Deception and Apostasy

Link: about.me/gideonsword

The following post consists of two articles. The first, 'If It Looks So Good, How Can It Be Deception', is a timely warning for the modern-day church in North America -- a church which is increasingly being led down the road to apostasy by sensual, feelings-driven religious movements which appeal to the senses but have little to do with the sound doctrine and solid principles of Bible teaching. The second article, 'Pathway to Apostasy', is a commentary from Roger Oakland in which he shares some concerns concerning the direction and trends which evangelical Christianity is following today. Following both articles I have included a video presentation of a sermon by Pastor Carter Conlon (Times Square Church) entitled, 'Run For Your Lives', in which Bro. Conlon, annointed by the Holy Spirit, gives a tearful exhortation to the church to avoid false teachings and doctrines of demons at ALL COSTS.

If It Looks So Good,
How Can It Be Deception?

Author: Barbara Wilhelm
Source: web.archive.org - 11/1997




"Now the serpent was more subtle and crafty than any creature of the field which God had made." (Gen. 3:1 - Amplified version)

"But also (in those days) there arose false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among your-selves, who will subtly and stealthily introduce heretical doctrines." ( 2 Pet. 2:1)

"For certain men have crept in stealthily - gaining entrance secretly by a side door." (Jude 4)


How often do we hear the refrain - if it looks so "good" ("brings forth such "good fruit"), how can it be deception? Are we expecting deception to be obvious? Why then would the Bible describe it as "more subtle and crafty, stealthily" gaining entrance as by a side door? Barnes Commentary states in the analysis of 2 Peter 2:1 that,

"...(false teachers) would not at first make an open avowal of their doctrines, but would, in fact, while their teachings seemed to be in accordance with truth, secretly maintain opinions which would sap the very foundations of religion. The Greek words used in the preceding verses means properly to lead in along with others. Nothing could better express the usual way in which error is introduced. It is by the side, or along with, other doctrines which are true; that is, while the mind is turned mainly to other subjects, and is off its guard, gently and silently to lay down some principle, which, being admitted, would lead to error. Those who preach error rarely do it openly."

THEREFORE, WE SHOULD EXPECT DECEPTION TO LOOK "GOOD"!! According to the Bible, the easiest method of deception is for error to ride on the back of truth. We hear what is, indeed, truth being preached. We assume that everything, therefore, being preached is truth, that everything being done is Biblical, so we let down our guard...and error and deception can then enter "secretly by the side door." Do we forget that it is a little bit of leaven that leavens the whole loaf?

Let's carefully examine what the Bible says about things that look "good." A few simple - yet startling - examples:

Gen. 13:10 - What did God describe as looking "like the Garden of the Lord"? SODOM (where exceedingly great sinners lived, v.13)

Ezek. 28:12- Who did God say was "the full measure and pattern of exactness - full of wisdom and PERFECT IN BEAUTY"? SATAN

Matt. 7:15 - Who will come "dressed as sheep" on the outside, "but inside are devouring wolves"? False prophets...looking "good."

Acts 20:29-30 also speaks of "ferocious wolves" that come from "inside", from those thought to be in the flock of Christ.

Matt. 23:12 - Who "looked beautiful on the outside"? The Pharisees who "inside are full of dead men's bones and everything impure."

2 Cor. 11:14,15 - Who will come as an "angel of light" and as "ministers of righteousness"? Satan and his servants.

Conclusion: deception looks "good" on the outside, but inside it is deadly.

It requires diligence to discern when Satan comes as an "angel of light", bringing what looks like the "light" of new revelation on a holy subject: when he comes, not as a devil, but as "another Jesus"; not with out-and- out heresy, but with "another Gospel"; and when he does all this in a religious setting, as "another spirit" (2 Cor. 11:4). Have we forgotten that Satan is a "religious" creature? Have we not realized that false gospels are not completely new gospels, rather they are true gospels with a few "minor" changes? Didn't the Galatians believe the basic truths of Christianity? Yet, Paul said, not once but twice, that they were to be "accursed" (Gal.1:8-9) for receiving a "different gospel," for making a few changes to the true gospel.

Perhaps, we need to look at some passages of Scripture in greater detail so that we may grow in discernment and avoid the deadly dangers of deception. Let's start at the beginning...

Genesis 3 contains the foundational truths of discerning deception. The Garden of Eden was a perfect religious setting; and into this perfect religious setting came deception. The relationship between God and the man and woman was so close that He "walked in the garden in the cool of the day" with them. This was spiritual intimacy of the highest order. And therein was part of Satan's subtle deception - he tempted the woman in the realm of that spiritual intimacy to become closer to God, to be more like Him (v.5). Let's remember that deception came before the Fall, before sin corrupted her mind with the twisted knowledge of what good and evil were. Exactly because of the purity of her being, this deception had to come in a very "good" disguise - so it came disguised in a holy desire for her to be closer to the God she loved. Such a holy desire - but, in order for it to be fulfilled she had to disobey His one "small" warning: just take one bite of what looked "good" to her. Here was the first appearance of the "angel of light", bringing new "light" in a "holy" way. And she did eat...and Adam did likewise. And they lost everything. The temptation looked "good"; it sounded "holy"; and it would allow them to grow "wise" - how could this be bad when it looked so good?

In their deception and sin, the man and woman did not even first realize there was any change in them: "After Eve had eaten and apparently suffered no ill effect, this constituted an additional argument why Adam need not hesitate to adopt the same course" (Barnes Commentary). After all, she hadn't died as God said she would if she ate of the fruit, so it must be safe. But, "they eat, they expect marvelous results, they wait and there grows on them a sense of shame" (ibid). When we are first deceived, we may still seem to be holy - perhaps we may even think we are more holy - but in time a sense of shame will grow on us. We have partaken of that which God has forbidden in His Word: we have fallen for that which we think looks "good."

In the Garden of Eden, wasn't one of the things the Lord was saying was that He had already given the man and woman ALL they need? They did not need more than all the trees and fruits He had already provided for them. Today, isn't He trying to tell us the same thing? He has given us salvation and the baptism of the Holy Spirit - there is no "more" described in the Bible. Then why is the cry across the land for "more, Lord, more"? Biblically, what "more" is there? Do we not already have all we need?

Then there is the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt. 13:24-30. Unger's Bible Dictionary defines tares as:

a poisonous grass almost indistinguishable from wheat while the two are growing into blade, at the beginning. When they come into ear, they can be separated without difficulty.

At the beginning all the crop "looks good", according to what the eye can see. But as time goes on the tares become visible. The wheat is sown first by the Lord. Then the enemy sows his tares as men sleep. Isn't this another way of saying that first, the true gospel may be preached, but "alongside" of that tares are sown? (remember 2 Peter 2) The Matthew Henry Commentary states:

"...when reason and conscience sleep, and people are off their guard then the enemy comes in...Note, when Satan is doing the greatest mischief, he studies most to conceal himself; for his design is in danger of being spoiled if he be seen in it; and therefore when he comes to sow tares, he transforms himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:13,14)...The tares appeared not until the blade sprung up and brought forth fruit, v.26. As the good seed, so the tares lie a great while under the soil, and at first springing up, it is hard to distinguish them..."

All revivals may look good: great enthusiasm and devotion may be displayed. But, religious enthusiasm in itself is not evidence of the truth. The Pharisees had great religious enthusiasm, so do Catholic mystics and Mormon missionaries. Yet, remember Matt. 7:21-23:

"Not every one who says to Me, Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in YOUR NAME, and driven out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty miracles in YOUR NAME? And then I will say to them openly, Depart from Me, I never knew you." (Emphasis added)

Who were in danger: just a few? No, many. Were evil acts being performed? No, they were doing miracles, great signs and wonders, prophesying. Were they done in a demon's name? No, in JESUS' NAME! In His Holy Name. Yet, He said - depart from Me. How "good" it all looks and sounds - in our eyes. Not in His.

Moses was a true man of God, working true miracles. Yet, in the beginning, his miracles were duplicated by Pharaoh's magicians (Ex. 7:11-12, 22;8:7). So that we do not forget how prone we always are to "signs-and- wonders" deceptions, 2 Tim. 2:5-9 makes references to these magicians, Jannes and Jambres by name. It warns against "silly" (v.6) people who are "forever inquiring and getting information, but are never able to arrive at a knowledge of the Truth" (v.7). Verse 9 promises that these counterfeits will eventually be exposed. But, in the meantime, they will continue performing signs and wonders, counterfeit signs and wonders.

Counterfeits, in the real world, are only successful in so far as they, as closely as possible, imitate the real. Only very close scrutiny will show that that $100 bill is not legal tender. In the real world, if a warning went forth that there were counterfeiters at large, wouldn't we scrutinize our money with great diligence? Yet, there are "spiritual counterfeits" at large and so many are naively accepting what they teach at face value. There is so much more at stake - our spiritual lives hang in the balance.

The whole chapter of Deut. 13 is a warning about deception, but perhaps the most alarming verses are 1-3:

"If a prophet arises among you and gives you a sign or wonder and the sign or wonder he foretells to you COMES TO PASS, and if he says, Let us go after other gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them. You shall not listen to the words of that prophet; for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your mind and heart and with your entire being." (Emphasis added)

Note: the man called himself a prophet of God. He came from among them, like the tares are among the wheat, like error comes alongside truth. And, incredibly, what he said CAME TO PASS! IT LOOKED GOOD!! Yet, God says not to listen to him; on the contrary, v.8 says that that prophet is to be put to death for talking rebellion.

The Lord says all this deception is sent as a test to know whether we love Him totally. Interestingly, the remedy for deception is for us to do our own "testing." In 1 Thess. 5:21 we are commanded by God to "prove all things until you can recognize what is good; to that hold fast." The word prove in scripture is a metallurgist's term. It is referred to in Jer. 6:27-30. An assayer or prover is to test ore closely because fool's gold looks so much like real gold ( it "looks good.") Once the assayer tests the ore and discovers it is gold, he then tests it further to see how pure that gold is -- 10k, 12k, 24k, etc. Interesting isn't it: God tests us to see if we are gold and how pure gold we are, and we are to test all things to see if they are gold and how pure they are. In Acts 17: 11 the Bereans were commended as being "more noble" because they took the Scriptures so seriously that they even tested the teachings of Paul. Notice that they did not use the fluctuating criteria of emotions or experiences in their testing; they used the only one reliable, trustworthy, infallible standard - the Word of God. Isa. 8:20 commands, "Direct people to the teaching and the testimony; if their teachings are not in accord with this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Where is the purest gold found? in the City of God (Rev. 21:21). We are only fit for this Golden City as we, too, are purified and immerse ourselves in pure teaching. In John 17:17 Jesus Himself said: "Sanctify them by the Truth. THY WORD is truth." (Emphasis added) Not our emotions, not our experiences, not by how "good" it looks or sounds or feels...by THY WORD.

I will close this by two simple examples of testing popular teachings by the holy standard of the Bible:

How many times have we heard that the end-times will be marked by revival? Yet, revival is NOT the sign of the end-times. DECEPTION is the sign of the end times. So says Jesus in Matt. 24 in v. 4-5,11,23-24. So says Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3.

How often have we been hearing lately about "miraculous signs and wonders"? The problem is that whenever signs and wonders are mentioned in the Bible in relation to the end times, they are called LYING signs and wonders! So says Jesus in Matt. 24:24 and Paul in 2 Thess. 2:9 ( see also 2 Pet. 2). Jesus in fact warns strongly against signs and wonders in Mt 12:39 and 16:4 --"An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." Then why are so many today being applauded for the "signs and wonders" in their midst?

Modern Day Application
There is a movement occurring today that, sadly, illustrates the principle herein described: error comes in alongside truth. I am speaking of the "Pensacola Revival" at Brownsville Assembly of God Church. I have personally viewed video tapes of numerous Brownsville services and read countless articles from Biblical authorities on their observations regarding the "Pensacola Revival." The Word that is preached may be holy. The burden for the lost and the heart's desire for the flock may be real. Individuals' lives may have changed for the better because of a sincere desire for God. BUT are the "impartations", the "birthings", the physical manifestations and emotional excesses truly of God? Are they not, instead, errors that have come alongside truth and are not those "little bits of leaven" in terrible danger of leavening the whole loaf?

We cannot test what we see and hear by our emotions or by experience: the only remedy for deception is the truth, the objective truth of God's Word. We must discern what is light and what is darkness. We must test the origins of this revival, its teachings and its total conformity to Scripture. Only by testing can we know what is true and to be embraced and what is deception and to be avoided.

Our criteria for truth, therefore, is not if it looks, sounds or feels "good." Partaking of the tree of the knowledge of GOOD and evil was our first sin - thinking we knew what was "good". The remedy for that sin in the Garden of Eden was "Yes, God HATH said!" Today, the remedy is still the same - has God said in His Word that it is good. Let our prayer be that in Isa. 11:2-3:

"(That) the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon ( us), the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the reverential and obedient fear of he Lord. And make us of quick understanding, and (let our) delight be in the reverential and obedient fear of the Lord. And (let us) NOT judge by the sight of (our eyes) neither decide by the hearing of (our) ears"...Nor by how "good" it looks or sounds or feels. Amen." (Amplified Version).

Pathway to Apostasy

Commentary by: Roger Oakland
Source: Understand The Times International: Roger Oakland Ministries
www.understandthetimes.org




Recently, I was contacted by a friend and colleague who also has a discernment ministry. He was surveying other discernment ministries in order to come up with a list of the top ten subtle ways the body of Christ is presently being led astray. As I was busy speaking at a conference at the time I received his e-mail, I wrote him back and told him I would get back to him in a few days.

While flying back to my home after the conference, I took out my computer and responded to my friend’s request. The topics I had presented at the conference were still fresh in my mind. Following are the first ten trends I have personally encountered. While I am certain there are many more, the following ten trends provide a good overview of what is taking place in the church today:

- Ecumenical unity at any cost yet completely void of any connection to the message that Jesus died on the Cross.

- The church-growth movement, which is focused on a market-driven seeker-friendly Christianity emphasizing a megachurch mentality.

- A Christianity focused on following men, their methods, and their movements.

- A Jesuit agenda promoted by publishers and pastors proclaiming the teachings and ideas of Roman Catholic church fathers and Roman Catholic mystics.

- The rejection of biblical creation and the acceptance of theistic evolution and progressive creation.

- The acceptance of New Age ancient Babylonian practices such as yoga and contemplative prayer as a means of “getting closer to Jesus.”

- A false Christianity that substitutes the gospel according to the Scriptures with a social gospel.

- The “Purpose-driven P.E.A.C.E. Plan” that prepares the church for a global one-world religion.

- An experience-based “Christianity” that seeks after signs and wonders and rejects the biblical warnings of a Last Days spiritual deception found in the Bible.

- The compromising of the church in order to become “postmodern” and “progressive” in an attempt to reach the postmodern generation.


It was not my objective to place these various trends in their order of importance. The fact is, each one is occurring, and the vast majority of professing Christians are not even aware these trends are happening or even that there is a problem. Perhaps in the future, these ten points would make good chapter headings for a small book that would deal with each topic in more detail.

For now, let me say I believe biblical Christianity is under attack like it has never been before. We are not only on a “slippery slope” -- Christianity is ready to fall off the cliff. As Jesus asked in Luke 18:18: When the Son of man cometh, will He find faith?

Current events indicate the pathway to apostasy is leading exactly in the direction foretold by the Scriptures.

RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!

Sermon presented by: Pastor Carter Conlon at the Times Square Church
Source: Youtube - NeverSurrender channel

Religious Pluralism

Life or Death...The Choice is Yours

Part 2: Religious Pluralism

It is tragically true that few of those who believe that all spiritual beliefs are valid paths to God seem to have made an in depth study of various religions to see if their claims are based on fact, or fairy dust.

Author: Carol Brooks
Edited by: Vicki Narlee
Source: InPlainSite.org
Link: about.me/gideomsword

Sections:

Part 1: Religious Tolerance: What It Means and What It Doesn't Mean
Part 2: What Is Religious Pluralism?
Part Three: Three Common Beliefs of Religious Pluralism
Part Four: Contradictory Claims
Part Five: Ambiguity: Restricted Solely to Spirituality
Part Six: Charges Often Leveled at Christians
Part Seven: The Million Dollar Question
Part Eight: Judging Religious Claims



Religious Tolerance

One of the more recent buzzwords in an increasingly diverse society, is "tolerance". A large percentage of the population, cheerfully confusing democracy and truth, has run with the idea that equal tolerance of all religions means that one has to accept all religions as being equally valid paths to God.

Not so!

What It Means
The English word ‘tolerate' means to put up with something you may not like, agree with or approve of etc. In a religious context, it simply means that a person of one faith will tolerate, or put up with, other religions, and will not, in any way, discriminate against people because of their religious convictions.

And no one can argue that this is not the right thing to do.

The pages of history are blood soaked by the terrible consequences of man's extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, opinion, or practice that differs from his own. Religious bigotry has led to so called holy wars... the crusades, inquisitions etc., all of which were all morally reprehensible, and makes it extremely important that we do all we can to foster religious freedom. Every man and woman alive has the right to choose whatever religious path they wish.

What It Doesn't Mean
Having said that, I have to point out that religious tolerance does not mean that

a) A person of one religion agrees with, or endorses some, or any, of the beliefs of another.
Hundreds of thousands of people who have, apparently, never heard of a dictionary, think 'religious tolerance' means that you are supposed to accept any and all spiritual beliefs as having some truth, regardless of whether you think they contradict facts, or even make a whit of sense.

b) A person of one faith cannot, or will not, argue or debate the validity of their own religion.
One outcome of this misuse, of the word 'tolerance' (which I thought was a simple easy-to-understand word in the English language) is that proselytizing, or trying to induce someone to convert to one's own religious point of view, is seen as "intolerant". People who do so are often accused of trying to 'cram their religious views down others throats'. Unfortunately this is another skewed view of 'tolerance'. People have as much right to argue, discuss, and debate the validity of their own religion, as much as any other topic. However, should person two reject any of what is put forth, person one accepts that everyone has the right to believe and practice what they do.

I will defend to the death your right to believe as you do, just as much as I will defend to the death my right to try and convince you that you are wrong.

(Note: The same lack of understanding of basic English comes up when Christians are accused of being "homophobic" when they state their belief that homosexuality is wrong. See Footnote I)

The claims made by Christianity are constantly being challenged by other people. In fact, we live in a time when the only prejudice that is tolerated is the prejudice against Christians and Christianity. However, on the precept of 'what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander', the truth claims of other religions are also open to challenge.

Also, it is perhaps worthwhile mentioning that advocates of this "tolerance" are, very often, not in the slightest bit tolerant themselves. They only tolerate those who agree with them, not those who make truth claims. For example, if a Christian were to say Jesus is the only way to God, he, or she, would be accused of being narrow minded, arrogant, intolerant and a host of other, less than complimentary, adjectives. This, by any standard, is not tolerance at all. What the accuser usually forgets is that the very tolerance that they so emphatically espouse, requires them to be tolerant of the Christian who is stating his, or her, beliefs.

Besides which, as Grantley Morris so rightly says... "should you talk to any vigorous proponent of the tolerance issue, you would find that when it comes to issues that happen to be close to their hearts .. animal cruelty, racism, rape, environmental vandalism, nuclear warfare, banning abortion etc. (to name a few possibilities) tolerance would take a flying leap out of the window, and what they believe would matter very much." [1]

Additionally, it is equally important that we not confuse tolerance and truth, which I will come to a little further down.


What Is Religious Pluralism?

Occasionally used as a synonym for ecumenism, religious pluralism believes there are many spiritual paths to the same destination. In other words, even if all roads don't actually lead to Rome, all have some value in that they provide comfort and moral guidance to their adherents. A very common claim heard today is that no religion is absolutely true (the word "absolute" means unconditional... unlimited by restrictions or exceptions.) And this view appears to be more widespread than we realize.

In his book Absolute Confusion, George Barna reported that two-thirds of all adults (62%) believe that "it does not matter what religious faith you follow because all faiths teach similar lessons about life." [2] This was substantiated by a major nationwide survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center in 2007. An interview with more than 35,000 adults in the U.S. showed that:

"Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%)." [3]

Religious pluralists, who sometimes call themselves "spiritually eclectic", believe that it doesn't really matter what spiritual path you follow because 1. there is no conclusive evidence in favor of one religion being 'right' and 2. there is at least some validity and truth in almost all religions and philosophies. All that matters is that you are "sincere", and have some version of God in there somewhere. Religious pluralists, therefore, do not follow one religion to the exclusion of all others, but tend to pick and choose (usually from varied traditional religious beliefs) those doctrines, philosophies and/or practices that resonate with them...what pastor Greg Koukl aptly calls a "Pious Porridge". [4]

The last verse of English music journalist, biographer and poet, Steve Turner's satirical poem, entitled Creed says..

We believe that each man must find the truth
that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust. History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

And, heaven help the person who actually happens to think that anothers religious views may actually be wrong. Pluralists often accuse Christians of being imperious, overbearing and arrogant because they think they are right, and other spiritual paths/religions are wrong. However, what rarely seems to occur to any one is that these very same pluralists think all non-pluralist beliefs are wrong. In other words they are just as dogmatic as the people they rail against.

What few realize is that Christianity is not the only religion that claims exclusivity (the belief that only one religion is true.)

Islam claims theological and linguistic exclusivity....Muslims believe that the sole and consummate miracle of Islam is the Qur’an, and that only in Arabic (any translation is believed to de-sanctify it.) The Qur’an itself says "And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers." (Imran 3:85. Sahih International)

Hinduism, while claiming to be a religion that 'accepts all religions to be true', is absolutely uncompromising on the authority on the Vedas (Hindu scripture), the law of karma (the law of moral cause and effect) and reincarnation. Indian philosopher Swami Vivekananda said "The path of the Upanishads is the pure path" through which "truth becomes clear." [5]

Additionally, while pluralistic beliefs may sound very tolerant and enlightened, none of them hold up under, even the slightest, scrutiny. Let's examine the more common ones.


Three Common Beliefs of Religious Pluralism

1) It Doesn’t Matter What You Believe as Long as You're Sincere
But, as Grantley Morris asks, "what if you believe...All you need for skydiving is a good umbrella. Plumbers have better cures for constipation than doctors.
Red traffic lights mean 'go'."

And, as he goes on to say, "In the physical world, what you believe is critical. And the same God made the spiritual realm. Try telling a victim of Hinduism that it doesn't matter what you believe. Especially before Christian influence gained momentum in India, millions of Hindus sincerely believed that:
Baby girls should be drowned in the Ganges so they can be reincarnated as boys.
Surviving widows should be cremated alive with their deceased husbands.
The gross discrimination and prejudice of the Hindu caste system should be enforced.
It is better not to relieve human suffering because that would be interfering with people’s karma." [6]

In this regard, the late Dave Hunt tells an amusing, but very telling story. He says he was in hospital for surgery and, during his stay, enjoyed talking to the doctors and nurses "about what really matters". He goes on to say that he was shocked at how many nurses declared they could believe what they wanted. Dave's response was to tell the medical staff to remove the I.V. and let him out of there. This, obviously, met with some consternation until he explained to them that he was not willing to be treated in a hospital where nurses and doctors could believe whatever they want. The staff then explained that they were talking only about religion, and he had no need to worry since here were definite medical procedures for treating patients.

In other words, there are rules for caring for the body but, when it comes to ones eternal soul, anything goes. As Dave went on to say:

"Such is the irrational thinking engaged in by the majority of people today. They can be very sensible and careful about things in this life, but when it comes to eternity they literally throw reason to the winds." [7]

2) Every Religion Only Has A Portion Of The Truth
A common analogy often used to illustrate the point that every religion only has a portion of the truth is the story of the blind men who are trying to describe an elephant by touching the elephant's body. The blind man who only feels a leg claims the elephant resembles a pillar; the one who feels the tail thinks the elephant is more like a rope; the one who touches the trunk says the elephant is like the branch of a tree, and the one who touches the elephant's side believes the elephant is much like a wall, and so on.

In other words, the parable claims to show that no one religion, or individual, has the whole picture (truth), and to claim to do so is unmitigated arrogance.

What is truly amazing is how many people nod their heads very wisely at this parable without thinking it through.

The problem being that only someone who knows exactly how much truth is out there, can claim that each religion only has a portion of that truth. The only way this parable makes any sense at all is, if the person relating the story, has seen the entire elephant, which means they are claiming to have knowledge that they say none of the religions have.

Unless you have seen the whole elephant....unless you know what the absolute truth is, your belief that no religion has this truth is nothing but a personal opinion.

3) All Religions Stem From The Same Source
It is sometimes argued that the one omniscient deity created all religions in order to reach people from various cultures and backgrounds, in a way that most appeals to them. Therefore, although their customs and practices may be different, all religions stem from the same source. Advocates of this position often appeal to the common factors between religions, most especially the fact that many of them have a similar moral code and often produce positive moral changes in their followers.

A comment made by "bhinkson41' on an article in Time magazine entitled 'Viewpoint: The Limitations of Being ‘Spiritual but Not Religious’, by Rabbi David Wolpe, serves to illustrate what seems to be a very common viewpoint:

"All religions have a common moral code and are based on living a moral, positive life....The difference between a muslim, a catholic, any other religious person and a SBNR is really just specific customs, holidays and traditions, not what is being taught or advocated in each sect."[08]

However, although this theory may, on the surface, sound quite enticing, it has a fatal flaw. If all religions stem from one source, they have to possess similar truths, at least on the major issues, and this is certainly not the case. A second verse of English journalist, Steve Turner's satirical poem, entitled Creed says,

We believe that all religions are basically the same,
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation sin heaven hell God and salvation.

We should, for a start, note that not only were several religions founded in opposition to ones existing at the time, but they contradict each other on the most vital of issues:

Buddhism in India blossomed as a result of people seeking freedom from an extremely oppressive, caste-ridden society, which stipulated strict norms of ritualistic worship, and granted special status to just a handful of the "privileged class" of society, while looking down upon the rest of the population.[9] Gautama Buddha rejected the ultimate authority of the Vedas and the caste system creating a new emphasis on renunciation and transcendental knowledge.[10]

Sikhism came as a challenge to both Hinduism and Islam. Guru Nanak’s disciples rebelled against the established social order and created a whole new identity for themselves. After a vision, the founder, Guru Nanak, said since God was neither Hindu nor Mussulman, the path he would follow would be God's path. [11]

Bahai: "While Baha'ullah considered that "Qur'an held pride of place among the sacred writings of the world", he "did not accept a traditional account of Islam. He rejected polygamy, slavery, and the concept of holy war (jihad). Much of the Qur'anic teaching was modified or explained in an allegorical or metaphorical sense. Thus belief in angels and evil spirits was dropped. Heaven and hell were treated symbolically. In these and other ways the monotheism of Muhammad was liberated from the particular thoughtforms and regulations natural at the time of the Prophet, and were given a new look." [12]


Contradictory Claims

Anyone who insists that all religions are equally true, or at least, there is validity to be found in all religions is ignoring the fact that claims made by one, often flatly contradict claims made by some of the others. In fact they do not agree on the most crucial of all questions... whether or not there is only one God and, if there is only one, who He is, how we relate to Him, what happens to us after we die, etc. For example, the Bible says that there is only one God, which Muslims and Jews agree with.
In Hinduism, Brahman is often seen as an impersonal absolute reality which permeates all things. However, most Hindus believe in a pantheon of Gods, although some hold that deities like Shiva, Vishnu and Krishna are simply manifestations of Brahman.
Buddhism does not believe in God at all.
In Shintoism, the indigenous religion of Japan, Kami are the central objects of worship, defined in English as "god," "spirit," "spiritual essence" of nature, as well as spirits of the deceased who eventually becomes a part of a collective ancestral spirit.
In the Christian tradition, God can be known, while most eastern traditions believe God to be impersonal and unknowable. Christianity teaches that when we die, we will go to either heaven or hell, while Hindus claim that we are all reincarnated depending on our 'karma'.
Shintoism says there is no afterlife, just the here and now, so make the most of it.
Buddhists seek Nirvana, the complete absence of desire.
Islam denies the virgin birth, deity, crucifixion, and literal physical resurrection of Christ, and Judaism also denies that He is the Messiah -- four doctrines that are at the very heart of Christianity.

In nearly all religions, salvation (if, in many cases, it can even be called that) is attained through human effort - good works, alms giving, etc. Only in Christianity does salvation come solely as a gift from God - it cannot be earned through human effort.

In our daily lives we do not believe two contradictory facts at the same time. For example, either the Seattle Seahawks won the 2014 super bowl, or they did not, both cannot possibly be true. Similarly, when it comes to religion,

Either God exists, or He does not.
Either there is one God, or there is more than one.
Either God is knowable, or He is not
Either Christ is the Messiah, or He is not.
Either we are reincarnated, or we dies once, after which comes the judgment.

There are no other choices, and no in-between view.

If two religions make truth-claims which contradict each other, they cannot both be right. When one religion says there is only one God and another says there are many gods... someone doesn't have their facts straight. God can either be either knowable (Christianity) or unknowable (Eastern religions) ... He cannot be both. When Muslims and Christians claim that each person lives only once, then faces judgment, and Hindus claim that each person is reincarnated many times, one of the two parties is wrong... one cannot 'go to heaven' and be reincarnated at the same time.


Ambiguity: Restricted Solely to Spirituality

Some people choose their religious beliefs like they choose their food at a buffet. At a buffet you, like most people, probably take a little of this and a little of that, helping yourself to food that appeals to you and tastes good. But you may very well be adding things to your plate that are not going to do your body any good. In fact, some of your choices might actually do you harm. Think about it for a moment - your selection would probably be very different if you were piling onto your plate only food that was good for you, which would only happen if you had done, at least, some research on basic nutrition.

Similarly, when a people pick and choose from a variety of different spiritual beliefs and practices, they tend to choose what appeals to the palate. The spiritually eclectic might be happy with a spiritual path of their own invention but, sadly, they have never investigated whether their choices are spiritual junk food that, in the end, is going to harm them. They haven't done any study of basic spiritual nutrition and, therefore, have no idea whether what they have is, at best, devoid of any nutritional value or, at worst, carcinogenic.

When it comes to the most important issues of life - What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? What happens when I die? Does how I have lived my life matter? Will I be called to account by the Judge of the universe, if such a being exists? - it is assumed that either we cannot know, or it doesn't matter. Figuring out a belief or practice that "works for me" is all that is required.

Yet, oddly enough, those who claim that there is no such thing as absolute truth make scores of decisions every day on the basis that they believe some things are true and others are false.
Why?
Simply because we happen to live in world of absolutes, also called facts.


Dozens of Decisions We Make Every Day, Are Based on Facts not Feelings

Our world today, especially with the advent of the internet and television, can be extremely complicated, if not downright confusing. We are constantly barraged with, often conflicting, news reports and advertising, etc. It is quite obvious that we cannot, at least if we have an iota of common sense, accept everything that comes down the pike. And, luckily, most people do not, but make at least some effort to find out if the claims or statements are true.

In fact, whether we realize it or not, we literally make dozens of decisions every day, based on evidence, not feelings. As Anglican Clergyman, Dick Tripp, so rightly says,

"I will not turn on a light without believing in the reality of electricity, or drive a car without believing in the effectiveness of the combustion engine. No one flying in a cloud through mountainous terrain would want to be directed by a navigator who did not believe in the truth of his instruments. No one undergoing brain surgery would want to be operated on by a surgeon who did not believe that some things about the brain were true and some not true."[13]

Society as a whole, works exactly the same way. For example, our entire justice system is founded on the process of finding out whether a person is innocent, or guilty, of some crime. Evidence is presented, alibis are checked, witnesses are interviewed, with every effort made to determine whether they are telling the truth, etc. Why do we do this? Simply because there is one truth out there -- either the person committed the crime or he didn't. And we need to find out which.
Similarly, the scene of an accident, especially one that involves several vehicles, can be pure chaos in terms of multiple versions of what exactly happened. One person will usually blame the other, passers by will relate what they saw, or think they saw, and so on and so forth. It often takes a huge amount of sifting through evidence before the truth can be arrived at. And, I am willing to bet not too many of us are reaching for our check books to support The Flat Earth Society dedicated to demonstrating that "the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax."[14] And why not? Simply because the evidence for a round earth is overwhelming.

There is no question that our feelings, or gut instincts do, on occasion, come into play and can even be very useful. For example, we may have a 'feeling' that a particular person cannot be trusted. However, feelings and facts are not synonymous, simply because feelings can, and are, caused by all manner of things; from how we physically feel that day, what we might have eaten, or what our current circumstances are. Most people can probably recount far more instances when they were wrong about something; when their feelings led them astray. In fact, the high divorce rate in modern society provides irrefutable testimony to the fact that feeling cannot always be trusted. Most people, having met a person they are very attracted to, become convinced that he, or she, is "the one" at least partially based on immensely powerful feelings. They feel very happy, more energetic, need less sleep etc. etc. etc. Yet, how many wind up in the divorce court, fighting often bitter custody and property battles.

On the other hand, facts are always true, and completely unrelated to what people think or believe. For example, believing 2 2=4 is a mathematical fact, regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. The truth does not become 'more truthful' if it accepted by scholars, theologians, experts in various fields, or by the general population. Conversely, the truth does not become 'less truthful' even if no one on earth accepts it. The truth remains the truth - regardless. You are perfectly entitled to hold your own opinion. However, you cannot make up your own truth -- not in mathematics, not in science, and not in religion.

Except, Apparently, When it Comes to Religion
But, for some reason I cannot possibly fathom, the one major exception to logical analysis, is religious belief.
What would any of the spiritually eclectic people say to the doctor who refuses to recommend a definite line of treatment, but suggests that the patient can choose any medicine out there; anyone, or combination, of which should have the desired result depending, of course, on how the patient feels while they are taking it, and whether he, or she, believes it will help. And what shall we say to the insurance agent who tells us that one policy should achieve the same results as all the others. I would be willing to bet good money that the unwell patient would not waste very much time finding another doctor, and the person looking for the best insurance policy has long slung the agent out of his, or her, house.

So, when we refuse to accept ambiguity in virtually every arena of our lives, why are we so willing to accept it in our spiritual lives; the arena that could have the most far reaching consequences of all. Sadly, precious few who make claims such as 'all spiritual beliefs are valid paths to God" seem to have made an in depth study of various religions to see if their claims are based on fact, or fairy dust. It is usually sufficient that the beliefs and practices they adopt sound, and feel, "spiritual". However, the open acceptance of many spiritual paths, even those that flatly contradict each other on some crucial issues, would be sheer lunacy in any other context. In fact, we would find ourselves in deep trouble on quite a regular basis, if important decisions were based on how we emotionally relate to something, instead of collecting known facts/weighing all the evidence.
The question now becomes: are we simply going to delude, or continue deluding, ourselves into believing that two or more contradictory statements can all be true? Or are we going to, like the legendary detective, Hercule Poirot, repeatedly said, stir the little grey cells?

In short, the real issue is not whether you find your spiritual beliefs appealing and whether they seem to work for you, but whether they are true, especially considering, that many, if not most, of them flatly contradict one another. As Keith Johnson says:

"Claiming that it is intolerant to say that "all paths do not lead to the same destination" misses the point. The important issue is the truth or falsity of this assertion."[15]


Charges Often Leveled at Christians

Christianity claims to be the one and only true path to God, which conflicts with the very popular belief that all religious belief is relative, and all claims to truth are equally valid. This has led to various criticisms, few of which hold water simply because they are aimed at the wrong target.

Accusations Based on The Person, Not His Belief
Among other charges often hurled at Christians are; they are narrow minded and/or bigoted, myopic, need a crutch, are biased, or are Christians merely because they were born into a Christian country or family. However, if you are paying attention, you might have noticed that, without exception, every one of these criticisms is about the believer, not his belief. The accusations are focused on a fault/failing, or circumstance of the Christian himself. What is being attacked are the Christian's mindset, his character flaws, his emotional needs, his feelings, his biases, his culture, etc., none of which tells you one single thing about the truth or falseness of his beliefs. None of the objections focus on whether there is good reason for the Christian to believe as he does -- whether what he believes is true.

However much you might disagree with, or even deride, a Christian's reasons for belief, it does not mean that belief is not justified. To learn whether or not the Christian's beliefs are well placed, you have to focus on the beliefs themselves.

You Are Only A Christian Because you Were Born into a Christian Country or Family
Religious pluralists often claim that religious beliefs are relative to geography and culture, not the rationality or truth of the religion itself.
For example, people are Christians merely because they were born into a Christian country, or family. A person who happens to be born into a Hindu family in India is very likely to be a Hindu. If born into a Muslim family in Saudi Arabia, Muslim. In Tibet, a Buddhist. And had you been born and raised in pre-war Germany, you might have been a Nazi.

So what?

Let's start with the fact that, as Jason Dulle points out, this argument is a double-edged sword. The pluralist can only make these claims because he was born in the 20th century in a western country. Had the religious pluralist himself been born in Saudi Arabia, he would have been a Muslim, and the vast majority of Muslims are exclusively dedicated to Islam.[16]

In any case, geographical/cultural factors are completely unrelated to the truth or falsity of a religion. As pastor Greg Koukl once said, (unfortunately, cannot find the article in which he said it,)

"Consider two men, one a pediatrician in New York and another a pygmy in the Congo. Each describe the cause of sickness in different ways. The pediatrician faults germs, the pygmy, spirits. The doctor invokes medicine for healing, the pygmy, magic. Each believes exactly what his culture has taught him and lives as if it were so. Here is my question: Who is correct, the doctor or the pygmy?"

In other words, you can neither validate, nor invalidate, a religion based on how a person came to follow that religion. Just because a person is a Muslim because he, or she, lives in a predominantly Muslim country does not mean their beliefs are true. And it works both ways: just because a person is a Christian because he, or she, lives in a predominantly Christian country, does not mean their beliefs are false.

Greg Koukl also goes on to point out that Christians are often guilty of the same error:

"I've frequently heard the content of modern psychology dismissed as bogus simply because it came from irreligious people who hated God. Would these same ideas magically morph into truth when tumbling from the mouth of a Christian? A prominent Christian talk show host dismissed the work of homosexual scientist Simon LeVay in search of a "gay gene" with the remark, "But he's gay." Just because a person may have a motive to deceive, though, doesn't mean his research is deceptive.

It does not logically follow that you have to accept the religion of your family or culture. It doesn't make a whit of sense to assume that just because your parents/family/countrymen believe one way, they are necessarily right. They may very well have done exactly the same thing -- unquestioningly followed the belief system of their parents, who might have unquestioningly followed, ad infinitum. You may begin your life accepting the belief system around you, but once you reach the age of reason, you have the freedom and, may I say it, the responsibility, to examine and evaluate the evidence and claims of your religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, while it may seem evident that most people are capable of discerning simple truth, this may be slightly harder than it appears. Some studies actually corroborate the fact that feelings often outweigh facts. David Haury, associate professor of education at Ohio State University, conducted a study on how people make decisions. He says:

"Research in neuroscience has shown that when there's a conflict between facts and feeling in the brain, feeling wins."[17]

While this study was concerned only with why people do, or do not, accept evolution, there is every reason to believe that gut feeling triumphs facts when it comes to accepting other theories as well. Besides which, the phenomenon known as "cognitive dissonance" shows that once we believe in something, we will try to explain away anything that conflicts with it.[18]

I would, however, like to particularly address two of the charges, that is that Christians are narrow minded and arrogant to think that they're right and other spiritual paths/religions are wrong. There is a huge difference between being narrow minded and empty headed.

Narrow-Minded?
I am sure there is little question that, just like every other group in the world, some Christians are narrow minded. However, we usually consider people "narrow minded" when they refuse to even consider the pros and cons of any opinion, or belief, that does not agree with their own convictions. As said by Glen Miller of The Christian Thinktank (Bold added, capitals in original):

"...when a college professor spends 40 years studying all sides of an issue, and TAKES A POSITION on that issue, we rarely accuse her of being 'narrow-minded' even though the position may be the same one held by a narrow-minded type. So you see, just holding strongly to a belief that something is true is NOT necessarily being 'narrow minded'. But, beyond this, the REAL question is more an issue of "is this position TRUE?" than it is of "are they holding it in a narrow-minded fashion?"
And, practically speaking, we KNOW that wisdom and experience teaches us to trust some options over others. For example, when our doctor prescribes a medication to help us get well, it is not narrow-minded to accept their advice, even though we know there are psychic healers and tribal witch doctors who would urge a different approach. The question is, who has credentials we can trust?
And, looking at this from another angle, if it were simply one human opinion versus another, we might not be entitled to hold our viewpoints so strongly. But if we become convinced that God has broken into history with a factual message, then it's not narrow-minded to believe HIS statements--its a matter of trusting a credible source of information. (Presumably, He knows the REAL facts.) [19]

An extremely good point brought up by pastor Greg Koukl, and one we need to bear in mind, is the fact that 99.9 % of everything we know comes from someone else, not from our own research. For example, all our knowledge about the universe, the microscopic world, distant lands, and history, comes from one authority or another. The key issue being the reliability and credibility of the source.[20]

Being open-minded does not mean we accept every belief that is out there, but that we do not close our minds off to the possibility that something is true. Only someone who is open-minded will recognize truth when they see it. On the other hand, someone who is narrow minded will not even entertain the possibility that ideas or beliefs, other than the ones they already hold, can be true. Narrow minded people are thus apt to miss the truth.

Arrogance and Bigotry?
‘Bigotry’ is the intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
The charge is often made that Christians are arrogant and bigoted to think they are the only ones with all the answers, have the only way to God, and that their attitude is nothing more than a version of western colonialism. However, this is little more than name calling by those who have no idea of the premise that Christianity is based on, which is to save people's lives. Lets see if I can, with a very simple analogy, rectify the completely erroneous impression that Christians try to stuff their opinions down other people's throats, remembering, of course, that most analogies are less than perfect.

When flu season rolls around you are constantly reminded to take your flu shot, especially if you are elderly. This may actually be sound advice since the flu is often a killer (The influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 killed over 20 million people). So we are constantly urged to get the shot by the medical profession, the media etc. since it is one way to be pretty sure of avoiding the virus. However, how many people have you heard loudly protesting that the doctors, nurses and other members of the medical profession are narrow minded fundamentalists, trying to force their views down other people throats? Why aren't we telling these people that they are intolerant and hateful for trying to fob their views off on us? After all isn't it narrow minded to insist that THEIR WAY is the only way to avoid getting sick? Even if you happen not to want a flu shot, or do not believe that it helps, you accept that the medical profession is trying to save your precious life. And whether you agree with them or not, whether you believe them or not, Christians are trying to do the same thing--warning you that Jesus is your flu shot--the only way to salvation. Not because we said so, but because HE did.

Christians do not think they are better than you (smarter maybe) for getting the 'flu shot', because by doing so they are actually admitting they are sinful and in need of forgiveness--that nothing they can do is good enough to get them into "heaven". We are not in God's favor because of our good works, the exemplary lives we have led, or because we are better than everyone else. Much to the contrary, in many instances, I am sure that there are non believers who lead more moral lives then many of us. But for the grace of God, we would be lost.

If you believe that arsenic and sugar are interchangeable, but all the evidence points to arsenic being a deadly poison, would it be intolerant and arrogant of me not to try and convince you to reconsider spooning arsenic into your coffee? Or would it be inhuman of me not to do so?

In the final analysis, the decision is to take or not take the flu shot is yours, as are the consequences of that decision. However, making that decision without really exploring it, is not good sense.


The Million Dollar Question

The question has to be asked: what if all paths do not lead to the same destination? When various religious traditions such as Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity offer such radically different views of God, the destiny of the soul, and even the world, then it would seem that each person must make an informed choice. Anyone who goes through life on an unhealthy diet, choosing only foods that taste good to them, has to accept that there are often severe consequences to these decisions, including increased risk for hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and osteoporosis, among others. Similarly, someone who goes through life picking and choosing those spiritual beliefs that appeal to them, and appear to do good in the here and now, also has to consider the possibility that there may be even more serious consequences. But, considering the widely differing claims of the various religions, how does one go about making an informed decision?


Judging Religious Claims

It is indisputable that adherents of most religions, including Christianity, tend to reject most other religions simply because they do not agree with the tenets and teaching of their own faith. For example, a Muslim will reject Jesus as the Son of God because the Qur'an says He is only a prophet. Similarly, Buddhists will reject the idea of a factual 'heaven' since it does not square with Buddha's teachings. However, it does not follow that there is no objective criteria by which we can evaluate different religious traditions. That there are no standards we can use that are unrelated to, and undistorted by, thoughts, feelings, emotions, personal bias, tradition etc.

In a June 2010 article by John Blake entitled 'Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'?' on the CNN web site, someone called "misirlou" made the following comment:

"Being "spiritual, but not religious" is definitely a modern trend, but I don't think it reflects the Burger Kingization of religion. I think it reflects a far more educated and inquisitive society than existed in the past who look at the world around them and realize that religion makes no sense and science provides far better answers to our questions about the nature of life and the universe. Religion has only persisted so long because the general populace lacked access to information and education. Now that anyone can go to college and take science courses, book a trip to another country with a foreign culture, or get on the Internet and do their own research, there are fa. r fewer people willing to be spoon-fed a bunch of B.S. and accept it without question."[21]

Which is as far from the truth as it gets.

Much to the contrary, the very fact that so many people to day are better educated, have access to all kinds of information, and are thus able to do their own research, makes it much easier to use the same tools to judge religious claims that are used to judge any other non-religious claims. In fact, it seems to come as quite a surprise to many that similar criteria used to judge whether something is true in the secular world, can be applied to religious claims. However, what one cannot do is apply one set of standards, or tests, to secular literature and another to the Bible. Evidence is neither relative, nor based upon feelings. While you can accuse the Christian's viewpoint as being 'their opinion' or 'their beliefs', you cannot say the evidence is 'their evidence'. Evidence is evidence, whichever way you look at it.

The Criteria
One of the most important factors in any kind of investigation, is the testimony of witnesses, who tell us what they saw, heard and/or experienced.
When witnesses are called to testify in a court case, whether their testimony is believed or not largely depends on the credibility of the person testifying. In technical matters, much depends on the witnesses' knowledge, training, and experience. However, in non technical matters, the emphasis is largely on the witnesses' known personal character, lifestyle, and appearance of honesty and forthrightness. A person shown to have lied about other matters, even non-related ones, is far less likely to be believed than one whose character appears to be exemplary. While we might have some sympathy for the boy who cried wolf, we certainly can understand the villagers who ignored him when, at the last, he raised an alarm and this time, there really was a wolf who, if memory serves me right, ate him.

Quite obviously, in the case of events that took place many hundreds of years ago, we have to rely on written accounts, or historical documents. Corroboration of key facts by other witnesses makes the event more credible, especially when it comes from someone who could be viewed as "hostile". Conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts also helps substantiate the document's accuracy and reliability. In other words, it has to be consistent with other fields of knowledge such as science and archaeology. For example, archaeology can help validate, or repudiate, the historical accuracy which often forms the background to the story. While historical accuracy does not "prove" spiritual authority, it does enhance its credibility in non-historic areas.

Additionally, it should give us considerable pause for thought if a document, known to be several thousand years old, displays accurate scientific knowledge, light years ahead of the periods in which it was written.


[Continue on to Part 3: Faith and The Bible
What most people do not seem to realize is that Christianity is perhaps the only religion that does not demand 'blind faith' from it's followers. CLICK HERE]


Footnote I
Christians are often accused of being "homophobic" when they state their belief that homosexuality is wrong. However, a "phobic" is a person who has a "phobia", which is a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. in fact, I know of no case where the suffix phobia does not mean "irrational fear of."

So, 'homophobic' cannot possibly be applied to anyone who opposes homosexuality on moral grounds... And someone who opposes homosexuality on moral grounds does not necessarily mean they hate, discriminate against, or are prejudiced against homosexuals.

Besides which, the term is usually used in a derogatory fashion. So, how is it acceptable for you to call me a less than polite name, but it's not okay for to me to think homosexuality is morally wrong. How is your attitude more 'loving' and 'tolerant' than mine?


Endnotes
[1] Grantley Morris. All Religions Are The Same [net-burst.net]
[2] George Barna. Absolute Confusion: The Barna Report. Regal Books, 1994. Pgs. 73 and 80
[3] U.S. Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant, June 2008 [pewforum.org]
[4] Greg Koukl. Religious Stew [str.org]
[5] Thoughts on the Vedas and the Upanishads [vivekananda.net]
[6] Grantley Morris. All Religions Are The Same [net-burst.net]
[7] Dave Hunt. An Appeal To Reason [thebereancall.org]
[8] Rabbi David Wolpe. The Limitations of Being ‘Spiritual but Not Religious’
[ideas.time.com]
[9] Hinduism vs Buddhism - Complementary or Contrary? [dollsofindia.com]
[10] The foundations of Buddhism [britannica.com]
[11] The Gurdwara Sahib [neworleansreligion.blogspot.com]
[12] Ninian Smart. The Bahá'ís, Religious Experience of Mankind, pages 417-418. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969.
[13] Dick Tripp. What is truth and does it matter? [christianity.co.nz]
[14] www.theflatearthsociety.org
[15] Keith Johnson. Do All Paths Lead to the Same Destination? [www.leaderu.com]
[16] Jason Dulle. 'You’re only a Christian because you were born in America' [theosophical.wordpress.com]
[17] When It Comes To Accepting Evolution, Gut Feelings Trump Facts. Research and Innovation Communications © 2012. The Ohio State University.
[18] [psychologytoday.com]
[19] Glenn Miller. [christianthinktank.com]
[20] Greg Koukl. 'Testing Religious Truth Claims' [str.org]
[21] John Blake 'Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'?'
[www.cnn.com]

Evolution and Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Link: about.me/gideonsword
Author: Jonathan Wells - Discovery Institute - June 1, 1997
Source: Center for Science and Culture
Secondary Source: ABR Apologetics Ministry



"Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."
- George Gaylord Simpson


Where did you come from? Are you the result of a mindless, undirected process, or are you the handiwork of a purposeful Creator?

According to several Gallup polls, only about ten percent of the American people believe in Darwin's theory that we are accidental by-products of a strictly natural process of evolution. The other ninety percent believe that God played an important role in the process--either by guiding evolution or by creating life directly.

A similar poll conducted among college professors and their students would probably yield a very different result, with the overwhelming majority agreeing with Darwin's theory that evolution occurred through purposeless natural processes such as random variation and natural selection. Perhaps this is the case on your own campus. According to some people, this disparity between the academic community and the general public indicates a pressing need for better education of the masses. According to others, it reveals a disturbing domination of our educational institutions by naturalism, the philosophical doctrine that nature is all there is and that God and spirit are merely projections of the human mind.
[See Also: Anthropic Principle/What Are the Odds?]


According to Darwinism, our Existence is a Mere Accident

When Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species in 1859, most Western scientists were Christian theists who believed that God created living things (especially human beings) by design. According to Darwin, however, what appears to be design in living things can be explained naturalistically, as the result of random variations and natural selection.

Darwin noted that individuals of every species exhibit minor variations, and that domestic breeders can utilize those variations to modify succeeding generations. Darwin also noted that creatures in the wild must compete for limited resources (such as food), and that those who are better adapted to their surroundings are more likely to survive and reproduce. Darwin argued that just as a breeder can modify livestock, so "natural selection" can modify species in the wild, and that "descent with modification," continued over millions of years, produced all living things from one or a few original forms.

Darwin saw no room for supernatural design in this process. When his friend and supporter Asa Gray proposed that God designed the variations on which natural selection operated, Darwin rejected the idea, and concluded his 1868 Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication with a refutation of Gray's position. According to Darwin, the products of random variation and natural selection cannot be regarded as designed; and human beings, as the latest in a long series of undesigned results, are the most undesigned of all.

Darwin's modern followers concur in this denial of design. In 1967, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."(1) In 1970, molecular biologist and Nobel laureate Jacques Monod announced that "the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded," and that as a result "man has to understand that he is a mere accident."(2)
[See Also: The Truth About Evolution]


Darwin's Denial of Design is a Serious Problem for Christians and Other Theists

If we are undesigned by-products of a purposeless process, then the Biblical doctrine that we are created in the image of God is false. Yet it is a central doctrine of Christianity (and of other theistic religions such as Islam and Judaism) that God created human beings by design.

Many people have been given the impression that the chronology of Genesis is the root of the conflict between Christianity and Darwinism. Surprisingly, however, biblical chronology played almost no role in the initial opposition to Darwin's theory, because most Christians in the nineteenth century accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth. Nor was chronology an issue at the 1925 Scopes trial, because creationist William Jennings Bryan accepted the old-earth view. Historically and theologically speaking, the basic conflict between Christianity and Darwinism is not chronology, but design.

Some theists try to avoid problems by accepting everything that Darwinists tell us except their denial of design. But Darwinism assumes that naturalism has a complete explanation, at least in principle, for all of objective reality; so theists who accept Darwinism are left with a purely subjective religion, and design becomes a figment of our imagination.

Despite the good intentions of those who attempt to reconcile Darwinian evolution and theistic religion, a serious conflict remains between the two. Theists who accommodate themselves to Darwinian evolution generally find themselves patronized and marginalized. But do theists have to accept Darwinian evolution?
[See Also: Doubting Darwin (Panic in the suites of Evolution)]


Is Darwin's Theory True?

We are frequently told that "evolution is a fact," as undeniable as gravity or the shape of the earth. Anyone who challenges it, at least in an academic setting, is likely to be regarded (in the words of Darwin popularizer Richard Dawkins) as "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."(3) In the United States, religious people who question evolution are often likened to the caricature of creationists promoted by the 1960 movie "Inherit the Wind," Hollywood's version of the 1925 Scopes trial.

The word "evolution," however, has several meanings. One is merely change in general; the plants and animals which we now see around us did not always exist, and some which used to exist (such as dinosaurs) are no longer with us. In this broad sense, evolution certainly is a fact (though one which presents no problem for theists.) A second meaning of "evolution" is the notion that all living things descended over a long period of time from one or a few common ancestors. The evidence for common descent is much more debatable than the evidence for change in general, and biologists frequently argue about whether particular groups of plants or animals share a common ancestor. But even if universal common descent were true, it would not cause a serious problem for theists; of the ninety percent of the American people who reject Darwin's theory, about half accept this notion of evolution.

A third meaning of "evolution" is that populations evolve through random variations and natural selection. In support of his theory, Darwin cited domestic breeding: dramatic modifications in domestic crops or livestock can be produced by appropriately selecting small variations. Since 1859 a similar process has been observed in the wild: when mosquitoes are exposed to insecticides, subsequent generations become more resistant to the insecticide as the more susceptible organisms die off; and when moths are exposed to predatory birds, subsequent generations tend to be better camouflaged as the more visible ones are eaten. In other words, there is considerable evidence that change occurs through the natural selection of random variations.

But how much change? In the examples cited above, no new species emerge, and no new features appear. Domestic breeding will not turn a sheep into a goat, much less a bird or a whale; and bird predation does not change moths into butterflies, much less ants or beetles. Biologists have long recognized a distinction between relatively minor changes within a species, which they call "microevolution," and the much larger changes necessary to produce significantly new features, which they call "macroevolution." It is possible that evolution in its third sense (change through random variations and natural selection) is true when applied to microevolution, but untrue when applied to macroevolution.

So evolution in the first sense (change over time) is a fact; evolution in the second sense (all creatures are descendants of one or a few forms) is debatable; and evolution in the third sense (change due to random variation and natural selection) is a fact when applied to microevolution. But is it a fact that macroevolution is due to random variations and natural selection? The conflict between Darwinism and theism on the issue of design arises only if large-scale evolution is due to an essentially purposeless process. Yet Darwin's extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution is hotly debated among biologists.

As molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote in 1985: "However attractive the extrapolation, it does not follow that, because a certain degree of evolution has been shown to occur, therefore any degree of evolution is possible." In fact, not "one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859" has validated the extrapolation.(4) In other words, of the several different meanings of "evolution," Darwinian macroevolution is the least supported by the evidence.
[See Also: Creation, Evolution, and Scripture]


Why the Evidence does not Support Darwin's Theory of Macroevolution

We are often told that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. And so it is--if by "evolution" one means change in general. But if by "evolution" one means macroevolution through random variations and natural selection, then the evidence is underwhelming, at best.

For example, fossils establish beyond a reasonable doubt that change has occurred; but the fossil record is an embarrassment to defenders of Darwinian macroevolution. Direct observation of microevolution through random variations and natural selection shows that such change occurs rather gradually; there are no radical discontinuities from one generation to the next. Darwin himself recognized that if his theory were true, one would expect to find innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record, with more and more being found as more and more fossils are collected.

A century and a half of fossil-collecting since Darwin, however, has made it clear that fossil species tend to appear suddenly and persist unchanged for long periods of time before going extinct. These sudden appearances and disappearances, separated by absence of change, have been called "punctuated equilibria" by paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.(5) Punctuated equilibria are most evident where the fossil record is the most complete, as with marine invertebrates, but the most dramatic example is the "Cambrian explosion." The geological period known as the Cambrian is marked by the rather sudden appearance of all the basic forms of animals now in existence. There are no transitional forms between them, and no new basic forms have appeared since then.

As Darwinists point out, the pattern of punctuated equilibria does not actually disprove Darwinian evolution. Both Gould and Eldredge continue to believe that evolution occurred as Darwin thought it did, though they acknowledge that it must have happened "over there," where no one has been able to detect it. Of course, this is theoretically possible, though it is surprising given Darwin's assurance that transitional forms must far outnumber stable forms. The bottom line, however, is that Darwin's explanation for macroevolution cannot be inferred from the fossil record; instead, one must assume that Darwin's mechanism was responsible and then read it into the fossil record. Without such an assumption, one could infer that sudden appearances were due to creation rather than evolution.

In response to creationists who see punctuated equilibria as evidence against evolution, defenders of Darwinism point out that there are a few examples of transitional fossils, perhaps the most famous being that of the horse. The earliest fossil "horse" was about the size of a dog, and had four toes; later fossil horses are slightly larger and have fewer toes, until the large modern horse appears with one toe. Although paleontologists do not now believe that any of these fossil horses are direct ancestors of any of the others, the sequence does present us with a graded series of intermediate forms.

Even intermediate forms, however, fail to support Darwinian macroevolution, because fossils cannot demonstrate that transitions were due to random variation and natural selection. The problem is unintentionally illustrated by biologist Tim Berra in his 1990 book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. According to Berra, what paleontologists do with fossils is analogous to tracing successive improvements in Corvette automobiles from the 1953 model to today's version.(6) What Berra apparently fails to realize, however, is that Corvettes were undeniably made by design. A sequence of intermediate forms does not, by itself, confirm Darwin's theory.

So most of the fossil record is inconsistent with Darwinian gradualism, and the few examples of transitional fossils fail to demonstrate that evolution occurred through a Darwinian mechanism. In fact, some scientists are now arguing that Darwin's theory cannot account for the evidence, and that a better explanation is intelligent design.


Intelligent Design Theory

Darwin's theory purports to explain not only the forms of organisms which we find in the fossil record, but also the complex molecular mechanisms which enable them to produce energy, move about, detect light, heal wounds, and so on. Now Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe is arguing that Darwin's mechanism is incapable of producing these mechanisms.

Behe maintains that some features of living cells exhibit "irreducible complexity," meaning that they function only if all their parts are present in good working order at the outset. For example, a mousetrap consists of several parts which work together to catch a mouse; if any part is missing or defective, the mousetrap fails to work at all. Similarly, the biochemistry of light detection requires complex interactions among many different molecules, each performing a very specialized job. There is no imaginable way that the necessary combination of molecules could be built up piecemeal, as Darwin's theory requires; either they are all present, or the process does not work.(7)

According to Behe, Darwin's theory had a certain plausibility as long as the complex biochemical machinery of living cells remained a "black box," the details of which were unknown. Now that modern science has opened the box, however, Darwin's theory is no longer plausible. Instead of random variation and natural selection, Behe sees design as the most plausible explanation.

Behe's critics argue that design is unscientific, but William Dembski of the University of Notre Dame, Steve Meyer of Whitworth College, and Paul Nelson of the University of Chicago maintain that those critics are wrong. According to these three philosophers of science, people make scientific design inferences every day. We infer design whenever we examine people's actions to determine whether they acted deliberately; we infer that words in the sand at the beach were produced by design rather than by accidental movements of the waves; and scientists who search for messages from other galaxies feel confident they will recognize design when they see it. Dembski, Meyer and Nelson have found that the same criteria we use to infer design in these cases justify an inference of design in living things.

So some aspects of living things are plausibly explained as the result of design, and inferences to design can be as scientific as other kinds of inferences.(8) Why, then, do Darwinists insist that design is unscientific? Their usual answer is that design in living things would have to be the work of God, and God is beyond the reach of natural science. Darwinists thus find themselves having to acknowledge that it is God they find objectionable. In other words, their allegiance is not to the evidence, or to scientific inference, but to naturalism. When the evidence fails to support the theory (as in the case of the fossil record), they read the theory into the evidence. In other words, Darwinists are using science to promote an anti-religious philosophy.


It's Time for a Revolution in Evolution

As a member of your college community, you have the right to ask respectful, intelligent questions of your teachers and fellow students. If someone tells you that evolution proves we are accidental by-products of a purposeless natural process, ask for the evidence. Chances are, you will be presented with evidence for geological chronology, or fossil evidence for change in general, or evidence that microevolution proceeds by random variation and natural selection, or evidence that we share certain similarities with other animals.

If you maintain that the evidence you have been given might be consistent with intelligent design, you will probably be told that design is unscientific. But if the very notion of design is unscientific, then why is Darwin's supposedly scientific theory being used to refute it? If you are courageous enough to ask that question, you may find yourself being accused of "ignorance, stupidity, insanity or wickedness."

If you can stand the heat, however, you may find that your persistent questioning is extraordinarily powerful, like the boy in the fable who pointed out that the emperor wore no clothes. When Darwinists claim that the evidence of evolution excludes design, the evidence they cite invariably turns out to be irrelevant, or just as consistent with design as with its absence. When confronted with this objection, they typically try to exclude design by claiming that it is unscientific, even though a moment earlier they were treating it as a scientific hypothesis refuted by the evidence. But Darwinists cannot have it both ways; they cannot legitimately use evidence to argue against design, and then, when challenged, claim that science cannot deal with design at all.

Science at its best pursues the evidence wherever it leads. As truth-seekers, scientists must be free to consider both sides of a question. If the evidence of evolution can be used to infer the absence of design, it can just as reasonably be used to infer its presence, and Darwinists who claim that it cannot are doing a disservice to science. If, on the other hand, design is a religious or philosophical issue rather than a scientific one, there are still at least two sides to the question. Darwinists think that naturalism is the only answer, but ninety percent of the American people disagree with them. It's time for the philosophical naturalists who dominate our college campuses to engage in some serious discussion with their fellow citizens.

You may find it rough going if you challenge Darwinism on your campus; but if you persist, you will find that you are part of a growing intellectual revolution.(9) The emperor has no clothes, and it's time to tell it like it is.
[See Also: Christianity and Public Schools and American Decay: John Dewey]


Footnotes

(1) George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, revised edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 345.

(2) Jacques Monod, quoted in Horace Freeland Judson's The Eighth Day of Creation (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979), p. 217.

(3) Richard Dawkins, review of Donald Johanson & Maitland Edey's Blueprint in The New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. VII, p. 34.

(4) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), pp. 87, 345.

(5) Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism," in T.J.M. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology (San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Co., 1972), pp. 82-115.

(6) Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), pp. 117-119.

(7) Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996).

(8) For a more extensive treatment of design in biological origins, see Of Pandas and People, second edition, by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon (Dallas, TX: Haughton Publishing Company, 1993).

(9) A prominent figure in this revolution is Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson. For further information, see his Darwin on Trial, second edition (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993) or his upcoming book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (InterVarsity Press, 1997).



Jonathan Wells has a Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in Theology from Yale University. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, Seattle, Washington.

© Jonathan Wells 1997