Archive for January, 2014

1518549_10201259769042938_27193347_oAs I write this my family is deeply embroiled in a life or death situation with a loved one. The flu, a UTI, then pneumonia, congestive heart failure, ventilation, tracheotomy, and a DNR: a terrible chain of events has spiraled the health of someone we love downward to the brink of death. After an initial rally, she was sent to a step-up facility to get her weaned off of the ventilator. Because her husband had signed a DNR, the doctor in charge of her case at said facility simply wanted to pull her off of the ventilator and let her die. Because of a terrible error by the nurse on duty, she came out of sedation. Ordinarily that would have been tragic, since the terrible shape of her lungs full of pneumonia would have put her in distress. 

What could have been a tragic scene became a very touching and horribly painful conversation between a very ill wife, and a loving husband. I witnessed this conversation unobtrusively, as I slipped into the room, and never made my presence known. I feel guilty for intruding on such a touching and private moment, but I thank God I was a witness to such a moving exchange.

I will not go into the details, but suffice it to say that the husband told the wife of her grave situation. He asked her if she wanted to continue to be kept alive, or whether she was ready to be let go. She indicated she wanted to continue to fight for her life. The husband said he would, but that he would not let her suffer, and would make a hard decision if he had to. She cried. She could not speak, because of the tracheotomy. All she could do was respond to questions. He asked her what she would do if she knew he was suffering. She cried again.

Until that moment, the husband was considering making that hard decision. The doctors and staff were encouraging the removal of the ventilator, to let her pass. They had even removed the diuretic she was on, a clear path to death by congestive heart failure. Evidently in this facility, a signed DNR means “let’s accelerate her demise”. Thanks to a mistake by a nurse in allowing her Diprivan to run out, bringing her out of sedation, the weight of a horrible decision was lessened, the chance to say the things he needed to say, and another opportunity to encourage a loved one to trust in Christ alone, came about.

That’s as much detail as I intend to go into, other than to say that the DNR was rescinded, and she was moved to another hospital, to actually attempt to save her life. This story does not end here. It is still a very grave life or death situation. In the end, her life, as is ours, is in the hands of God.

I intend to start a thread on end-of-life ethics. I find I am thinking a lot about this topic, considering what I have just witnessed. I also find I am quite at a loss to clearly discuss this matter, which means I need to do some serious cogitating. I lack the necessary information to process this. This will serve as my journal of discovery into a subject none of us want to broach, but all must at some point, assuming the Lord doesn’t return first.

May we all grow in Grace as we struggle with issues that can only make us better Christians.

Christian theology, however, offers a unique take on suffering. Christ’s death and resurrection illustrate that suffering can be redemptive, that suffering can have meaning, and that suffering is not necessarily the worst possible thing that befalls human beings. This does not mean that we embrace suffering as an unequivocal good, that we are supposed to seek out suffering, or that there is no place in Christian thought for compassionate relief of suffering. But it does mean that we must avoid the temptation to believe that any activity that alleviates suffering is ethical and good. As Meilaender describes, “We must…always be of two minds about [suffering]. We should try to care for those who suffer, but we should not imagine that suffering can be eliminated from human life or that it can have no point or purpose…Nor should we suppose that suffering must be eliminated by any means that is available to us, for a good end does not justify any and all means…to make elimination of suffering our highest priority would be to conclude mistakenly that it can have no point or purpose in our lives. We should not act as if we believe that the negative, destructive powers of the universe are finally victorious.” 1

1. Dollar, Ellen P. “Christian Ethics 101: What Makes Ethics “Christian”?” Ellen Painter Dollar. Patheos, 26 Sept. 2012. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 
Court is now in session.

Court is now in session.

If the model is faulty, so will be the inferences built around it. Evolution is a model. It is possible it is built on faulty assumptions.

 

#10 No evolutionary model is absolutely conclusive in its results. Sherlock Holmes’ “deductive” reasoning does not apply here. Evolution is an explanatory historical model. It seeks to explain history of the biological world. Models are an argument from inference. It is an attempt to assemble information to reach a desired conclusion. That conclusion is the assumption which started the process.

Many times these inferences are in error because the model itself is built around some faulty assumptions. Sometimes the information that is used to construct the model is wrong – like the never-existing Brontosaurus. But bad information does not mean that the model is entirely wrong. It does means that conclusions drawn from the model will be in error.

Courtroom situations also use explanatory model. The conclusion that one might arrive at is by way of inference from the evidence – is there enough evidence to rule one way or the other? But this inference does not come from the information in the model – it comes from the model itself. So while a conclusion may be “beyond reasonable doubt” that does not mean it reflects reality. We hear of these regularly: There may be enough evidence to convict a person though that person may be completely innocent of the crime. So also without the right evidence and the right amount of evidence the guilty sometimes go free. That is one of the issues with an argument from inference. The weight that the jury gives evidence may be different than what the prosecutor or defense attorney anticipate. The “facts” used may be unchanged for either situation. But in the end it is not so much about the facts but about how the facts are framed and the weight given. The weight given evidence and the sufficiency of evidence are equally serious issues in evolutionary theory and contribute to its changes over the past 150 years.

— Collin Brendemuehl

via 10 Things You Should Know About Science and Evolution | Caffeinated Thoughts.

 

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

William Lane Craig

“If Christians could be trained to provide solid evidence for what they believe and good answers to unbelievers’ questions and objections, then the perception of Christians would slowly change. Christians would be seen as thoughtful people to be taken seriously rather than as emotional fanatics or buffoons. The gospel would be a real alternative for people to embrace.”

–- William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, p. 18

URLhttp://www.alwaysbeready.com/quotations

Sometimes Christians can be their own worst enemies. There are those Christians who don’t want to bother with doing the work of theology. They would rather just “wing it”, and feel all they need is “Jesus in their heart”. If that is your philosophy, please don’t engage your culture. They will chew you up, and spit you out, and you will poison the well for the next Christian.

Learn how to make a reasonable defence for your faith. 

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

The Scientific Method. The evolutionary theory is a ‘model’.

 

#9 Evolution is not empirical science, the practice of testing the physical world. Some science is done by way of hands-on testing — that’s what “empirical” means. But it is also done by building a “model” to explain events. A “model” is a way of framing information so that it makes sense. The “evolutionary model” is an historical model. Other models include predictive models like weather forecasts, emulation, and a couple other types. Evolution was not built according to the rules of the hands-on tests that we did in high school. At the same time, neither are questions about God subject to that same old rule.

— Collin Brendemuehl

via 10 Things You Should Know About Science and Evolution | Caffeinated Thoughts.

 

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

b964f7d547c61761d25c6e8aa3b3b72b37852bd4b39e0f698d395a11ccffebf1

This means that theology is absolutely vital. Think about it: if theology was irrelevant, it wouldn’t matter what we believed. It would be of no consequence whether we were Muslims or Mormons (all of whom hold religious ideas which include a role for Jesus). But Christ is worth honoring and serving precisely because of who he is and what he has accomplished, and that is what the task of Christian theology is all about.  Indeed, true faith rests on the foundation of certain doctrinal claims – and theology protects us from errors and defines the boundaries of our thoughts concerning God.

Ultimately theology cannot be avoided – it is an inescapable concept. Everyone has a theology. It is never a question of theology or no theology; it’s always a question of what theology: biblical theology or unbiblical theology, good theology or bad theology. So what type of theology do you have? The good news is that it can always be improved – there is always more to learn. Make a decision today to disciple your mind. And determine to be the best Christian theologian you can be!

via Why every Christian needs to be a “theologian” – the discipleship of the mind | Pastor Dominic.

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

#2 Darwin did not originate the idea of evolution. He is also not the source for our modern ideas on the subject. In ancient Greece there were several descent theories though they were not at all the same as Darwin’s “common descent.” And in the 1700s Carolus Linnaeus built hierarchy of apparent animal relationships. Around the same time Jean-Baptiste Lamarck suggested that the use of an organ could change its characteristics, like the height of a giraffe’s neck. All of these and more contributed to Darwin’s theory.

This is nothing new. These ideas came and went as cultures and societies changed. Darwinism came came about while two important while Western society was going through two phases. First, the industrial revolution provided a very mechanical view of life. It was efficient. It was productive. And society accepted it this as the norm. Along with this came a progressive view of history. It is both theological and political. It was believed that the world can be made better and that it is getting better.

These two movements blended nicely. Both of these can be seen as contributing to Darwin’s materialistic view of life and his sense that somehow, in some way, species must evolve into something better. This is the principle of direction that is a part of all evolutionary theory. Of course there is no explanation as to why this direction is there. It is accepted without question and often without an awareness that the question even exists. 

via 10 Things You Should Know About Science and Evolution | Caffeinated Thoughts.

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

To say that we cannot know anything about God is to say something about God; it is to say that if there is a God, he is unknowable. But in that case, he is not entirely unknowable, for the agnostic certainly thinks that we can know one thing about him: That nothing else can be known about him.” In the end, agnosticism is an illogical position to hold to.”

–J. Budziszewski, Quoted in Ron Rhodes, Answering the Objections of Atheists, Agnostics & Skeptics, p. 25.

via URLhttp://www.alwaysbeready.com/quotations

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

Darwinian Depression

 

#8 Naturalism is the idea that the material world, the world that we can test, is all that exists. (That’s short for “metaphysical naturalism” as some readers might take issue.) Naturalism is not evolution. Naturalism is not even science. Naturalism says that there is no God (or that at best God is not involved). When someone suggests that in all of the tests being done that they have never seen God, just remind them there are no physical tests for God. There are also no physical tests for the mind. Some subjects occur outside of physical testing.

All science is done in the context of presuppositions – things that are assumed to be true. This is where naturalism exists. Even these exist in historical context. Darwin wrote in one context where the mechanical world directly affected his thoughts and ideas. The neo-Darwinists wrote in another world, one where physical testing was the new rule of the day. And today’s mathematically driven theories are coming about in the era of computing power and a digital view of the world. None of the three may be separated from their history. Each may be viewed as limited by their history. When we leave this era of computing then the ideas of Wolfram and Shapiro will be rejected just as were their predecessors.

via 10 Things You Should Know About Science and Evolution | Caffeinated Thoughts.

 

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

But objective moral values and duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

One of my fellow former atheists insists this is THE strongest argument for the existence of God.  He was haunted by the fact that if he embraced atheism, he had to release any notion of objective right and wrong.  He had no longer had a place to stand and say, “the holocaust is wrong” or even “rape and child abuse is wrong.”  He could say he didn’t like it…but…so what!  Who cares!  If there is no God, there is no truth, only opinion and who are you to push your opinion on me or anyone else?”

via Buddy the Elf and the Moral Argument for God | Pastor Matt.

 

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

When I was a full-blown Word-of-Faith-er, I hated John MacArthur. Now that I have seen the dark side of WOF, (and its unBiblical underpinnings), and the refusal of Continuationists to take a stand against the downright evil elements of the health-and-wealth gospel, I love the man with all of my heart.

I don’t agree with a total Cessationist point of view, but the simple fact is that Charismatics and Pentecostals will not exercise discipline on its own members. For that reason alone, reasonable and discerning continuationists owe Dr. MacArthur a great debt.

This reminds me so much of the call for moderate Muslims to speak out against the radicalized Islamists. Their silence, and the silence of moderate Continuationists, should remind us all that silence is the greatest of tyrannies.

Until someone in the Charismatic/Pentecostal community speaks up with the brutal honesty and integrity of Dr. John MacArthur, I’m throw in’ my stuff in the other camp’s boat, thank you very much.

Thus endeth my rant.

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com