The River of Life

from Google Images

Many Christians think the River of Life that flows from the Throne of God in New Jerusalem is a literal river. Yet, how could this be, if there were no literal sea into which all rivers flow (cp. Revelation 21:1)[1]. Moreover, if there were also no literal sun and moon (Revelation 21:23; 22:5) to cause the hydraulic cycle that produces springs, which in turn become streams, which come together to produce rivers, how could a literal, physical River of Life even exist in that context. Oh, but God is able to do anything! Well, yes and no. God cannot contradict terms. He cannot make a lie the truth or the truth a lie; neither could he make a square circle etc. That would be chaos! God created order in the universe, not chaos. In other words, God can do all things that are possible to be done by a Being of his Almighty power. Therefore, if there is no literal sea in the new heaven and the new earth, there can be no literal River of Life. Yet, even if there are oceans in the new heaven and the new earth, this still doesn’t mean the River of Life is physical. There is more evidence that the river should be interpreted spiritually.

 

Is Religion the Root of All Evil?

from Google Images

Often the accepted leadership of the new atheism, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens,[1] Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett (also referred to as the Four Horsemen) have argued that religion is not only a delusion but a dangerous delusion. It seems that they believe religion is at the root of all our problems. They not only advocate separation from religion but desire to separate religion from public affairs. In other words they advocate religious impotence. No religion of any kind (but especially Christianity) should have a public voice, including in education. It seems, according to their point of view, if religion should become irrelevant, many, if not all, of our problems would be solved.

 

Jesus—Yes!

from Google Images

I find it astonishing when I consider Christianity as we know it, today, and Jesus of the first century AD.[1] Christianity today is politically powerful, and the largest religion on the face of the earth. Yet, in the first century Jesus led a little band of followers (Luke 12:32) and had absolutely no political power, even refused to seize it when the opportunity arose (cp. Matthew 26:50-54; John 18:4-18 and John 18:33-37). There is a strange difference between the great power that has been exercised throughout much of Christianity’s history and Jesus who offered a relatively light burden of responsibility and rest for the souls that submit to him (Matthew 11:28-30).

 

Atheism—Nontheistic Gods

from Google Images

Surprisingly, Chris, the young atheist whose testimonial videos I’m discussing, seems to put in a plug for other gods or at least other conceptions of god in this video (HERE). He offers pantheism, panentheism, deism and panpsychism as alternative beliefs in a god which might be acceptable to atheism, which he defines as a disbelief in the theistic God or the God of the Bible. At least ‘atheism’ wouldn’t be compelled to put up websites whose sole purpose is to attack the Christian worldview, and the Judeo/Christian Bible over such ‘isms. After all, it is to the pantheistic god (or a reasonable facsimile) that many scientists often refer, of whom we could point to Einstein and Michio Kaku. Who among atheists would attack these respected icons of science?

 

How Do We Become Good?

from Google Images

It has been put forth by Chris, our young atheist whose video series on You Tube I am presently considering as a theme for discussion,[1] that, if the commands of God define morality, then God could command rape, murder and child molestation, and such things would become moral, simply because God said so. Moreover, if morality is being good, it would render being good meaningless. While I agree that what God says is moral, I don’t agree this renders morality meaningless, because the Bible claims God is good, and only he is good in his essence (Matthew 19:17). Therefore, morality can be defined as being like God (cf. Genesis 1:26-27). So, if we know what good is, we know what being moral is. What, therefore, does it mean to be good?

 

Deconversion—Morality

From Google Images

In the next video in this series, Deconversion—Morality, the idea of morality is discussed. What is morality? Is morality what is good? If so, then we would have to define what good actually is before we could determine what moral behavior actually is. Is that not so? For example, one could argue that getting to the top of the ladder of success would be good, but would it be good at any cost. Would it be good to attain success at the cost of ruining the reputation of another person or ruining that one’s chances of attaining success in his or her own right? One might argue for the ‘survival of the fittest’ rule and say: “Yes, the better of the two won out!” Is what is good for one but ruin for another moral? If good is moral, then what is good must be something different than merely pleasant circumstance.

 

The God Concept

from Google Images

Chris, a young author of the Why I am no longer a Christian series on You Tube’s Evid3nc3 channel, correctly concludes in his video The God Concept that our belief in God doesn’t hang upon a single idea. Rather one’s belief in God is supported by a various number of supporting “pillars” of beliefs and experiences that support the “mega belief” of God’s existence. Therefore, if a single belief that supports the existence of God is attacked by a non-believer, and assuming that attack is successful in leaving the Christian with no argument, the Christian is still justified in holding to his belief in God, because there are so many other supporting pillars that remain unscathed by the attacking atheist. Hence, many atheists wrongly consider the Christian position as weak and hypocritical, because (at least in this one assumed instance) he succeeded in disarming the Christian position.

 

The Big Bang and Supernovas

The Crab Nebula, shown here as it is today, is the remnant of a supernova which was seen in the year 1054 AD and remained visible to the naked eye for about a year.
(Credit: NASA)

When a star explodes, it leaves an expanding cloud of residue called a SuperNova Remnant (SNR). The Crab Nebula in the constellation of Taurus and shown in the photo to the left is a good example of a supernova. When it became visible to Earth, the supernova could be seen in the daytime in 1054 for a number of weeks. For galaxies like our own Milky Way every 25-30 years, on average, a star should blow up creating a nova—big stars create supernovas. One must ask how far out does the cloud of the Crab Nebula reach and how long did it take for the cloud to reach the limits we see today?

 

The Gospel Cannot Be Hindered

Luke ends his thesis in Acts 28:30-31, showing Paul in his rented house welcoming all—Jews or gentiles—who would come to him, and there he preached the Kingdom of God and those things that concerned the Lord, Jesus Christ, with no one forbidding him. Luke shows us that Paul did this for at least two years, and afterward nothing more is written about Paul or anything further about any of the acts of the Apostles. This, I believe, is meant to be the end of Luke’s thesis. It is not an accident than nothing further is written. Acts has a real ending, and it ends here.

 

How Can You Be So Obtuse?

Throughout the day there was, no doubt, and exchange of ideas and questions put forward as Paul spoke to the Jewish assembly at his residence in Rome (Acts 28:23, 30). The problem was that some believed, but, evidently, most did not (Acts 28:24), which was characteristic of the Jewish response throughout Paul’s ministry (Acts 13:45, 48; 14:4; 17:4-5; 18:6-8; 19:8-9). So, I don’t believe the ending in Rome came as a surprise to Paul.

 

Paul’s Argument in Rome

The Jewish leaders in Rome decided to give Paul a hearing (Acts 28:22), and when they decided upon a particular day, they, and it seems many others with them, assembled at Paul’s rented residence for what would be an all day affair (Acts 28:23, cp. 28:30). Luke doesn’t state it clearly, but his choice of words implies that this was not simply Paul preaching, but what occurred was more like a heated debate.

 

Paul, Balaam and Heliodorus

I recently ran across a website comparing Paul’s conversion experience to Balaam’s effort in the book of Numbers to aid Balak’s wish to curse and destroy Israel. The website also compared both with Helidorus’ journey to Jerusalem to rob the Temple treasury in 2Maccabees. I have to admit it is an interesting comparison. I would even go as far as to say that I agree that the comparison is a valid one, but I don’t agree with the author’s conclusion? The reason for my disagreement is that there are key points that the author of the website leaves out.

 

Did Rome Know Nothing of Paul

Some critics have pointed out that the text’s “We have neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor have any of the brethren come here and reported or spoken anything bad about you” (Acts 28:21) is quite unbelievable. However, just as is usually the case, the whole truth cannot be derived from a cursory read of Luke’s account. His record needs to be compared with what we know of Paul’s time in the 1^st century CE, and Luke’s account needs to be tested against what he says elsewhere in his thesis.

 

Paul’s Triumphal Entry

It seems that Luke continues his theme of presenting the final acts of Paul in a similar fashion that he presented those of Jesus in Luke 19:29-40. Just as Jesus had a triumphal entry into the capital of Judea, so Paul, although he is a prisoner of Rome, is presented as having a triumphal journey to the capital of the world (Acts 28:14-16).

 

The Gospel and the Voyage to Rome

It has been said that “the tendency to over allegorize” the account should be resisted. Luke’s focus is on the rescue of the passengers from danger, including Paul. There is no proclamation of the Gospel message by Paul, and the pagans on board remain pagans after they arrive on the shore of Malta.”[1] Nevertheless, if this is so, why record anything that occurred in Acts 27? Why not simply begin with Acts 27:1 and let verse-2 begin at Acts 28:12? If what occurs between Acts 27:1 and 28:12 have no meaning for the Gospel, then what meaning would they have for Theophilus (Acts 1:1), to whom Luke wrote in order to offer him a more perfect understanding of the things he had been told (Luke 1:3-4)?