Holy Spirit that points us away from sin.

Paul explains that every Christian needs this to happen regularly in their lives in order to be mature in Christ. As a member of the Church, I do not see this consistently happening in one-on-one relationships or small settings. This is a big reason believers are struggling to be mature in their walk with God. Most regular attendees can tell you that they are saved and how Christ saved them, but when it comes to applying the Word through their daily broken and complicated lives, there is little lasting fruit.

There are a handful of biblical examples of men being confronted about their sin and admonished to repent. The first example we find is in Genesis 3:8-24. From the very beginning God gives us the model and standard through which we are to lovingly admonish one another. Jay Adams, a well-known author on the subject of nouthetic counseling, describes it this way:

“Adam tried to make a getaway into the woods. But God confronted him nouthetically, in order to change him by words. The relationship between God and Adam had been established on the basis of God’s Word, broken by Satan’s challenge to that Word, and had to be reestablished by God’s Word. God elicited a confession from him. He probed until he got satisfactory answers.”

The model is to use the Word as the tool through which sin is pointed out, which leads to repentance and brings them back into fellowship with God. To use any other resource to rescue them leads to greater destruction and is not love.

When Nathan confronted King David about his adultery and murder he used this same biblical model and the result was repentance. (2 Samuel 12:1-13) In John 21 after Jesus had died and been resurrected his disciple Peter was confused, discouraged, and felt purposeless so he returned to fishing when he should have been fishing men as Christ had directed him prior to his death. Because Peter had failed and denied Jesus three times, as was predicted, he had lost hope and felt he was unable to do what Jesus had commanded. Jesus loved Peter and one of the ways he demonstrated this intimate love was to confront him about his sin and restore him back into right fellowship with him. Jesus reminded Peter to feed Christ’s sheep. The intimate morning Peter spent with Jesus eating fish for breakfast led to Peter’s miraculous transformation into a powerful ministry, and then his ultimate martyrdom years later. Because Jesus confronted Peter nouthetically, God’s church was built and many souls saved. This is the lasting goal of biblical counseling: spiritual transformation and understanding so that sin can be avoided, leading to a fruitful life.

Why why have we strayed from this approach? Because it is hard and change happens in God’s way and time, not the way of the world that seeks quick, easy, temporary results. God’s model takes humility, authenticity, and a willingness to admit that I am no better than you. As I evaluate the church I do not see this nouthetic confrontation happening on a consistent basis, but I think believers are craving it. Believers want to grow, but sin blinds us from knowing how to apply God’s truth, which is why we need each other. Since I’m able to see your sin more clearly than you can, and you can see my sin more clearly than I can we must admonish one another in love using God’s truth as the guide. To use any other tool is not biblical and is not Godly love. This is exactly what God did in the garden. He called out Adam and Eve on what they could no longer see, and then restored them. If God does it and Jesus does it and the Holy Spirit does it, why not the church?

Categories
Culture False Religions The World

Do Most Scientists Reject God?

“93% of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are atheists,” boasts the social media proselytizer who is now all but certain he has presented inarguable evidence that rational, thinking people are drawn away from theism. It comes from a survey conducted in 1996 and published in the journal Nature. I have seen this statistic often enough that I decided to dig into it a bit further. It is now clearer than ever that this survey is an example of selection bias and further supports the assertion that the NAS is intolerant.

Right from the start, the 93% number is a little misleading. 72% disbelieve in God while 23% express doubt or agnosticism. Atheists routinely lump in agnostics in figures like this if it is to their advantage, but agnostics often describe themselves that way to separate their views from their understanding of atheism. But, this may be little more than semantics.

What if we looked at a different group of scientists? When surveyed in 2009, a slight majority (51%) or respondents from the American Association for the Advancement of Science expressed belief in God (or a “higher power”) and 41% indicated disbelief. It turns out this survey matches rather closely with a survey done 100 years ago, even showing a slight increase in theism among the scientists polled.

Still a different group, university professors, end up somewhere in the middle of these figures. A 2010 survey found 34% were atheists, 30% agnostic, and 27% expressed some level of belief in God.

So far it’s clear that while scientists are far more likely than the general population to be atheist, the 93% figure is simply not an accurate representation of scientists as a whole. Now, let’s extend the data even further.

In academia, the consequences for your conclusion being wrong is a retraction from an academic journal, a scathing peer review, or wider public scrutiny. In other environments, the cost of being wrong are people’s very lives. Certainly few people think that doctors work with anything other than an evidence-based evaluation and decision-making process. If they were to do otherwise, they face severe civil or criminal penalties while their patient suffers physically to varying degrees. Physicians must rely on science when it really counts.

Are these rational-minded professionals also inclined to be atheists? Not quite. As of 2005, 76% expressed belief in God.  While this is still lower than the general population, it turns out that doctors are actually more likely to attend religious services – 90% of them vs. only 81% of Americans as a whole. If we were to accept that the majority opinion of an evidence-based profession proves that thinking people should accept their view, we may hold this up as a persuasive argument for converting to theism. I do not recommend that approach for the reasons explained throughout this article.

What might explain these differences in beliefs across a range of scientists? As an engineer who also relies heavily on facts to form conclusions, I prefer not to speculate too far without doing more extensive research. Allow me to offer two possible causes to consider: indoctrination and culture. American universities are now breeding grounds for anti-religious minds. Over time our culture has trended the same direction, and the sub-culture in academic circles is likely to influence the distribution of religious beliefs in that group.

In earlier times, higher institutes of learning we’re built by Christians and Western society was far more deeply committed to biblical truth. Indeed, the greatest scientific minds who pioneered most of the major branches of science were theists. This fact alone indicates that theistic belief is no detriment to the advancement of scientific inquiry, if not the very basis for science itself.

When we consider the full range of data and look at it objectively, we find every good reason to reject the “majority of scientists are atheists” argument so often presented. The wide disparity among different groups of scientists also shows that they are human like everyone else, subject to the same influences and pressures that shape our ideas about the world. This is why we must always look to a higher standard than ourselves. Let us trust instead in the words of an all-knowing being, not in the wisdom of men with limited knowledge or understanding (1 Cor 2:5).