It was pretty busy on Mill Ave tonight, and we distributed a lot of tracts.
A man named Alec and a couple of friends stopped, and Phil and I talked to them for a while. I took Alec through part of the Good Person Test and it seemed to make sense to him. They asked some questions and we had a good discussion.
I found out later that they were LDS, which I didn’t discern from the conversation. I guess that’s because they weren’t saying too much about what they thought or believed, but were asking questions and listening to what we were telling them. Seeds planted, I pray that they will go home and search the Scriptures as the Bereans did to find out the truth and not be caught up in something that is not true.
Three Native Americans stopped while I was doing some OA Trivia. They had been out drinking and wanted to know what the answer to the trivia question was. I gave it to them and we went through a couple of other ones. Two of them were laughing and having a good time, while the third, a big guy who seemed pretty drunk, stood close and stared at me as if he wanted to knock me off of the stool.
When I went into the Good Person Test, Mileno and Sharon admitted to lying, but after that Sharon wouldn’t admit to anything else. Mileno also admitted to stealing and using the Lord’s name in vain, while the third guy seemed to continue waiting for the opportunity to smack me. He made a couple of incoherent statements that sounded like he was trying to start a fight, but I wasn’t really sure what he was talking about, so I continued through the GPT.
Sharon asked what if they didn’t believe in an afterlife, and I explained that our belief isn’t what makes something true, but the object of our faith is what needs to be considered. She didn’t really want to get into a serious conversation, but Mileno said that he agreed with what I was saying.
They decided to head off to get something to eat, but the third guy stayed. I talked to him for a bit and found that his name is Bernard. (I heard Mileno call him “Junior” once as well).
Bernard seemed to be relaxing a bit and I found that he had been in the Marines. He said that he had done some “bad things to people” and I explained to him that there is forgiveness available through Jesus Christ. I never found out exactly what he had done, but a couple of times in our conversations, I noticed a tear in his eye. I took him through the Gospel and told him he needed to pray to God for forgiveness, after repenting and trusting in Christ alone. I told him that I would keep him in prayer and he asked me to pray with him there on the street, so I did.
He still hung around for a while more, and seemed to want to talk, so I went through it again with him, unsure of how much had penetrated the influence of alcohol. His friends finally came back and I gave them some tracts before they headed out. Please keep Bernard and his two friends in prayer.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Christopher Hitchens
I wasn't aware of this, but a friend sent me a news story on Christopher Hitchens having cancer and a prayer day for him. Check out the article here: Christopher Hitchens Skipping Prayer Day In His Honor
A couple of thoughts from the article.
Satisfying? Well, maybe, but not for the reasons that the world might think. As Christians, we know there is no hope apart from Jesus Christ, and that there is still hope through Him, even for an outspoken atheist. Hitchens will probably never come to faith - it becomes a pride issue now, how would that look to all of his loyal atheist fans? But then again, nothing is impossible with God. A Christian should not see a change of heart as a "win" for our side, but rather, the salvation of a man who deserves eternal punishment just like the rest of us, to the glory of the Lord who saves.
Hitchens may not know it or want to believe it, but he will glorify God at the end of his life in one way or another. Either as a demonstration of God's holy righteousness as justice is done through eternal punishment, or as a demonstration of God's holy grace and mercy in salvation through Jesus Christ alone. Those are the only two options, and God is glorified either way.
His first group couldn't be Christians. Any group that is held together by their hatred of another group simply cannot have the love of Christ in them. If these are professed believers, they are hypocrites, false teachers and deceivers.
The last group, asking God to heal him, would buy him more time but that in itself would not change his eternal fate. Paul asked to be healed from the thorn in his flesh and the Lord told him no. All the disciples, and many others faced martyrdom for their beliefs. This is part of living under the curse of sin. I wouldn't be a part of this group.
The middle group, those who "want him to become a believer in their religious faith" could probably be better defined. Why do they want him to become a believer? Is it because they want a big hit against the other side, that when it really comes down to it, even atheists will turn? The "no atheists in foxholes" sort of argument? That would only strengthen the stubbornness of the rest of them.
Or is it because they know his fate without Jesus Christ in his life, and know that we all deserve eternal punishment in hell because we've all sinned against an eternal God? Is it because God has provided a way out of this fate that we deserve and it is available to any who would call on His name? Is it for this man's salvation and the glory of God alone that we'd like to see him come to faith? That's the group I would fit into.
A couple of thoughts from the article.
"For some of his critics, it might be satisfying to see a man who has made a career of skewering organized religion switch sides near the end of his life and pray silently for help fighting a ravaging disease."
Satisfying? Well, maybe, but not for the reasons that the world might think. As Christians, we know there is no hope apart from Jesus Christ, and that there is still hope through Him, even for an outspoken atheist. Hitchens will probably never come to faith - it becomes a pride issue now, how would that look to all of his loyal atheist fans? But then again, nothing is impossible with God. A Christian should not see a change of heart as a "win" for our side, but rather, the salvation of a man who deserves eternal punishment just like the rest of us, to the glory of the Lord who saves.
Hitchens may not know it or want to believe it, but he will glorify God at the end of his life in one way or another. Either as a demonstration of God's holy righteousness as justice is done through eternal punishment, or as a demonstration of God's holy grace and mercy in salvation through Jesus Christ alone. Those are the only two options, and God is glorified either way.
"The way the English-born Hitchens sees it, the people praying for him break down into three basic groups: those who seem genuinely glad he's suffering and dying from cancer; those who want him to become a believer in their religious faith; and those who are asking God to heal him."
His first group couldn't be Christians. Any group that is held together by their hatred of another group simply cannot have the love of Christ in them. If these are professed believers, they are hypocrites, false teachers and deceivers.
The last group, asking God to heal him, would buy him more time but that in itself would not change his eternal fate. Paul asked to be healed from the thorn in his flesh and the Lord told him no. All the disciples, and many others faced martyrdom for their beliefs. This is part of living under the curse of sin. I wouldn't be a part of this group.
The middle group, those who "want him to become a believer in their religious faith" could probably be better defined. Why do they want him to become a believer? Is it because they want a big hit against the other side, that when it really comes down to it, even atheists will turn? The "no atheists in foxholes" sort of argument? That would only strengthen the stubbornness of the rest of them.
Or is it because they know his fate without Jesus Christ in his life, and know that we all deserve eternal punishment in hell because we've all sinned against an eternal God? Is it because God has provided a way out of this fate that we deserve and it is available to any who would call on His name? Is it for this man's salvation and the glory of God alone that we'd like to see him come to faith? That's the group I would fit into.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Saturday 09-18-10
Another Saturday night of sharing the Gospel on Mill Ave in Tempe. We handed out a lot of tracts and had a few interesting conversations. Chris and Fernando stopped by. They had talked to us on a previous occasion, but I didn't remember them. They are both Christians and stopped to offer encouragement, so Tom gave them some tracts to distribute.
Later on Jordan (one of our atheists who used to come out to oppose the preaching) stopped by. We hadn't seen him in a couple of years, since he'd moved around a bit. I had some good conversations with him in the past and he's a very likeable kid, but still holds to his unbelief. We talked for a while and then Fernando got into a conversation with him, bringing up some good points to make him think.
Marcus and I talked to a guy with a Jamacian accent who seemed to think that all religions were basically the same. He asked if we were "religious racists." I asked him what that meant, and he explained that it was thinking that only your particular religion is correct. I wouldn't call Christianity a religion, but yes, Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me."
It is exclusive in that only the true Christians will have salvation, but it's also inclusive in that anyone can come to Christ. Repent of your sins, forsake them, and trust in Jesus Christ alone, submitting to Him as Lord and Savior.
After a while our atheists from the Skeptic Tank showed up and set up their free clothes and speakers right next to us as they like to do. There were some others sitting near the corner, giving away free roses made from palm fronds. I was taking a few random pictures out there, and one guy that was hanging out with them came over to inform me that he didn't like his picture taken. So I put my camera away and went over to talk to this guy. I explained that I wasn't taking pictures of him specifically, but just wondered if we could discuss the issue. He got up and walked quickly away, so I guess not.
I'll be helping Tom out with a WOTM class for the next two Thursdays at a church in Tempe, so pray that we will gain more workers for the harvest field in that (Luke 10:2).
Later on Jordan (one of our atheists who used to come out to oppose the preaching) stopped by. We hadn't seen him in a couple of years, since he'd moved around a bit. I had some good conversations with him in the past and he's a very likeable kid, but still holds to his unbelief. We talked for a while and then Fernando got into a conversation with him, bringing up some good points to make him think.
Marcus and I talked to a guy with a Jamacian accent who seemed to think that all religions were basically the same. He asked if we were "religious racists." I asked him what that meant, and he explained that it was thinking that only your particular religion is correct. I wouldn't call Christianity a religion, but yes, Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me."
It is exclusive in that only the true Christians will have salvation, but it's also inclusive in that anyone can come to Christ. Repent of your sins, forsake them, and trust in Jesus Christ alone, submitting to Him as Lord and Savior.
After a while our atheists from the Skeptic Tank showed up and set up their free clothes and speakers right next to us as they like to do. There were some others sitting near the corner, giving away free roses made from palm fronds. I was taking a few random pictures out there, and one guy that was hanging out with them came over to inform me that he didn't like his picture taken. So I put my camera away and went over to talk to this guy. I explained that I wasn't taking pictures of him specifically, but just wondered if we could discuss the issue. He got up and walked quickly away, so I guess not.
I'll be helping Tom out with a WOTM class for the next two Thursdays at a church in Tempe, so pray that we will gain more workers for the harvest field in that (Luke 10:2).
Science in the Bible 10
Alright, one more, then you'll have to go and get your own copy. The Evidence Bible is full of great info like this and also includes a lot of great witnessing tools. You can view a lot of it in the online version at the link above, but it's nice to have a hard copy as well. So, here ya go, the last one I'll post here.
Evolutionary Fraud.
“Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist, announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England… Dawson’s announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old ) the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin’s missing link had been identified.
“Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then , in the early fifties … scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal; Piltdown Man was a hoax. Radiocarbon tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year old orangutan from the East Indies.” -Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn’t an isolated incident. The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth.
The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. Java Man is now regarded as fully human. Heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it’s similar to that of modern man. Still many evolutionists believe that he’s 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with carbon dating.
However, Time magazine (June 11, 1990 ) published a science article subtitled, “Geologitst show that carbon dating can be way off.” And don’t look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of evolution. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious.
Evolutionary Fraud.
“Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist, announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England… Dawson’s announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old ) the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin’s missing link had been identified.
“Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then , in the early fifties … scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal; Piltdown Man was a hoax. Radiocarbon tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year old orangutan from the East Indies.” -Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn’t an isolated incident. The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth.
The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. Java Man is now regarded as fully human. Heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it’s similar to that of modern man. Still many evolutionists believe that he’s 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with carbon dating.
However, Time magazine (June 11, 1990 ) published a science article subtitled, “Geologitst show that carbon dating can be way off.” And don’t look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of evolution. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious.
Science in the Bible 9
Still more from the Evidence Bible. Who says Christianity is based on "blind faith?" There's tons of evidence!
Archaeology confirms the Bible.
The Scriptures make more than 40 references to the great Hittite Empire. However, until one hundred years ago there was no archaeological evidence to substantiate the Biblical claim that the Hittites existed. Skeptics claimed that the Bible was in error, until their mouths were suddenly stopped. In 1906, Hugo Winckler uncovered a huge library of 10,000 clay tablets, which completely documented the lost Hittite Empire. We now know that at its height, the Hittite civilization rivaled Egypt and Assyria in its glory and power.
“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” -Dr Nelson Glueck
“Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts… Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges .. are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy… We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong.” -Dr Joseph P Free
Archaeology confirms the Bible.
The Scriptures make more than 40 references to the great Hittite Empire. However, until one hundred years ago there was no archaeological evidence to substantiate the Biblical claim that the Hittites existed. Skeptics claimed that the Bible was in error, until their mouths were suddenly stopped. In 1906, Hugo Winckler uncovered a huge library of 10,000 clay tablets, which completely documented the lost Hittite Empire. We now know that at its height, the Hittite civilization rivaled Egypt and Assyria in its glory and power.
“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” -Dr Nelson Glueck
“Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts… Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges .. are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy… We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong.” -Dr Joseph P Free
Friday, September 17, 2010
Science in the Bible 8
More from the Evidence Bible. Haven't you gone out and bought one of these yet?
The Peppered Moth
"Almost all textbooks on evolution include the peppered moth as the classic example of evolution by natural selection. There are two types of peppered moths, a light-colored speckled variety and a dark variety. Most peppered moths in England were the light variety, which were camouflaged as they rested on tree trunks. The black variety stood out against the light bark and were easily seen and eaten by birds. But as the industrial revolution created pollution that covered tree trunks with soot, the dark variety was camouflaged better, so birds ate more of the light moths. "The peppered moth story has been trumpeted since the 1950s as proof positive that evolution by natural selection is true. In 1978, one famous geneticist called the peppered moth 'the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed.' "However, this 'clearest case' of purported Darwinian evolution by natural selection is not true! The nocturnal peppered moth does not rest on the trunks of trees during the day. In fact, despite over 40 years of intense field study, only two peppered moths have ever been seen naturally resting on tree trunks! "So where did all the evolution textbook pictures of peppered moths on different colored tree trunks come from" They were all staged. The moths were glued, pinned, or placed onto tree trunks and their pictures taken. The scientists who used these pictures in their books to prove evolution all conveniently forgot to tell their readers this fact. If the best example of evolution is not true, how about all their other supposed examples? It make you wonder, doesn't it? - Mark Varney
It's humorous that evolutionists cite the peppered moth as their best example, enabling them to "watch evolution in action." Watch closely: Before the moths' environment changed, some of the moths were mostly white, some were mostly black. After their environment changed, some were mostly white, some were mostly black.
No new color or variety came into being, yet we have supposedly just witnessed evolution. Evolutionist John Reader (Missing Links) explains this biased interpretation: "Ever since Darwin's work..., preconceptions have led evidence by the nose." Harvard professor and evolutionist Steven Jay Gould admits this scientific bias, "Facts do not 'speak for themselves'; they are read in light of theory." Even Charles Darwin Concedes, "Alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas." Keep this in mind when scientists proclaim the theory of evolution as "fact."
The Peppered Moth
"Almost all textbooks on evolution include the peppered moth as the classic example of evolution by natural selection. There are two types of peppered moths, a light-colored speckled variety and a dark variety. Most peppered moths in England were the light variety, which were camouflaged as they rested on tree trunks. The black variety stood out against the light bark and were easily seen and eaten by birds. But as the industrial revolution created pollution that covered tree trunks with soot, the dark variety was camouflaged better, so birds ate more of the light moths. "The peppered moth story has been trumpeted since the 1950s as proof positive that evolution by natural selection is true. In 1978, one famous geneticist called the peppered moth 'the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed.' "However, this 'clearest case' of purported Darwinian evolution by natural selection is not true! The nocturnal peppered moth does not rest on the trunks of trees during the day. In fact, despite over 40 years of intense field study, only two peppered moths have ever been seen naturally resting on tree trunks! "So where did all the evolution textbook pictures of peppered moths on different colored tree trunks come from" They were all staged. The moths were glued, pinned, or placed onto tree trunks and their pictures taken. The scientists who used these pictures in their books to prove evolution all conveniently forgot to tell their readers this fact. If the best example of evolution is not true, how about all their other supposed examples? It make you wonder, doesn't it? - Mark Varney
It's humorous that evolutionists cite the peppered moth as their best example, enabling them to "watch evolution in action." Watch closely: Before the moths' environment changed, some of the moths were mostly white, some were mostly black. After their environment changed, some were mostly white, some were mostly black.
No new color or variety came into being, yet we have supposedly just witnessed evolution. Evolutionist John Reader (Missing Links) explains this biased interpretation: "Ever since Darwin's work..., preconceptions have led evidence by the nose." Harvard professor and evolutionist Steven Jay Gould admits this scientific bias, "Facts do not 'speak for themselves'; they are read in light of theory." Even Charles Darwin Concedes, "Alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas." Keep this in mind when scientists proclaim the theory of evolution as "fact."
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Science in the Bible 7
Here are a few more interesting facts from the Evidence Bible.
Evolutions Circular Reasoning
“At least six different radiometric dating methods are available. The assumed age of the sample will dictate which dating method is used because each will give a different result.
“For example, when dinosaur bones containing carbon are found, they are not carbon dated because the result would be only a few thousand years. Because this would not match the assumed age based on the geologic column, scientists use another method of dating to give an age closer to the desired result. All radiometric results that do not match the preassigned ages of the geologic column are discarded.” -Dr Kent Hovind
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several ) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” -Ronald R West, PhD
“Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.” Science magazine, vol. 224, 1984
Evolutions Circular Reasoning
“At least six different radiometric dating methods are available. The assumed age of the sample will dictate which dating method is used because each will give a different result.
“For example, when dinosaur bones containing carbon are found, they are not carbon dated because the result would be only a few thousand years. Because this would not match the assumed age based on the geologic column, scientists use another method of dating to give an age closer to the desired result. All radiometric results that do not match the preassigned ages of the geologic column are discarded.” -Dr Kent Hovind
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several ) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” -Ronald R West, PhD
“Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.” Science magazine, vol. 224, 1984
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)