2010-08-26

AiG: The ‘Moa’s Ark theory’ basically says that New Zealand’s animal and plant life evolved ‘largely untouched’, i.e. isolated in New Zealand from life in the rest of the world, over a period of 80 million years. Evolutionary theory needs long, long periods of time. Creation theory coupled with the record of the flood provides an alternative. New Zealand’s fauna fits with a Creation–Noah’s Ark perspective of origins and biogeography. From that perspective, the earth’s post-Flood land areas about 4,500 years ago were completely devoid of all land animals and birds, as any creature with “the breath of life in its nostrils” (Genesis 7:22) had perished in the Flood, unless it was on the Ark. The process of repopulating the earth with land animals radiating out from the Ark’s landing site in the Middle East was made easier by the presence of land bridges. Evolutionists once believed that the giant flightless birds—moas, ostriches, rheas, emus and cassowaries—were all related and were a primitive group which had not yet evolved the ability to fly. Now they believe those flightless birds evolved from flying ancestors and are not from a common stock. This belief—no common ancestor and loss of ability (to fly)—of course fits a biblical perspective better than an evolutionary one. http://creation.com/moas-ark-vs-noahs-ark

CEH: This article notes the propensity of scientists to invade every other field. “Today’s science sweeps everything into its domain, including the human mind, intellect, emotions, will, creativity, and our most sincere beliefs and actions.  When not explained in terms of evolutionary impulses from some animal past, they are often described in sterile, dispassionate terms, reducing our sincerely held beliefs, choices and partnerships into matters of neurotransmitters in the brain or impulses little different than the behavior of ants. ” The article lists ten example, such as the evolution of crying, moral calorimeters, and the evolution of marriage. Who Invited the Scientist in Here-

Piper answers how ‘love seeks not its own’ does not contradict Christian hedonism. “It is right to want our loving to be a certain kind of gain, and very wrong to want it to be another kind of gain. If my gain comes from stepping on you, manipulating you, exploiting you, being indifferent or insensitive to you, or using you, then I'm not loving.” “The alternative is that I seek my joy in your blessing. I seek my joy in your joy. I seek my joy in your salvation. I seek my joy in loving you as I long to be loved. That is the gain that verse 3 tells us we receive when we love.” God wants us to seek our joy in loving people. Love seeks its joy in the happiness of the beloved. So seeking your own in not seeking your own. Consider whether you feel that someone is loving when they are compelled to kindness by duty, etc. and yet are begrudging. Would you not rather have them want to be kind? To take joy in it? Find your joy in the joy of the beloved, because you get the best joy that way, and they really feel loved that way. Seeking Your Own in Loving Others

From Mahaney’s blog: Christ has been raised, and so both the cross and the grave are now empty. In light of this, isn’t it wrong to focus on a crucified Savior when, after all, we serve a living Christ? This creates a dangerous and false choice. He is risen. And he is also the suffering servant. To conceive of Christ apart from the cross is to distort his identity and his mission, much as Peter did when he rebuked Jesus for announcing his pending suffering and death (Mark 8:31-33). We can infer God’s greatness and power from his creation (Romans 1:19-20), but it is at the cross that his love and mercy are most fully revealed. 2- Why focus on a crucified Savior when we serve a risen Savior-

JT: This post lists numerous ways Jesus supersedes and fulfills the types and persons of the Old Testament. The Bible isn’t about you. It’s about Jesus. The Bible Is Not Basically about You

T-fan notes how mitochondrial DNA is a problem for evolutionists. Passed down maternally, it’s commonly understood that there is a ‘mitochondrial Eve’, the female ancestor of all living humans. T-fan observes how a scientist simply speculates, without knowing, or evidence, that there is ‘always some other female that predates [Eve]’. How on earth would we have access to this information? Mitochondrial Eve

This looks useful – eight questions in moral valuation. 1) am I fully persuaded that it is right? 2) can I do it as unto the Lord? 3) can I do it without being a stumbling block to my brother or sister in Christ?  4) does it bring peace? 5) does it edify my brother? 6) is it profitable? 7) does it enslave me? 8) does it bring glory to God?  Scripture distinguishes between actions covered by moral absolutes and those that are not. Believers must make up their own minds (under the Holy Spirit’s leading) on what to do in matters of Christian liberty. Personal preferences must not be imposed on others. Eight Questions to Ask in Making a Moral Decision in the Category of Liberty

Triablogue: A Florida church is commemorating the 9th anniversary of September 11 by holding a burn a Qur’an day. i) A Christian does not take a stand against Islam by burning a Qur'an.  A conservative American might, yes, but the two terms are far from interchangeable. ii) Nobody seems to see the obvious connections to what's been done for centuries by Islam and decades by brainless liberals. iii) This kind of activity reveals one's heart with respect to missions and outreach to those who do not know Jesus Christ. iv) The pastor makes many true points about Islam, but others are ignorant – like judging the truth of a religion by how many smiles its adherents make. v) All the true problems with Islam are reasons to share the Gospel with Muslims. It would seem the pastor is first an American, though. Burn a Qur'an Day