Here is an interesting article, no, I’ve never heard of the Jamaica Gleaner News either, but the content caught my eye and it’s very informative. The article attempts to show that some big differences between ancient Egyptian religions and Judeo-Christianity prove that Judaism and Christianity did not derive itself from these religions in Egypt.

There has always been discussion of the actual source of the Jewish religion and the Christian religion. This is an obvious question to ask when you look at some of the similarities between different religions. For instance, the Bible teaches that we should love our neighbor as ourselves (Leviticus 19:18), this same principle is also taught in Hinduism. The logic goes, if two religions are similar, one religion must have stemmed from another and hence did not come from God, therefore you can discount that religion since it is just a copy of another one. This argument is then taken further to say that all religions are the same so it doesn’t really matter what you believe, etc.

Actually, when you look at the command that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves, you will find it in just about every major religion. So, when we look at the similarities and differences in the major religions, there is only one thing we can prove: The human condition is universal. Every human has looked at himself and the world he lived in and realized something was wrong. And every human has tried his best to fix it himself. Has anyone succeeded?

This is exactly what “religion” is. Religion is man’s attempt to fix his relationship with God. As Tim Keller puts it, “religion says I obey and therefore I am accepted by God.” So yes, you will find a lot of similarities when you look at what all the major religions teach, because all of them agree that there is sin and that if you stop people from sinning, things will be better. But what did Christ say? “apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Christianity is the only “religion” that teaches that we are “saved by grace through faith not as a result of works” (Ephesians 2:8-9). “God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Christ did not come “to call the righteous to faith, but the sinners” (Mark 2:17), this would be you, and me. The difference between Christianity and all other religions is not in how we’re commanded to be good and do good things, the difference is in how we restore our relationship to God. Tim Keller finishes off his statement with, “religion says I obey therefore I am accepted by God. Christianity says I am accepted through Christ therefore I obey.”

If you have an interest in getting a big picture look at the major religions, have a look at this book by Huston Smith.

Last year, a Bible study I was in went through the book of Romans. I’ve posted some notes on a blog at romansyearly.wordpress.com. The study is divided into 36 weeks but ended up taking us exactly 52 weeks to go through, some weeks lead to some heavy discussion so they carried over into the next week. We found that most of the guys in the study hadn’t looked into the whole Calvinism/Arminianism thing so we did get sidetracked a lot with that discussion and the notes thoroughly reflect that. Enjoy.

Pulpit Magazine has three interesting posts from John MacArthur on what he feels are essential doctrines that should not be compromised. It was helpful to me because rather than just stating a list of what he feels are essential, he provides a method for determining if a doctrine should be essential. Here is a quick overview:

1. All Fundamental Articles of Faith Must Be Drawn from the Scriptures
2. The Fundamentals Are Clear in Scripture
3. Everything Essential to Saving Faith Is Essential
4. Every Doctrine We Are Forbidden to Deny Is Fundamental
5. The Fundamental Doctrines Are All Summed up in the Person and Work of Christ

Read the posts here:

• Part I
• Part II
• Part III

They finished up the 2008 Conference for Pastors in Minneapolis, Minnesota yesterday. I always enjoy John Piper’s biographical messages at these conferences, this year his message was on his father, Bill, who passed away in 2007.

• Read/Watch/Listen to the audio messages
  
• Read through the blog posts on the conference

Here is an article from Discover Magazine on the research of Stanley Miller. Miller’s theory of how life began is, very simply put, that it was formed in very cold conditions contrary to other theories that it began under very hot conditions like those found in volcanoes.

I guess my only comment on this article is that I still don’t understand how scientists can say this is how life began, when it’s not how life began, it’s how living organisms came together. For something to have a beginning, it had to have a period of time when it didn’t exist. According to the big bang theory, all matter has always existed, it was just not in the same form as it is now. So, life never really began, it always was, or so the theory says. OK, you say, so aren’t we just arguing over semantics now? Does it really matter what word we use for all this? I believe it does.

For something to have a beginning, it had to have a catalyst, something to change it from what wasn’t to what was. Some modern-day scientists say that all matter existed in a point of infinite density (singularity) and then, all of a sudden, this built up energy was released (the big bang) and this is where all life comes from. There are two well known questions that still remain unanswered by this theory though. The first is, where did this singularity come from? And the second is, what caused it to explode all of a sudden?

An answer to the first question only leaves you stranded at the second. Some say that singularity has always existed, just as we say God has always existed, there never was a time when singularity did not exist. But if this is the answer, you are still left with the question of why did it explode all of a sudden. This is the issue of cause and effect. Every effect has to have a cause associated with it. If a ball is rolling down the street, something had to make it roll. Either I kicked it or the wind blew it or something happened. If singularity has always existed, what was the cause of the effect of its explosion? What force acted on this point of matter to cause it to explode and begin life as we know it? The question cannot be answered without belief in something other than what is known.

I loved the way John Piper put this in a recent sermon, “The Meaning of Grace: But God . . .”

Speaking on Titus 3:1-8, Piper explains grace as “but God…”. What he is saying is that after reading through Titus 3:3, “For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.” we get to this wonderful statement in verse 4, “but God…”. So we see how utterly depraved we are without God, we see how enslaved we are to our sins, how foolish we are that we can’t help but cry out for grace because we need it so desperately. If God were to count our iniquities, who could stand? (Psalm 130:3) But when the kindness of God appeared, he saved us.

Grace is the “but God…” when we realize just how sinful we truly are and how much God has forgiven us. John Newton said he “remembered two things, that he is a great sinner and that Christ is a great savior.” Grace shines through the gospel of Jesus Christ so that when we look upon our sins and see His mercy we finally see just how forgiven we need to be and will be if we believe.

“And there they continued to preach the gospel” - Acts 14:7

Each Tuesday a different reflection on the gospel and its continual effect on our lives

There is an opinion post today in the National Post titled, “Why I am an Abortion Doctor.” Apparently, the piece was written by an abortionist, Garson Romalis, who has been in practice since it was legal to do so, and was delivered on Jan. 25, at the University of Toronto Law School’s Symposium. From the article, Romalis writes:

Let me tell you about an abortion patient I looked after recently. She was 18 years old, and 18-19 weeks pregnant. She came from a very strict, religious family. She was an only daughter, and had several brothers. She was East Indian Hindu and her boyfriend was East Indian Muslim, which did not please her parents. She told me if her parents found out she was pregnant she would be disowned and kicked out of the family home. She also told me that her brothers would murder her boyfriend, and I believed her. About an hour after her operation I and my nurse saw her and her boyfriend walking out of the clinic hand in hand, and I said to my nurse, “Look at that. We saved two lives today.”

The entire article reads in similar fashion. The focus of Romalis’ comments are on the reasons why he does what he does. He describes how women are in desperate times and in need of his services. He looks on the work he does as being a good thing, helping others out in “the worst trouble the patient has ever been in in her entire life.” In one situation, Romalis describes how he had just killed a woman’s unborn child when he received a phone call from her mother. Expecting to hear from the stolen-grandmother about a lawsuit, he was surprised when she said to him, “Thank you, Doctor. Thank God there are people like you around.”

Garson Romalis obviously goes right for the emotion to grab his audience. He bypasses any attempt to justify his actions from a right vs. wrong standpoint and, instead, paints a picture of help and compassion for those who have no where else to turn. Never is the question of whether abortion is murder or not taken into account, the desperation and despair of the woman is the only thought considered in this article.

What I really would like you to see though is the comments on Digg, where I found this article. Have a look here. You will find comments like, ” This helped remind why I don’t want religious fanatics running our country” or “i’ve had scares in my life. thankfully they didn’t amount to anything. but at least i know, if it comes down to the worst case scenario, i can keep my life on track.” I think it’s helpful sometimes to read through these comments, Digg is a huge social network so it is a good way to see what people think about a particular topic. Be prepared for some vulgar language and utter nonsense at times though so please use caution.

A few days ago I posted some information on a recently discovered fossil being called the “missing link” to ancient and modern day crocodiles. Today I found a video of a really odd looking shark found by some fishermen near Japan.

Could it be that these fossils we keep finding aren’t of things that are extinct but are of things that are just difficult to find?

Imagine for a moment that a few thousand years ago the earth was suddenly, within a matter of days, flooded. Creatures in the sea can only survive at their comfortable pressure level. A small fish that hangs out at 10 feet below the surface isn’t going to last very long at 1000 feet because there is more pressure at 1000 feet verses 10 feet.

The Bible says that the tallest mountains were covered during the flood; this could possibly mean that Mt. Everest was covered to its tip in water. So, this would mean that sea level rose 8,850 meters or roughly 29,000 feet! This is a pressure differential of 247 atmospheres at sea level. So, every creature in the sea had to drastically change its habitat within a few days. Either the fish stayed where they knew their food source was and died from the new pressure that all this water caused or they left their habitats and swam upwards where they had to find new sources of food.

This is no small change. The effects that the flood had on this earth are very difficult to spell out. But it is obvious that if an event like this really took place, we would need to drastically rethink how we date fossils based on their sedimentary layer level. The pressure caused by this much of an increase in so short a time are very hard to model and calculate. The earth’s composition and sedimentary layout would have changed significantly if that much weight was suddenly piled upon it. Any thoughts?

Well, I was on schedule to read through at least 26 books in 2008, having read through 4 already this year I was in good shape. Then I picked up a copy of John Owen’s The Glory of Christ. I have a feeling this one is going to break the schedule. The length isn’t the problem. It’s the content. I can only read through a few sentences before I am compelled to put the book down and ponder what was just read.

This is our first saving view of Christ, the first instance of our beholding his glory by faith. So to see him as to see God in him, is to behold his glory; for herein he is eternally glorious. And this is that glory whose view we ought to long for and labour after.

Owen’s use of language is fantastic. When speaking of Christ’s glory, Owen refers to it as the uncreated glory of God. If you’re looking for a book that will give you an awesome view of the glory of Christ, read the Bible. If you want a book that will give you a pretty good view of the glory of Christ, have a look at this one.

This was too good not to post…

(HT: Justin Taylor)