Tag Archives: Jesus

Beaverton Grace Bible Church, opening Pandora’s box.

By

It would seem Beaverton Grace Bible Church has opened up Pandora’s box on them self. After filling a law suit for an absurd amount of money ($500,000.00). Ultimately this is a vary bad situation for Beaverton Grace Bible Church, its pastor and the others involved.

Before I get into that a little more, let me give a brief back store on this. Julie Anne had once attended Beaverton Grace Bible Church but when she had left the church, she claims that the pastor instructed members to shun her and her family. She ended up posting a review of Beaverton Grace Bible Church on line, which she also claimed that her reviews she had posted, were being removed. Not wanting to be silenced, she decided to start a blog titled “Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors” where the church could not silence her. And to help other who were in the same situation from the church.

Within only a short period of time of starting the blog Julie Anne found herself (and three others) with this law suit for defamation. In the 54-page lawsuit, some of the reasons given had been because, she used words like “cult” and “creepy”

If what she claims is true it would seem such words are fitting. For example, if you leave a cult, the leaders of that cult will tell its members to shun them (And she claims that is what happened). They will even try and silence them or their critics (Removing comments, would be a form of censorship and a lawsuit could do that to). Or even try to intermediate them, sending a message to their current members, that this could be you. And frankly, to me, that is what this law suit appears to be, a message of intimation. With the church asking for $500,000.00 from a stay at home mom, who is on a limited budget.

I mean what kind of pastor (or anyone, for that matter) could actually sue a mother (or anyone) on a limited budget for such a huge amount? Asking for this extravagantly large amount of money not just affects the mom but effectively taking food, necessity’s and other things away from her family, who are not part of this. That to me is not a very Christian thing to do.

Ultimately, in the end, this lawsuit only ends up working ageist them (Which may be why the bible tells Christians not to sue other Christians for such stupid things). It is a bad situation for the church no matter the out come. Let’s say for a moment that the church’s claims are true and Julie Anne was wrong (Hypothetically). And the church actually could win the suit. Now the church and its pastor is viewed as bully, not really for the lawsuit itself, but for the $500,000.00, they are asking for (Personaly such a view would be true in my eyes, even if Julie was in the wrong). Not to mention because of this large amount, people are likely to end up still viewing the church as a cult and creepy. So it does not help for them to have done this.

If the church lost the lawsuit (Which, frankly, to me seems to be the likely outcome), then people will view the claims of Julie Anne as justified. Even if the church was correct in their accusations of her.

I mean, just look at the reviews on the church now. If they thought, the few bad review’s thay had with her then were bad. Then they need to look at them now, as it is just comment after comment of the church and pastor being bashed. Along with a negative ratting that can’t get any worse than it is now.

Defending the Trinity

By

There are a lot of people who seem to be against the Trinity while being completely oblivious to what the Trinity is. Often they argue that the Trinity doesn’t make sense while, at the same time are able to accept Trinities found on nature. So I thought why go through one of these articles that are against the Trinity. Now the original article that I will be commenting on can be found here: My response will be in blue: The subjects in black.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, [Here the subject is not stating the obvious but stating an opinion and asserting  his own opinion as something being obvious.] but the Christian doctrine of the trinity is utterly ridiculous. Not only do I find the idea to be unfeasible and nonsensical, [ I've always been fascinated with time ever since reading Relativity, written back in 1952 by Albert Einstein. Mr. Einstein believed although the past, present and the future are each distinct aspects of time all of them existed simultaneously. Although the word Trinity is not used by Einstein, like it is not used the the bible, it does form a Trinity. And I do suspect the subject who wrote this article probably doesn't feel the same about the Trinity of time, as he does about the Christian Trinity. If the subject who wrote this article is going to claim that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is ridiculous, unfeasible, and nonsensical then I do hope that he does holds many other theorists including Albert Einstein's idea on time to the same opinion as he does that of the Christian's Trinity. Otherwise he would be guilt he was called doublethink.] but as far as I can tell, it isn’t even necessary for the Christian religion to exist. [I suppose there is truth to that, as there are some Christian denominations out there that don't believe in the Trinity although those of us that do would argue they are biblically wrong. With that said subject statement here does not in any way deduce that there is not a Trinity and that it is  ridiculous, unfeasible or nonsensical.]

These two criticisms are extremely intertwined; I’ll try to differentiate them though. The first relates primarily to the absurdity of it. What is the trinity? How can one god be three persons/people? How can three distinct aspects of time past, present and future all exist simultaneously? [Again, I suspect he does not hold that the many different forms of the Trinity found in nature to the same standard he does the biblical Trinity.] Does Yahweh have multiple personality disorder? [The subject here shows a lack of understanding of the Trinity. I find it completely unfair that the subject attacks that which he seems not to understand. Of course it could be that he does understand and chooses to reject it based upon what he wants to believe about the Trinity. But just like how time is made up of three distinct parts (past, present and future) so is the biblical Trinity but instead of three distinct parts it is three distinct persons. Jesus himself had two natures one being God and one being man. Colossians 2:9 says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." It may be hard to understand but again, it does not falsify the biblical Trinity] These questions raise interesting concerns, which are never answered by theologians, the only answers we ever receive are statements of overwhelming inanity like “God is mysterious” or incredibly weak analogies. [I suspect the subject here has never actually ever asked theologian, but instead has only read articles produced by fellow atheists or articles found on the web that support the view that he already has. There are many great works by theologians that address the subject's concerns. A simple Google search would reveal a lot on the subject. Although I'm not a Catholic I can tell you that Catholics have done a lot of work in this area. Maybe the subject can start by reading other sources then the ones that support the view he already has. Maybe stating with the The Catholic Encyclopedia] Most of the analogies that are used by Christians actually better demonstrate other non-Trinitarian doctrines that were deemed heretical. [As it stands the subject is just making claims but not baking up his claims.] Does Christianity even require the trinity? In my opinion, no it doesn’t. [An opinion is not a very good argument against the Trinity.]

I am not a biblical scholar, but it seems that deriving the doctrine of the trinity from the Biblical texts requires some mental and theological gymnastics. [The irony of the subject comment here is that while he denies the Trinity and believes it requires '' theological gymnastics'' he apparently does not hold the same view of the many different Trinity's found in nature to the same standard making him guilty of doublethink. This shows a bias agenda where he's rejecting only that which conflicts with  his preconceived views while accepting the very same thing that don't conflict with his views.] Besides the polytheistic/Henotheistic/Monolatrist vibes one gets from many Old Testament passages, the rest is extremely monotheistic, and there are no hints that Yahweh is actually three entities. [I believe it's safe to say from this, the subject has never actually read the Bible but instead is getting his information from others who are making claims. Because the Bible actually, not only hints at it, but the Bibles screams out loud of it. Like in Colossians 2:9. even the subject himself here in his comment about the Old Testament stumbles upon how the Bible gives subtle hints to the Trinity,  when he thinks the bible gives vibes of polytheism. Like in Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image" if there was only one person in the Godhead I would suspect He would  not use such words as “us” and “our.” and in Isaiah 6:8 God refers to Himself as both “I” and “us” given a very big hint to his plurality of being the same being when he says, “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"] The doctrine of the trinity isn’t even implicitly taught in the New Testament, but rather seems to be a poorly constructed doctrine based on a few scattered verses mentioning the spirit of God, various passages from John and Paul’s writings that allude to the supposed divinity of Jesus, and some of the polytheistic references from the Old Testament. The only time they are all mentioned at once as far as I know is in the prescription of the Rite of Baptism, which I suspect may even be a later interpolation. [Again, I suspect from what the subject has stated here shows that he has not actually read the Bible. May be pieces of it, or some website book that talks about it from somebody who shares the same agenda, but it would appear from the subject's ignorance that he has never read the Bible. Maybe the subject should take the time to read the Bible starting with such passages as II Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:5-8 or my favorite found in “John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” ]

As many will be aware, some early sects of the Christian cult were not even Trinitarian, [just because there are denominations that do not accept the trinity does not mean the Trinity is not biblical or as the subject put it  ridiculous, unfeasible and nonsensical. So far the subject hasn't made any actual arguments against the Trinity and seems to be basically make an appeal to particular populations. This would be similar to somebody saying that the Holocaust is ridiculous, unfeasible and nonsensical because there are historians that don't believe the Holocaust happened.] and the primary reason that most denominations today are, is because this was the position of the various Catholic councils that deemed other views heretical. [If this comment from the subject is not a load of bull then I don't know what is. Not to mention it seems to be counter to what the subject previously pointed out that there were Christian cults that did not accept the trinity. Even when it is considered heresy like many today do.  And I suspect if that was the case, that people just simply believed it because “various Catholic councils deemed the view heretical”, then I would suspect we would have far less denomination's than we do today. I also suspect if that was the case Sunday school would not be teaching about the Trinity (for and against) in the Bible giving classes and studies on it, but would be teaching simply that it is heresy to go against it and to read the bible any other way.]

Some examples of other views are the Modal view of God, where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were just different ‘modes’ of God, or expressions. In this view, the deity was still very much singular. Other views included ones where Jesus was either not human, or not divine such as Arianism (Do not confuse this with Aryanism). [It's no surprise that some people will have different opinions this does not show the Trinity is be true, ridiculous, unfeasible or nonsensical. It only shows that the primary reason why people accept a particular position on the Trinity not because that “various Catholic councils” says it's heresy, but because they come to a different conclusion reading the Bible.]

What does the trinity even bring to the religion? Nothing. [Is this an opinion again?] What doctrines are illuminated by God being split into three personalities? Why would an infinite deity require being composed of 3 parts? [Salvation? The sacrifice made for sinful man?] It is questions like these remaining almost entirely unanswered that makes me more certain that the religion is of purely human origin. Doctrines were invented whimsically to try to explain ideas, but instead they only serve to confuse. [Again, this appears to come from somebody who's never actually read the Bible or done any research outside of the books and websites that support the subject's preconceived views. As already shown by my responses to the subject's comments here] Apparently the god of the Bible is the author of the confusion, because the god of the bible is mankind. [I suppose I can see how this subject would view it that way, when the subject is arguing against something he is ignorant of. As stated before it seems very unfair to be arguing against something one has no clue what they're arguing against.]

Bickering over the words Christmas and holiday.

By

Well it’s that time again. You know when people start arguing and bickering over the use of the words “Christmas” and “holiday.” Frankly, I think such people have nothing better to do.

Personally, I don’t really care. As a Christian it will always be Christmas to me. Even if, say, the state changes our Christmas parade to a holiday parade. What somebody else called it doesn’t affect me. Because to me and my family. It will be Christmas, no matter what it’s called.

I’m not offended, although I find it tacky to call it holiday when it has been called Christmas for a long time. But again, it doesn’t affect me. I’m not even threatened by this political correctness, annoyed sure, but threatened no. Because Christmas is not about what word to use publicly. And if people think that is so important to them than they really do not understand all that goes into such a wonderfully blessed day.

For me and my family it’s a celebration of Christ, as well as a really great excuse to get family and friends together from all over the US and even the world. And spend the day together. It is a time to be generous and forgiving, it is a wonderful day. No matter what word is used.

It’s not the word that is the important thing. You can call whenever you want, but in the end it is the message that is important. So, whatever it is called as the message will remain.

Condemning other believers.

By

“

When believers differ over scruples or matters of opinion, they should not look down on or condemn each other. The Greek for look down on means “despise” (see NRSV) or “reject with contempt.” The stronger one faces the temptation to despise the weaker brother or sister. The weaker one is in danger of condemning the stronger brother or sister. Neither attitude is acceptable. Believers should not despise or condemn, because God does not; instead, God has accepted them both. (The Greek word for accepted here is the same word used in verse 1, where Paul explains what we must do.) They all need to remember, first of all,their corporate status as believers, forgiven and saved by God. God accepts people who some of us might feel are unacceptable because of their beliefs or practices. Paul responds to both brothers in love. Both are acting according to their consciences, but their honest scruples do not need to be made into rules for the church. Our principle should be: In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in everything, love.”

Barton, B. B., Veerman, D., & Wilson, N. S. (1992). Romans. Life application Bible commentary (262). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers

Question answered that young Earth creationist ask.

By

One thing young Earth creationists are well known for is making Christians look bad with their arguments. Usually these arguments are in the form of questions. For example, they will ask a question in regards to evolution. And as we know young Earth creationists are adamantly against evolution. So they will ask a question with the idea being that if the person being asked cannot answer the question or science has no answer for the question then automatically evolution is false and their version of creation is true.

When they are asked the same question. All they do is say, God did it. Ultimately what this boils down to is a multitude of logical fallacies. The first being the false dichotomy. Next being an appeal to the unknown and the ultimate highly popular God of the gaps fallacy. And the sad part is people do fall for this.

However, other people don’t fall for it and they will answer honestly saying “I don’t know.” Which is the most honest answer anyone can give when they really don’t know something. And it shows that persons honesty and credibility in the discussion compared to a person who instantly goes for the God of the gaps fallacy.

As a Christian myself, this kind of dishonesty is just blatantly repulsive to see from others claiming to be Christians. And this is very damaging to Christianity in general. Because, as history shows, when we don’t know something and we say God did it. Instead of I don’t know. It makes us Christians look really bad. After the question is find the answer.

One such question that continues to pop up on young Earth creationist websites, and apparently now in a young Earth creationist pamphlet, is the following:

This is a good question. Not answering that obviously does not mean evolution is false (after all evolution is an observed phenomenon with mountains of data and research and evidence to back it up). It just means evolution has not been able to answer that. But to the young Earth creationist. They try and make it seem as though if evolution can answer something, then evolution must be false. But they don’t apply this logic to such things as gravity. And after all, there are a lot of questions about gravity that have not been answered. But you don’t see them denying gravity do you?

Anyways, this question is a good question,. I myself have wondered how this could take place. And there are a lot of hypothesis out there in the scientific realm discussing some more plausible than others. But it does take some digging to find these hypothesis.

However, one of these hypothesis using the power of prediction has moved from the realm of hypothesis into the realm of working theory. And that is the idea that single cell organisms would organize themselves into a multi-cellular organism for the benefit of survival. And that is what happened.

According to a peer-reviewed laboratory study, titled: “Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity”. Single cell organisms were observed changing into multicellular organisms. In this study, they observed single cell organisms remaining single cell organisms through many generations. They then introduced a predatory organism into the study. And within hundred generations, the single cell organism developed into a multicellular organism made up of self replicating clusters of eight cells in response to the new environmental pressure.

So not only has evolution here been observed (yet again) . This goes way beyond the young Earth creationist flawed arguments of macro/micro-evolution . This is a huge jump in evolutionary terms. Going from a single cell organism to a multiple cellular organism that self replicates other eight cell clusters.

This, although only goes to show the flaw in what young Earth creationists try to do with these questions. Making Christians look very dishonest. Not to mention stupid when such questions have a high track record of later being answered.

I take a different position , and that is when I don’t know something I answer “I don’t know”. The way I see it. If we are to ever find direct scientific evidence for God. We are not going to do that by holding science back by stopping at God dun it.

Going green for the pocketbook.

By

 I am all for going green. After all, we only have one earth which people like me believe God created and continues to create . So what better way to show our Creator respect and to take care of this planet that we are on? God told us to use what he gave us, just not to rape and plunder it.

 Whether you agree or not with global warming, the earth is being affected. Be it temperature change or something that we see very often like, polluted rivers, lakes, or overflowing landfills.

 Now, I have decided to go a little green. However, it’s not because I’m trying to save the Earth. Although that is a good reason to go green. No, I’m going a little green to help out my pocket book when it comes to the baby.

One thing I discussed with my wife is instead of using disposable diapers we will use cloth diapers. This would save me a great deal of money and these are not the cloth diapers grandma used to use. Cloth diapers have dramatically changed and been upgraded since her time. I estimate that I will be saving approximately $3000 on diapers each year by using disposable diapers. That’s a lot of money. I can put forth to my baby and other things. And a lot more room in landfills.

Another thing I would like to do is make our own baby food for the baby when he or she begins eating. This not only allows me to know what’s going into my child but it will save a lot of money. I mean have you seen the price baby food in stores. It doesn’t seem like too much in all $.98 a day but this all adds up.

Although going green has a large an initial expense, for example: 12 sets of diapers liners, etc. is about $100. And I will want to lease the minimal of three sets. But after they have been purchased, I will not need to buy anymore unless they get ripped or something. So ultimately, I will save money through making an investment which in turn will be helping the earth the next generation that is on its way.