Posted on 08/01/2006 12:42:58 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
In the first chapter of their new book, 20 Compelling Evidences that God exists, Ken Boa and Robert Bowman write, “We don’t mean to discourage you from reading the rest of this book. But in the interest of full disclosure, we should tell you that, in a sense, there is only one good reason to believe that God exists: because it’s true.”
That statement is both profound and well expressed. Unfortunately, these days it’s not the kind of statement you can make in public without having scorn heaped upon your head. As the authors jokingly point out, the popular viewpoint regarding truth is, “Anyone who believes that he is right and others are wrong is intolerant.” Now that’s self-contradictory on its face, but it’s almost certain to be thrown at you if you assert a truth claim.
That’s why Boa and Bowman have titled their book 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists—because they recognize that for any claim to truth to be taken seriously in today’s culture, it needs solid evidence to back it up. As the authors write, “There are many such evidences, but they all have value because they help us see that the God of the Bible is real.” In fewer than two hundred pages, they clearly and concisely examine some of today’s most pervasive worldviews and their flaws. Then they present their case for God’s existence and His revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ.
What kind of evidences are they talking about? There’s an amazing variety. They don’t state it right upfront, but they are organizing their “20 compelling evidences” in a way that takes readers through the doctrines of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration—the four basic elements of the Christian worldview that I set forth in How Now Shall We Live?
They start with evidence about the universe and the origins of life. And they talk, for example, about how finely our solar system and our planet had to be calibrated to support life. At “an extremely conservative estimate,” they say, the probability of our planet being capable of sustaining us is about one in a billion. It had to be at just the right place in the solar system, which had to be at just the right place in the galaxy. Even the expansion of the universe had to happen at just the right rate in order for all of us to be here today.
From evidence about the universe, the authors move on to evidence of humanity’s sinful nature; then evidence of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection; and finally, evidence of those who have lived and died for Christ. Examining concepts ranging from Greek philosophy to archeology to the Big Bang theory to postmodernism, the authors make a powerful case for the existence of a loving Creator.
In short, I highly recommend Boa and Bowman’s book. They provide in a very readable form an excellent apologetic resource for Christians wondering how to defend their faith in a world that’s “tolerant” of everything except Christianity.
Ken Boa is a great apologist—one of the most engaging and popular teachers in our Centurion’s training program. You can visit our website, BreakPoint.org, to find out how you can get 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists. While you’re there, be sure to check out some of our other Christian worldview resources.
That's not the point. In a theocracy (or in that case a monarchy by divine right), all rights come from God, and they weren't respected as we see them today.
Determined is different than derived, no?
It doesn't matter whether the rights are derived from a deity or the concept of natural rights. Their enumeration is determined by man.
Simple example, the 2nd Amendment recognizes the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms, and declares that it shall not be infringed. England, a more Christian-based country than ours, does not recognize that right. Besides, that right is barely recognized in our own country, as I'd call not being able to get a 13-round magazine for a pistol during the assault weapons ban an infringement.
As Paine pointed out in "Common Sense", the "divine right" of monarchs was not "divine". Paine cited the Bible to help make his case. God warned his people *against* raising up kings.
It doesn't matter whether the rights are derived from a deity or the concept of natural rights. Their enumeration is determined by man.
The enumeration by men only serves the purpose of laying out an outline for men's laws, which rights will a society defend, not create, defend. Natural law does not support the equality of men. Look at affirmative action to see how poorly government "creates" equality.
Simple example, the 2nd Amendment recognizes the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms, and declares that it shall not be infringed. England, a more Christian-based country than ours, does not recognize that right. Besides, that right is barely recognized in our own country, as I'd call not being able to get a 13-round magazine for a pistol during the assault weapons ban an infringement.
When too many men believe their rights are derived from the state, the results you are seeing are to be expected. Anything the state can give, it can also take away.
Didn't say that it did - just responding to your "enjoy separation from God" comment - it would seem to imply that I had a choice in the matter.
Do remember that I was not talking about the king himself, but an official of the Church.
The enumeration by men only serves the purpose of laying out an outline for men's laws, which rights will a society defend, not create, defend. Natural law does not support the equality of men.
Men still define that which is to be defended.
When too many men believe their rights are derived from the state, the results you are seeing are to be expected.
Definitely. The rights have to be recognized as inviolate and higher than the state. Whether they are god-given or natural is irrelevant as long as those in power respect the source.
I am very sorry to hear that.
They have?
Who?
Hard-sell.
Like the kind you get at a car lot.
Monarchs & church officials have something in common, they're human. Don't try to equate opinions of men about God's will with God's will.
Men still define that which is to be defended.
Yes, of course.
The rights have to be recognized as inviolate and higher than the state. Whether they are god-given or natural is irrelevant as long as those in power respect the source.
Let's say I accept your premise, god-given & natural sources are interchangable. Beyond Ogg & his club, cite proof that it is in the nature of men to believe in individual liberty. I would argue that acceptance of servitude is just as natural, maybe even more natural. We partition ourselves into classes & accept our roles within our internalized class. Geeks, freaks & jocks (am I dating myself?) were the class labels used when I was a kid. White collar, professional, blue collar, working class, welfare class... even if we want better we accept our roles.
"antiRepublicrat" - standing on the outside shaking your fist at the herd mentality of your fellow citizens will not change their nature.
Unless God wants to come down and clearly set down his will and the fine interpretations of it, his will is determined by the opinions of men.
White collar, professional, blue collar, working class, welfare class... even if we want better we accept our roles.
No we don't, otherwise there would be no progress. Communism wanted people to accept their roles. The Church wanted people to accept their roles (don't worry, Heaven will be better, we promise). Over here we have a poor Irish immigrant kid in the 1800s growing up to be the richest person in the country.
"antiRepublicrat" - standing on the outside shaking your fist at the herd mentality of your fellow citizens will not change their nature.
Actually, its a combination of lamentation that the two parties are almost alike and often act in unison against the good of the people ("bipartisan" is the scariest word in politics), and a reference to Washington's warning about the power of party.
A good answer is because God says so. Look at the first four words of the Bible! “In the beginning God.....”
As it should be. (It almost seems as if Colson sneers at that particular aspect of today's culture). Of course neither he nor the authors of the book he's pushing provide such evidence. Belief in God is just that - belief. Faith, not science. ...not that there's anything wrong with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.