Yes? - or No?

It's okay!  I know that there is only a fortnight to go before the referendum on Scottish independence (= separation!), but this post is going to be in no way political.

I have just come across a post on Facebook.  It's from 'Jesus Daily' and shows a picture that is obviously intended to represent the incarnate Lord Jesus.  The caption above reads: "I CAME, LIVED, AND DIED, AND ROSE AGAIN FOR YOU. DO YOU BELIEVE ME? Yes or No"

That is, indeed, an important question.  It reminded me of the one asked by a man named Pontius Pilate, almost 2,000 years ago: "Then what should I do with Jesus Who is called the Messiah?" (Matt.27:22).   What will you do with Jesus?   

There are many responses to that question - too many for me to deal with in one post.  There are those who, like the Pharisees and the priests, with the support of a mob, merely want to get rid of Him.  He challenges their traditions; their lifestyle; their philosophy.  "Let's get rid of Him", is their response.  However, He is not so easily dismissed - as those 1st century Jewish leaders soon found out!

Others have no particular animosity towards Him.  Indeed, like Pilate, they may even have a grudging admiration for Him.  They like His teaching - as long as it isn't too radical!  They admire His courage!  They even suspect that He is more than any ordinary man.   But they wash their hands of Him (Matt.27:24).  They can't, or won't make a decision for Him - and, by default, have made a decision against Him!

However, in every generation there are those who, even as did one of those crucified with Him, recognise His Kingship, and seek the salvation that is available only through Him. They commence a life that is so different from the life they have formerly led, that it is referred to as having been 'born again'.  It's a life that is under His control.  It's a life that is not necessarily a 'bed of roses' - as those of His disciples who live in Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, and about fifty countries in the world today, well know.  If you wish to find out more about the persecuted church, please scroll down to the links on this page.  However, as so many of them testify, it's His presence in even the direst of situations that proves His promise that he would never leave, or forsake, His followers. (see Heb.13:5).

The final tally of votes on Sept.18th will decide the future of Scotland and, to an extent, the remainder of the current United Kingdom, for generations.  Your 'Yes', or 'No', to Jesus will decide where you spend eternity.  I know which I believe to be the more important decision!

Evolution - or adaptation?!

It was a brief newspaper article that informed me that salamanders - those lizard-like amphibians - in the Applachian Mountains of the eastern U.S.of A., have shrunk in size by eight per cent over the past fifty years!  Scientists, it was reported, "... attributed the evolution to the species adapting to climate change." (Minicosm, 26/03/14).

I found that to be a very interesting comment.  In one sentence, it used two words as if they are almost synonymous - without, apparently, realising that they are totally different!   If these creatures had "evolved", they would now be something different.  That, after all, is what evolution is claimed to do.  There would also, especially after such a brief period, be an abundance of intermediate creatures - those that were part of the way between the salamanders of fifty years ago and the creature into which they had evolved.

The other word that was used in the quotation is, of course, much more accurate.  These salamanders have not 'evolved'; they have merely adapted to changes in climate - or other environmental changes that may even be fairly localised!   They are still salamanders!

Even as a non-biologist, I get annoyed at this loose use of the English language that leads those who take such statements at face value to pontificate that, once again, "science has 'proved' evolution"!

There is another thought.  If these salamanders had 'evolved' into a new form of creature in fifty years, that would shoot gigantic holes in the 'old-earth' theory, i.e. the theory that the planet is millions of years old.  These vast time periods are necessary to support the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, as they are required to permit the gradual changes that the theory promotes, and that allowed (to put it simplistically) amoeba to evolve into human beings.   Of course, if that had been the case, as it is often claimed is shown by the fossil record, then there would evidence in that record of those intermediate forms.  Even Darwin accepted that, and is recorded as having stated that, if such fossils were never to be found (and he expected that, in his very near future, they would) it would be a major blow to his theory!

As has been pointed out by many who are much cleverer than I, evolution is not a scientific fact.  It is an anti-God philosophy espoused by humanists and atheists.   True science has two basic requirements before a theory may be accepted as a fact: observation, and repetition.  In other words, I must be able to observe the experiment (or whatever) that I am performing, and I must be able to repeat it.  Obviously, neither of these is possible with regard to the past.

So don't allow the atheistic 'scientists' to fool you.  Often, they can't even differentiate between evolution and adaptation!

A "secular" Bible!

There I was, casually listening to the closing minutes of this morning's "Today" programme on BBC Radio 4.  Suddenly, my ears pricked up as John Humphrys, the presenter, announced that the well-known atheist, and humanist philosopher, A.C.Grayling had just had published a "secular Bible".  That sounded like an oxymoron, and my attention was guaranteed.

It's true! The official title of the volume is "The Good Book: A Secular Bible".  Mr Humprys (himself, at best, an agnostic) read a few verses from the King James (Authorised) Version of the real Bible, and Mr Grayling then read the "equivalent" passage from his own book.  Both of them had the good grace to agree that the language of the KJV was much more majestic.

However, it's not the language of any particular version of the Bible that is important - it's the message; and it never changes.  Dr Giles Fraser, a regular contributor to the daily "Thought for the Day", and Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral was at hand to debate with Mr Grayling.  However, I was rather disappointed as he seemed to think that humour was the best defence of the written Word of God!

Mr Grayling's book, according to Bloomsbury, the publishers, draws "... on the wisdom of 2,500 years of contemplative non-religious writing on all that it means to be human – from the origins of the universe to small matters of courtesy and kindness in everyday life – A. C. Grayling, Britain’s most popular and widely read philosopher, has created a secular bible.  Designed to be read as narrative and also to be dipped into for inspiration, encouragement and consolation, The Good Book offers a thoughtful, non-religious alternative to the many people who do not follow one of the world’s great religions. Instead, going back to traditions older than Christianity, and far richer and more various, including the non-theistic philosophical and literary schools of the great civilisations of both West and East, from the Greek philosophy of classical antiquity and its contemporaneous Confucian, Mencian and Mohist schools in China, down through classical Rome, the flourishing of Indian and Arab worlds, the European Renaissance and Enlightenment, the worldwide scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries to the present, Grayling collects, edits, rearranges and organises the collective secular wisdom of the world in one highly readable volume.
Contents: Genesis; Proverbs; Histories; Songs; Wisdom; Acts; The Lawgiver; Lamentations; Concord; Consolations; Sages; The Good; Parables." 

However, what Mr Grayling apparently fails utterly to do is to deal with the condition of mankind.  I was so disappointed that Dr Fraser failed to make any mention of the root problem of mankind - that which we call sin!  Sin, according to my memory of the Shorter Catechism, "... is any transgression of, or want of conformity to, the Law of God."  That covers both sins of commission, and of omission.  Of course we may learn from the great philosophers of the past.  One of Mr Grayling's favourites would appear to be the Greek, Seneca - a contemporary of the apostle Paul.  I recall, as an undergraduate, doing some essay work on Seneca  - and discovering that his thinking was so close to that of the New Testament, that I wondered if he had, in fact, like Paul, become a follower of the Way (Who is Jesus)!  Perhaps Mr Grayling should do some deeper research into Seneca's writings!

This newly-published volume may have been named "the Good Book" - but it will not explain the sinfulness of mankind; it will not point me to the only sufficient remedy for sin; it will not show me a God Who loves me so much that, in the Persona of the Son, He was willing to suffer death for me. 

I don't believe that it was mere coincidence that, when I went up to my study for my time of private devotions, the little book that I am currently using had, for today "The Wisdom in God's Word"!  Here is the opening paragraph: "We treasure Scripture.  It's God's inspired Word, and it teaches us the way to true life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come.  Indeed, it is the source of a wisdom that goes beyond that of the wisest philosophers (I Corinthians 1:20).  Bu this fact is rarely acknowledged in pour culture." 

"... a wisdom that goes beyond that of the wisest philosophers."  And that even includes A.C.Grayling.  I think that I'll stick with the original Bible - not just the "Good Book", but the "Best"!