Einstein's hereoes... all creationists

http://creation.com/einsteins-heroes

Something worth remembering when an Internet scoffer is loudly proclaiming that all people as clever as he/she is disbelieve the Bible...

Jesus Christ is the true hero

One criticism made against Christianity by unbelieving scholars in the 20th century was that its central figure, Jesus Christ, too closely resembles other, obviously mythical/fictional, heroes from popular legend.

This criticism is hugely undermined by a) the complete disagreement on exactly *which* legendary hero he is supposed to be modeled upon - disagreement which occurs because b) re-examination of the details never finds as good a fit for any one particular legend's hero as the proposing scholar suggested.

Nevertheless, let's take the idea, and run with it. C S Lewis dealt with a similar criticism in a different way, turning it on its head. Here was the objection he faced. Why are there so many echoes of different pagan legends in the Christian story, unbelieving critics asked? Surely the Bible writers were just borrowing others' riffs when they wrote about Jesus Christ - and therefore their account was not authentic?

That does not follow, replied Lewis. If you're going to seriously consider the question of whether Christianity is true, then in doing so, you must open yourself up to the possibility that God revealed in Christ is the one who is in control of history, guiding it towards its purposes. Those purposes included the spreading of the Christian message throughout all nations. He intends history to bring the progress of the message and rule of Jesus Christ to the nations. In his providential guidance of those nations, what could be wiser than to have allowed stories about legendary redeemers - and legends they are, and the Bible never claims otherwise - that would help to prepare those nations for the coming of the true redeemer? What could be better than to structure creation so that there is, in all cultures, a yearning for a true hero, who, when he was preached, people would recognise as the real thing? Someone who fulfills every legitimate hope and longing that had been gathering through the centuries?

When put this way, the old objection takes on a new light: it's simply one more re-working of unbelief. Classical 20th century liberal scholars simply don't believe that there is an God who controls history. Their presuppositions forbid them to think of other answers than their own: that the Bible writers borrowed other peoples' ideas, instead of speaking through divine inspiration. But it only takes the tiniest amount of imagination to see an alternative: cultures across the world long for a redeemer and tell stories about redeemers who in some ways shadow Jesus Christ (whilst in other ways greatly misunderstanding him), because they have, somehow, an unshakeable feeling that they need one.

"Appearance of age"

If God created the world in 6 days, then does this mean that he would have (as many evolutionists insist this means) "deceived" people by creating with the false appearance of age? A useful distinction is made here in explaining a biblical answer to this question: http://creation.com/is-apparent-age-biblical

Atheism doesn't work, concedes atheist philosopher

http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/new-atheism-old-problems

The problem, as conceded by an atheist philosopher: atheism doesn't work. Proponents of the "new atheism" would like it to, but their arguments don't stand up to the test of reality.

"New atheists", he explains, are basically people who say what they wish was true: not what there's any good reason to believe.

There's a basic divide in the atheist camp: on the one side, there's "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins who say what fellow atheists would like to hear (a.k.a. preaching to the choir), but whose arguments are held by philosophers of any pedigree to be sophomoric nonsense. On the other side, there's "Old Atheists", like John Gray, who say it like it is: that atheism provides no coherent, rational basis for the world to work in the way that we feel it ought to.

There's a way out of this "dilemma", of course...

A reason to be thankful for the Internet...

The Internet is a segment of human life, and so includes all its dross; but here's the kind of resource that makes the Internet great: http://www.math-aids.com

Someone appears to have done this for free. It's high-quality, and well thought-out - and with the power of the Internet, anyone can do that, and anyone can benefit from it, with a few clicks. I just hope they'll make sure it doesn't die with them, if they're just an individual. You couldn't do that without the Internet: the dead wood would cost paper, and publishers have their expenses, etc.

Have you got any useful stuff you could stick online and share with the world? I've been pleasantly surprised to find people coming across stuff I did years ago, and sending a "thank you" note. It doesn't happen often - but in my reckoning, if you put the work in to produce something once, then you may as well squeeze everything you can out of it. If I stick it up there now, it might benefit someone in 20 years time. There's enough trivia on the Internet - do you have something, whether in the things of this world only, or things of the kingdom, that could be a blessing?

Why oppose the techniques involved in "3-parent babies"?

http://www.stopgm3parentbabies.com/why-are-we-opposed-to-mitochondrial-donation/

Waiting until the facts are in

This news story excellently illustrates a Christian teaching - of charity in judgment: waiting until the facts are in, and until the other side has had a full opportunity to explain themselves, before rushing to judgment: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/11379383/How-an-incredible-coincidence-sparked-a-Facebook-plagiarism-row.html. Note how one of the photographers involved made a public fool of himself by not doing so.