Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
John - Intro

John - Intro

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by Papa Giorgio
This is the first of a series of responses to a skeptic.
This is the first of a series of responses to a skeptic.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, History
Published by: Papa Giorgio on Feb 12, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Hello John,It’s a pleasure to open up communications with you. I look forward to speaking with you on varioussubjects and topics that are relevant to our 
I truly believe that the question of where we camefrom is of utmost importance to my (your?) generation. You will see in the following letter some of thereasons why I view this topic as not only fun, but also fundamental to the survival of western society as awhole. To quote John Dewey [the
of progressive education, or, public education]:
“There is no God and no soul. Hence, there are no needs for props of traditional religion.With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable [i.e. unchangeable] truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or permanent moral absolutes”
(I willcomment on the
“natural law”
that Dewey was speaking of later in this post).The creation-evolution question, then, is the center of debate to my relativistic generation who has lost truthin the full sense of the word. If evolution is true, then there is no
truth… CS Lewis pointed out thateven our ability to reason would be called into question if atheistic evolution were true:
“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was anaccident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by- product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers aswell as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts — i.e. of Materialism and — are merelyaccidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.”
To show how this thinking has impacted our society, I would like to bring us back to the 60’s and comparethat generation of kids to ours in an attempt to show how much damage the excluding of God (and the Natural Law which will be discussed shortly) from our society, via materialism, has done. The leadingLISTED offenses by teachers in the 60’s was as follows: 1) talking; 2) chewing gum; 3) running in thehalls; 3) wearing improper clothing; 4) making noise in class; 5) not putting paper in the waste basket; 6)getting out of turn in line.In the 60’s, a movement was started that reached into and affects our generation’s outlook on life due to the philosophical changes that naturally followed it. This movement adopted the peace symbol as its flag, so-to-speak. This symbol says a lot as to what this new belief system represented. The symbol itself dates back to Nero’s reign over the defunct Roman Empire and its persecutions of the Christian peoples. Nero chosethis symbol as the masthead of his movement to destroy the Christian belief system. The symbol itself iscalled the
“broken cross of Nero”
and was adopted by Nero to show the defeat of Christianity by turningthe cross upside down and breaking it. The sexual freedom movement adopted the symbol as representingthe destruction of the same Judeo-Christian belief system, not by death, but by erosion. Except they added acircle around it to signify its destruction on a worldwide basis. Symbols are powerfully meaningful, andspeak of the intent of the adopters of it. Now fast forward to the 90’s, which is only 30 years after the before mentioned movement was
What are the complaints most frequently lodged by teachers of today? Lets see: 1) rape; 2) robbery; 3)assault; 4) personal theft; 5) burglary; 6) drug abuse; 7) carrying of weapons; 8) absenteeism; 9) vandalism;10) murder; 11) extortion; 12) gang warfare; 13) pregnancy; 14) suicide; etc.. This is the fruit of taking God(absolutes) out of our kids only after thirty years of trying – can you imagine what the teachers will becomplaining of in another thirty years. If only Dewey were alive to see the fruits of his removal of truth and Natural Law that has created my morally relativistic generation. What is this Natural Law that Deweyreference to anyway?
[CS Lewis, not me]
 Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes itsounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very1
important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like:
“How’d youlike it if anyone did the same to you?” – “That’s my seat, I was there first” – “leave himalone, he isn’t doing you any harm” – “Why should you shove in first?” – “Come on, you promised” – “Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine.”
People saythings like that every day, from educated grown-ups to little children. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is notmerely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He isappealing to some kind of behavior that he expects the other man to know about. And theother man seldom replies:
“To hell with your standard!”
nearly always he tries to makeout that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard [thus proving thestandard], or that if it does there are some
excuse. He pretends there is somespecial reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should notkeep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or thatsomething has turned up which lets him off from keeping his promise. It looks, in fact,very much like both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they
agreed.And they had. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could notquarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and hehad some sort of understanding or agreement as to what Right or Wrong are; just as therewould be no sense in saying that a hockey player had committed a foul unless there wassome agreement about the rules of hockey. Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the
“laws of nature”
we usually mean things like gravitation,or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Rightand Wrong
“the Law of Nature,”
they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The ideawas that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law – with great difference, that a body could choose to disobey or obey this Law of Nature. [CS is tight!]This is what Dewey was making reference to. It is called the Law of Nature because people thought everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might notfind an odd individual her and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color-blind.But taking the human race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious toevery one. And I believe they are right. If they were not, then all the things we’ve said about WW2 werenonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy was in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazi’s at the bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had had no notion of whatwe mean by right, then, though we might still have fought the war, we could no more have blamed them for what they did than the color of their hair. Think, if you will, of a country where people were praised andadmired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. Where two plus two equals five. If you study history, mankind has always had theLaw of Human Nature instilled in us. This is what Dewey wanted to erase! Hitler said:
“If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, the people will believe it.”
Materialism is the loudest longest lie I know of that us Gen X’ers are dealing with. It is, I feel the rootcause of a lot of our worlds problems. All that aside for now, I would like to set up some simple rules for future talks. Rather than throwing out a myriad of questions all at once, lets deal with one question at atime. We can discuss until the person answering is satisfied with and thoroughly explained his case and believes the other party grasps the meaning of it even if the other party doesn’t agree. I will send one more paper on the redshifts, but would like to steer clear of astronomy (if possible) due to its theoretical nature,i.e. Dark Matter, eleven dimensions at the first .000003 seconds of the Bib-Bang (BB), etc.. I would like to,if possible, stick to what we can see and feel… the Earth and the Earth sciences. I love tangibility. But wecan get into proving or disproving the existence of God, but we would have to take some time to separate2
why I believe the Bible to be true as compared to the Hindu Vedas, the Koran, the writings of Buddha,Confucius, Zoroaster, the Book of Mormon, etc., etc.. I will quote the Bible here and there; I will be puttingan authority to these quotes that you won’t understand unless you see why I accept it as authoritative(whether you agree with it or not). If you wish to just ask one question for now, and forgo the above tilllater, feel free to do so.I hope these future talks will turn into a friendship that will span a lifetime. Some day we will go out, drink some beers, and laugh at the years of 
“shootin’ the shit”.
I am happy to hear that you are open toalternative views, or at least considering them. But I am a firm believer in truth! We don’t create truth; wemerely discover it. I would consider if two plus two equals five; but the FACT that it equals four is alwaysgoing to be what we find. It’s a Law, and its something that we didn’t
its something wediscovered (per-say).SeanG Out!
I want to make clear that an individual may be asking questions or making statements about the Biblewithout really wanting the answers or coming to a point of understanding about the topic which they purport to be refuting. You could be naming off some supposed discrepancies in the Bible
 – supposedbecause it is possible that the error isn’t with the text, but how the individual is reading the text – 
thinking they are unanswerable or that the main thesis of the discrepancy is irrefutable. If that is the case,the answer has been assumed before the question has been asked. An individual may do such things in anattempt to discount the bigger picture involved in the debate as a whole, i.e., that the Bible actually is the breathed word of God.I will answer only three questions on the topic of discrepancies in the Bible. Why only three? Because a person could just ask question after question and not come to the conclusion warranted by the evidence presented. The problem isn’t with the topic or evidence that is being discussed, the problem might well bethat
 said person
 just doesn’t want to believe, no matter how much evidence he or she finds.
Let meexplain with an analogy by John Warwick Montgomery (my favorite apologist) cited in the book 
Classical  Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics
Psychological Prejudice
 But even a sound epistemic system, flawless deductive reasoning, and impeccableinductive procedure does not guarantee a proper conclusion. Emotional bias or antipathy might block the way to the necessary conclusion of the research. That thinkersmay obstinately resist a logical verdict is humorously illustrated by John Warwick Montgomery’s modern parable:Once upon a time (note the mystical cast) there was a man who thought he was dead. His concerned wife and friends sent him to the friendly neighborhood psychiatrist determined to cure him by convincing him of one fact that contradicted his beliefs that hewas dead. The fact that the psychiatrist decided to use was the simple truth that dead men do not bleed. He put his patient to work reading medical texts, observing autopsies,etc. After weeks of effort the patient finally said,
“All right, all right! You’ve convincedme. Dead men do not bleed.”
Whereupon the psychiatrist stuck him in the arm with aneedle, and the blood flowed. The man looked down with a contorted, ashen face and cried,
“Good Lord! Dead men bleed after all!”Emotional prejudice is not limited to dull-witted, the illiterate, and poorly educated [that’s DeezNutz, just joking]. Philosophers and theologians are not exempt from the vested interests and psychological prejudicethat distort logical thinking. The question of the existence of God evokes deep emotional and psychological prejudice. People understand that the question of the existence of God is not one that is of neutralconsequence. We understand intuitively, if not in terms of its full rational implication, that the existence of an eternal Creator before whom we are ultimately accountable and responsible is a matter that touches thevery core of life. So you may know the answer before you ask the question, thus allowing experience or 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->