Comments for What is Man?

Comment on The Pitfall of Overemphasis: God’s Love by Pamela Amos

Pamela Amos — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:22:23 +0000

Very good understanding of this man and his doctrine. He was an awesome writer and I have a number of his books still. Mike and I enjoyed many of his books (e.g. The Baronet’s Song, Sir Gibbie, etc.) because the stories illustrated the practical application of living by God’s Word. How would it be lived out in interpersonal relationships?

Comment on Creationist Logic by Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:55:48 +0000

Maybe the diagram is too simplistic. The questions should run like this: “How can we be sure that man evolved by naturalistic processes? Science tells us man evolved from naturalistic processes. How can we be sure science is accurate on that point? Science only allows naturalistic processes.” Anyway, I updated it, so thanks for the critique.

Here’s an interesting point, though. On the picture that I made, when the question is asked, “How can we be certain that science is accurate,” a reasonable person would cite all the visible evidence and the interpretations of that evidence by a knowledgeable community. The idea that science only allows naturalistic processes is a very broad summary based on the majority of scientific interpretations, a summary that has become science’s primary philosophical presupposition.

On the first picture, when asked, “Why believe the Bible,” a reasonable person would cite the evidence and the interpretations of that evidence by a knowledgeable community. That the Bible is infallible is not only a broad summary based on centuries of investigation, it is a presupposition based on the claims in the book itself.

The crucial difference is that evolution science’s primary presupposition is based on what we don’t know, while creation science’s primary presupposition is based on what we do know.

Comment on Creationist Logic by Boz

Boz — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:50:36 +0000

you answered the question “how can we be certain that science is accurate?” incorrectly.

Comment on The Pleasures of Atheism by Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:05:24 +0000

I agree that atheism in not a philosophy, however, atheism is driven by philosophy. If one is of the opinion that there are no gods, that opinion is driven by a worldview, a philosophical position, even if the atheist is not aware of it.

Comment on The Pleasures of Atheism by Boz

Boz — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:45:23 +0000

Atheism has no philosophy – it’s just one opinion.

as an example, there is no “philosophy-of-not-believing-in-Apollo”

Comment on Windows Live Writer by aissa sekiou

aissa sekiou — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:59:48 +0000

i am algerian iwas student pilot at ayres flight school albany since 1977-1979 i am looking for tracy goodwin and her daughters kelly and joel she was my family i miss her a lot isaw her picture in your website please help me to contact her think you and god bless you

Comment on Evolving Controversy by J Rock

J Rock — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:27:22 +0000

I’m not big into the Evolution debate because I simply have better things to do with my time but the “time line” of the birds’ Evolution not being “chronological progression” is priceless. And I don’t have a doctorate but I understand that malarkey.

Comment on Mart De Haan and Emergent Church Influence? by Don Blosser

Don Blosser — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:50:31 +0000

I have some related concerns about Mr. DeHaan and the future direction of RBC ministries. These concerns arose when I did a search on their website for “The Shack”. I was curious if RBC had taken a stand regarding W.P. Young’s heretical and blasphemous book. I was disappointed (if that is a strong enough word) to learn that not only had Mart DeHaan spoken glowingly of this book, he had even gone out of his way to speak disparagingly of the book’s critics, coming just short of accusing them of taking book passages out of context.
I have posted 3 or 4 comments on that article page and have yet to hear back from Mr. DeHaan. When I used the [Contact Us] link to voice concerns, I heard back from a different member of the RBC staff who, while admitting that many of his friends and family think The Shack is “a blasphemous book”, unashamedly admitted that he himself loves it very much. Personally, I cannot comprehend how someone who truly knows Jesus as Lord and Savior could tolerate, much less appreciate, a book that presents the One who holds in perfect order billions of galaxies as a bumbling incompetent oaf who spills thing on people and can’t catch one lousy fish that he really wants to catch. Nor can I fathom how a believer in the Bible as the revealed Word of God could speak well of a book that puts in the mouth of its false god, lying words which dare to contradict what God has clearly revealed as true. I put this in similar terms to both RBC staff. Neither has bothered to address my question.
I fear that (unless we see a parenthetical period of revival in response to a desperate cry from God’s people) we are just now seeing the small, beginning waves of a soon-coming tsunami of apostasy. The signs are clear: Many formerly sound ministries going ecumenical at the cost of truth. Dehaan & RBC drifting. The Gaithers flirting with W.P. Young and Emergent leaders. Billy Graham on Schuller’s show saying a person can be a born again, heaven -bound Muslim or Atheist, never having heard the gospel or even the name of Jesus. The “Emerging “church” downplaying the Bible, the Church and the Cross. The brain washing of American youth re: homosexuality (an all out attack on the inspiration and reliability of the Word of God). The recent poll showing 57 percent of evangelical church attenders believe many religions can lead to eternal life…and on and on… grab a flashlight, the lights are going out fast!

Comment on Video Converter for Flash (and everything else) by JC

JC — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:35:12 +0000

Thanks bro, I can really use something like this.

Comment on Mart De Haan and Emergent Church Influence? by Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 04:34:37 +0000

A friend of mine made these comments about contemplative spirituality:
“Regarding your remarks about the Emergent Church movement: the potential trouble with quiet contemplation is that the individuals participating in this are alone with their thoughts. The original deception of Genesis 3 consisted of Eve’s failure to accurately recall the commands of God, and her being convinced to rely on her own assessment of what her course of action would be. Trust in God, in contrast, infers an necessary distrust of one’s self; a reliance upon Divine revelation and not one’s own insights, as Proverbs 3:5,6 indicate.”