Does John Lennon offer any answers in “IMAGINE”?

In the wake of the recent tragic terrorist attacks, a popular video on You Tube with nearly a million views shows an unnamed pianist before a crowd on the street in Paris playing a piano with a giant ‘peace sign’ painted on it. He’s playing John Lennon’s song, “Imagine”—a song with a strongly secular humanist, antireligious message. In the lyrics, Lennon writes:  Imagine there’s no heaven, It’s easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky, Imagine all the people,  Paris-attack-John-LennonLiving for today …, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people, Living life in peace.

Lennon was blind to the implications of this humanistic worldview he was promoting. If there is no heaven or hell, that means there is no ultimate reward or punishment for anything you do while living on this earth. This was what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote, “What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” (1 Corinthians 15:32)

What does a world look like with no moral constraints from God? Far from the peaceful paradise that Lennon ‘imagines’, the history of the 20th century bore out the results, as the Marxist, atheistic communist regimes took over and committed murder and genocide on a mass scale never before seen in history. The simple fact is, the true morality of the Bible looks absolutely nothing like the actions taken by militant Islamists.

When terrible things like this happen, people always are moved to ask why a good God would allow such evil things to take place; but what people sometimes fail to realize is the very idea of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ that they are using to judge the situation comes only from God in the first place. Take this as an opportunity to share the Good News with those who are looking for answers!

Extracted from article by Paul Price http://www.creation.com

Answering an atheist on meaning and purpose of life

I hope this article “Answering a reasonable atheist on deep philosophical questions” from Creation Ministries International (CMI) 30th September, 2012 provides helpful answers for Christians and unbelievers as well.

To demonstrate that not all of CMI’s opponents are hostile and unreasonable, we publish feedback by Tim W. of the USA to our article – Answering the ‘new atheists’ (interview with Doug Wilson). In this, Tim W. sought to defend the proposition that atheism can provide meaning and purpose. Tim W.’s email is printed in its entirety  (red), and then followed by point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati.

This is an interesting article. I think you are on the right track when you suggest that modern atheists are worried at the resurgence of conservative Christianity in the United States. Frankly, it concerns me that so many politicians have anti-abortion views with which I strongly disagree. Part of my moral beliefs value limited rights of women to choose the fate of their unfertilized eggs, embryos and their own bodies. Similarly, I understand that Christians have legitimate reason to be concerned that unbelievers will influence a policy or social climate that permits the destruction of actual or potential human organisms. The stakes are high so it should be no surprise that the voices of atheism rise to compete with the voices of religion.

I also agree with the author, and with Hume, that one cannot infer what ought to be, in a normative sense, from what is, was or will be the case. In this way, it is reasonable to say that naturalism or ‘scientism’ cannot suggest a specific theory or morality. However, that does not mean that morality is not compatible with materialism, naturalism or atheism. It only means that morality must come from philosophy (ethics) rather than from theology. There is no reason why an atheist cannot have a more sophisticated ‘sense’ or theory of morality than someone who bases their beliefs of right and wrong conduct (or thoughts) on the teachings of a formal religion. My own beliefs are more consistent with a general sense of basic ‘fairness,’ than obedience to the demands of a deity.

Lastly, I don’t understand the basis of a statement such as “The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile,” or “the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God.” These are philosophical questions that do not seem to be contingent on the existence of a God. Is reasoning trustworthy or meaningful? Those are matters of epistemology, not theology. Moreover, I think it is far from obvious that neither life, nor anything else for that matter, can have meaning unless one believes in God. God may give your life meaning, but that does not mean that nothing can provide meaning for an atheist’s life. I can imagine an atheist saying that her daughter, for example, gives her life meaning. Would you call her a liar?

Response

Dr Jonathan Sarfati replies: Thanks (on behalf of CMI and the article author).

TW: I think you are on the right track when you suggest that modern atheists are worried at the resurgence of conservative Christianity in the United States.

JS: What is really striking is how many modern atheists have become such delicate little flowers. They are hurt and offended by plastic baby Jesuses at Nativity scenes and are in danger of having a stroke if they hear a student-led prayer at a football game. (But of course, anyone objecting to obscenity or porn should just look the other way or change channels.) Even leading atheist Richard Dawkins is not such a wimp; he joins in Christmas celebrations. What a contrast the modern activists are with the far more robust atheists of yesteryear who vigorously debated the formidable G.K. Chesterton, and remained good friends even after finishing second.

TW: Frankly, it concerns me that so many politicians have anti-abortion views with which I strongly disagree.

JS: It would concern me if we didn’t have that many. Once we dehumanize one class of humanity, there is no limit. See for example article – Unborn babies may “be planning their future”: What now for the abortion lobby?

TW: Part of my moral beliefs value limited rights of women to choose the fate of their unfertilized eggs, embryos and their own bodies.

JS: Well, there’s the problem: the unborn is not part of a woman’s body. A reductio   ad absurdum I’ve explained is: this would entail that a mother carrying a son must have a penis.

TW: Similarly, I understand that Christians have legitimate reason to be concerned that unbelievers will influence a policy or social climate that permits the destruction of actual or potential human organisms.

JS: Yes, that’s exactly the issue. Without the protection of life, no other right, real or assumed, has any meaning. ‘Rights’ to private property, housing, employment, medical care, or anything else, mean nothing if one is not alive to exercise them.

TW: The stakes are high so it should be no surprise that the voices of atheism rise to compete with the voices of religion.

JS: The problem arises when voices of atheism try to silence the voices of Christianity. This includes university ‘speech codes’, ‘hate speech’, the persecution of Christians in atheistic communist regimes, and the GayStapo attacks on the Church and family. See Gay marriage, politicians, and the rights of Christians.

TW: I also agree with the author, and with Hume, that one cannot infer what ought to be, in a normative sense, from what is, was or will be the case.

JS: A key point.

TW: In this way, it is reasonable to say that naturalism or ‘scientism’ cannot suggest a specific theory or morality. However, that does not mean that morality is not compatible with materialism, naturalism or atheism. It only means that morality must come from philosophy (ethics) rather than from theology.

JS: It certainly can’t come from the axiom ‘God does not exist.’

TW: There is no reason why an atheist cannot have a more sophisticated ‘sense’ or theory of morality than someone who bases their beliefs of right and wrong conduct (or thoughts) on the teachings of a formal religion. My own beliefs are more consistent with a general sense of basic ‘fairness’, than obedience to the demands of a deity.

JS: But where does the notion of ‘fairness’ come from in an evolutionary world? Surely it’s just a delusion caused by certain neurochemical activity that happened to be useful for our ancestors to survive. Just like rape was useful to spread our genes, as two evolutionists seriously argued in a book (look how one squirmed to justify why rape should be considered ‘wrong’). Similarly, the article Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation documents how leading atheistic philosopher/logician Bertrand Russell could not explain why right vs. wrong was any different from choosing one’s favourite colours.

Think of consistent evolutionist and atheistic philosopher Peter Singer, who justifies infanticide, euthanasia, and bestiality. It’s also notable that some critics of my article Abortion ‘after birth’? Medical ‘ethicists’ promote infanticide claimed that Singer was an anomaly among atheists. Yet I showed that his pro-infanticide views were shared by the Journal of Medical Ethics and the vocal antitheist P.Z. Myers. See also Bioethicists and Obama agree: infanticide should be legal. He also wrote the major Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Ethics (1992), and earlier this year, the Australian Government gave him Australia’s highest honour, Companion of the Order of Australia.

TW: Lastly, I don’t understand the basis of a statement such as “The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile,” or “the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God.” These are philosophical questions that do not seem to be contingent on the existence of a God.

JS: I would say they are, as natural selection explains only survival value, not truth and logic. In Canada, one atheistic philosophy professor argued that these things would have selective value. I responded that this is not necessarily so under his belief system. After all, he must regard theistic religion as one thing that evolved for survival value, yet he would regard this as false and illogical. Thus survival, under his perspective, can be enhanced by the false as well as the true.

TW: Is reasoning trustworthy or meaningful? Those are matters of epistemology, not theology. Moreover, I think it is far from obvious that neither life, nor anything else for that matter, can have meaning unless one believes in God. God may give your life meaning, but that does not mean that nothing can provide meaning for an atheist’s life.

JS: One of my colleagues wrote in Answering life’s big questions: Only the Bible provides the answers:

Today we are effectively told, in the evolutionary story, that life is a fluke, a cosmic accident. In this case our existence lacks any purpose, so life is a farce. And where are we going, in this view? Fertilizer! In short, life is: Fluke … farce … fertilizer.

Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said that we live in a universe that has “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”. The evolutionists’ universe has no purpose because it is an accident; a cosmic accident. With evolution so widely taught in schools and universities, is it any wonder that so many lack any purpose or meaning to their lives?

As Susan Blackmore, psychologist and disciple of Richard Dawkins said, “If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all.”

TW: I can imagine an atheist saying that her daughter, for example, gives her life meaning.

JS: But hardly ultimate meaning, since both mother’s and daughter’s entire lives are just a blink of an eye in the uniformitarian cosmic scheme. Bertrand Russell said in his anti-Christian book Religion and Science:

Man, as a curious accident in a backwater, is intelligible: his mixture of virtues and vices is such as might be expected to result from fortuitous origin.

TW: Would you call her a liar?

JS: Not at all. A lie implies intentional deception, not just falsehood. As you could see from searching our site, we are very sparing with accusations of ‘lying’ (although some evolutionists justify deception and are just being consistent), as opposed to having a faulty interpretive framework. (However, we won’t deny that this prior adoption of this faulty framework is culpable according to Romans 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:3–7 and foolish (Psalm 14:1). But the point remains that a valid deduction from a faulty framework is not a lie.)

Non Christian Professor recognizes that Creation demands a Creator

Natural God by Beth Houston

 

The author of NATURAL GOD – Deism in the Age of Intelligent Design, Beth Houston, is a professor of creative writing and literature at the University of California and several other universities. She covers a lot of material rarely reviewed in books critical of molecules to man evolution. What does she offer to the creation-evolution debate? The answer is a fresh approach, written in an engaging style, that reflects a good understanding of psychology, logic, biology and history. She stresses that science, especially Darwinism, has become a form of dogmatism the needs to be challenged.

One point documented is that Darwin’s central ambition was not to explore the world to let it reveal itself, but to become famous. Houston also carefully documents her position that evolution theory (no meaning, no purpose, no Creator) caused its developer to lose both his aesthetic sensibility and his appreciation of aesthetic beauty. Darwin openly admitted that his appreciation of aesthetics had dynamically changed.

“Up to the age of thirty ….poetry….such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge and Shelley, gave me great pleasure and even as a schoolboy I took great delight in Shakespeare. I have also said that formerly art and pictures gave me considerable pleasure and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also lost my taste for art and music.”

Darwin admitted that the ” loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probable to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of nature.”

Beth Houston concludes that what was wrong with Darwin was that “the dimension that gives life lived to the fullest its zing” was gone.

“By the time he had finished ORIGIN and certainly his later Autobiography, beauty had ceased to be beauty at all ….beauty was observed and used like a prostitute for a distant satisfaction of an immediate need, never for love of beauty for its own sake, never for the pleasure of intimate contact (with nature).

She goes on to say, “Mechanistic agnostics like Darwin…. know intellectually that nature is beautifully constructed while emotionally denying that it is. The aesthetic atrophies when the spirit does, or when the spirit lies dormant and inactivated. It is … mechanistic determinism and Darwinian natural selection.

There is never any death of God, only murder or suicide of the killer’s own God – given faculties.”

Houston speculates that: “Darwin’s insistence that natural selection is ultimately brutal is a projection of …. the brutal side of his own nature. Natural selection justifies brutality and sanctifies the guilt. The brutal cannot face a God who might not condone brutality. Therefore, religions create their gods in the image of their own brutality to justify and sanctify brutality, and science creates its god, natural selection, the shadow of civilized man, for the same purpose.

Summary: Professor Houston makes a convincing case that the natural world provides clear evidence for a creator. She also documents the adverse effects of Darwinism on society and persons using Darwin himself as a prime example.

Extract from book review by Jerry Bergman, Journal of Creation Vol 29, 2015

 

 

Darwin’s destructive influence on the world.

Apostate - The men

The fact that Christianity has lost an enormous amount of cultural influence in Europe, America and even Australia is without dispute. A recent book, Apostate – The Men who Destroyed the Christian West documents how and why the decline and fall of Western Christian civilization occurred.

Charles Darwin is of course the dominant person on the list of men who destroyed the Christian west.

Darwinian Evolution theories now dominate at least 99% of higher education in America, only 1% of all public and private universities maintain a God centered epistemology and metaphysics in the matter of origins. In 1850 (before Darwin and the Theory of Evolution) virtually all leading scientists and philosophers were Christian men. The world they inhabited was created by God. He had created wise laws that brought about the adaption of all organisms to one another and to their environment. The basic principles proposed by Darwin stand in total conflict with this worldview.

Eliminating God from science enabled Godlessness to prevail everywhere, in classrooms, media, entertainment and politics. Charles Darwin’s naturalistic materialism has so changed the Western metaphysics that the average person hardly senses God’s providential interaction with the world, let alone His existence. The Southern Baptist denomination reports 88% of children raised in Christian families leave the church as soon as they leave home (p. 254)

Swanson concludes: “the impact that Charles Darwin has had on the lives of hundreds of millions of Christian families is overwhelming. It is an undeniable fact that the Christian faith was far stronger 150 years ago in Europe and America. Now their 21st century grandchildren are pagans, atheists, homosexuals, witches and atheist scientists. The sheer number that will be in hell because of Charles Darwin’s commitment to ‘murder God’ is too much – and too tortuous to fathom.” (p. 142).

The other men Swanson says played a role in the decline of Christianity, Hitler, Karl Marx, John Dewey, Ernest Hemingway, Mark Twain, John Steinbeck, , Friedrich Nietzsche were all powerfully influenced by Charles Darwin.

As stated in my last post, sadly leaders of the largest Church denominations have unwittingly accepted Evolution as fact and distorted Scripture to fit, with disastrous consequences. Fortunately, God has raised up organisations such as Creation Ministries to equip His Church with powerful resources such as the recent “Evolution’s Achilles’Heels” to counter this threat. Check out this valuable resource on http://www.creation.com.

 

EXCITING DOCUMENTARY – EVOLUTION’S ACHILLES HEEL

EAH-premiere-banner

This 96-minute documentary interviews 15 Ph.D. scientists about the greatest weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. The public generally only hears one side of the origins debate, but with stunning animations and dramatic footage, Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels presents a powerful ‘warts and all’ critique of textbook evolutionary orthodoxy. You’ll also discover just how much this debate impacts your view of yourself and the world around you.

“Never before have this many scientists been brought together for a project of this type. … Visually stunning 3D animations and dramatic footage help to show how the theory’s supposed strengths are, in fact, its fatal flaws—Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels.
CFDb (Christian Film Database)

“If we could award Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels more than five Doves, our best rating, we would! … the fifteen experts in this film blow open the door for God’s foot, the Grand Designer, to walk in boldly.”
The Dove Foundation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEkJezGRJPc

You need to get the video when it becomes available in November from http://www.creation.com

HIGHEST COURTS ABANDON GOD’S LAWS

antonin_scalia-photograph1John Dyson Heydon

 

1.Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia  2.Retired High Court Judge John Dyson Heydon

In the USA the powerful global Humanist activist network has successfully used leftist-liberal “judicial activism” to impose atheistic secularism under the deception, secularism is religiously neutral. In fact secularism is in reality the imposition of the atheist world view.

Humanists are not only intent on eradicating theism and all things Christian from all State and public institutions, but from the public domain, to the point where wearing crosses in the workplace and street preaching is now under attack in the UK.

The most extreme form of atheism is being imposed on both public and private school science classes in the guise of philosophical naturalism and scientism – NOT science.

There are few dissenting voices left but one of the few conservative Supreme High Court justices is Antonin Scalia. He has openly expressed concern at the “judicial activism” being engaged in by unelected leftist liberal USA Supreme Court justices to overturn acts of elected branches of government and the long standing Judeo-Christian history and heritage of the nation.

Here in Australia recently retired High Court judge John Dyson Heydon AC, in the recent High Court school Chaplains, Williams vs The Commonwealth decision has openly expressed concern about the High Court “judicial activism”. He has spoken out against judges who “assume a law making role” and how ‘judicial activism’ results in the death of the rule of law in Australia.

Thus it is ATHEISM that is being imposed on Nations by leftist-liberal majority Supreme and High Court justices. The Bible calls these people fools as they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Sadly they influence millions consigning them to God’s white throne judgment and an eternity in Hell.

Author Went From Atheist to Christian while writing book on Horrors of 20th Century

jason-jonesthe-race-to-save-our-century-by-jason-jones-and-john-zmirak

Author, Jason Scott Jones; atheist turned Christian in the process of writing the book.

The Race to Save Our Century, authors Jason Jones and John Zmirak argue for five core principles to prevent the catastrophes of the previous century from being repeated in the next century. In a video interview with The Christian Post, Jones explains how he became a Christian in the process of writing the book. Check out the video interview on The Christian Post website.

The idea for the book came when Jones was an undergraduate at the University of Hawaii. He pitched the idea for a video to encourage his fellow students to major in political science to the political science department.

“I just wanted to pour the horrors of the 20th century into two minutes,” Jones said, “to create an urgency among young people at my school, and why they should major in political science, because ideas matter.”

The idea was rejected by his “leftist faculty” and the video was never used, but in putting together that video, Jones explained, he discovered the “focus” for his life. Set to graduate at the turn of the century and looking back on the previous century, Jones decided he wanted to help create a world in which the next 100 years would avoid the horrible crimes of that last 100 years.

The process of researching and writing the book changed Jones. When he started the project, he was an atheist and a libertarian. By the time he finished, he was a Christian and a conservative.

In the book, Jones and Zmirak argue that the horrors of the last century stem from five evil ideologies — 1. racism and nationalism, 2. militarism and “total war,” 3. utopian collectivism, 4. radical individualism, and 5. utilitarian hedonism.

These ideologies can be avoided, they say, by advancing five core principles — 1. the unique and absolute value of every human person, 2. natural law (a transcendent moral order), 3. subsidiarity (the defense of civil institutions that lie between people and government), 4. solidarity (which is embodied by The Golden Rule), and 5. a humane economy.

Jones is also a film producer. His credits include “Bella” (2006), “The Stoning of Soraya M.” (2008), and “Crescendo I” (2011). There is a link, he explained, between the ideas found in the book and his films.

 

 

Dr Michael Guillen – do you believe every word in the Bible?

michael-guillen

Yes I do, he says.  So who is Dr Michael Guillen?

He was born in East Los Angeles, earned his BS from UCLA and his MS and PhD from Cornell University in physics, mathematics and astronomy.

For eight years he was an award-winning physics instructor at Harvard University. For fourteen years he was the Emmy-award-winning science correspondent for ABC News, appearing regularly on Good Morning America, 20/20, Nightline, and World News Tonight.

Dr. Guillen is the host of The History Channel series, “Where Did It Come From?” and producer of the award-winning family movie, LITTLE RED WAGON. Among his popular speaking topics is the series “CRAZY! Because Life Is Not Logical.”

Have I read the Bible cover to cover? Yes, I have (as well as the sacred literature of other religions), more than once and in different translations. Do I understand every word of the Bible? No, I don’t but believe every word, yes I do.

As 1 Corinthians 13:12 points out, no one should expect to comprehend everything right here, right now:

“Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.”

Having faith in something I don’t completely understand is not limited to my spiritual life; it’s also true of my relationship to science and rational thought. Science and logic cannot explain everything about the universe – especially since more than 90% of the cosmos is invisible to us – nevertheless, I believe in them so much I dedicated my career to their practice.

For me, science and rational thought are precisely why I abandoned the atheism I practiced during many years of my schooling. As part of my rigorous scientific training, my mind was broadened with respect to things I cannot see. I was urged to believe in black holes, parallel universes, dark energy, and a plethora of other modern scientific exotica based solely on clever theoretical imaginings and indirect, circumstantial evidence. So now, when I read the Bible, which invites me to believe in all kinds of seemingly unbelievable things, my reaction is informed by what I’ve learned as a theoretical physicist. I believe Shakespeare said it best when he penned that immortal line: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

It takes humility to admit that to seemingly intractable problems there are many possible solutions we haven’t thought of yet, and might never think of in this life. It takes humility to have faith in something of everlasting importance that you don’t completely understand yet and can’t possibly, given its infinite nature and our finite capacities. It takes humility, above all, not to jump to any conclusions about what isn’t possible in this glorious, mysterious universe of ours … and what is.

For more information, go to www.michaelguillen.com or get his book Can a Smart Person Believe in God?

GOD’S JUDGMENT

God's Judgement
It is obvious from the Old Testament stories that God judges people and nations. Apart from Noah’s Flood (all but eight people destroyed) one of the most gruesome stories is when God commanded Israel to destroy the Amalekites totally, including their women and children and property.
God commanded their destruction not only because of their heinous morality and child sacrifices but also because they opposed Israel when they came out of Egypt (Deuteronomy 25:17-19 and 1 Samuel 15:2-3). Moreover because Saul listened to the people and spared the best livestock rather than fear God he lost his kingship over Israel.
“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft , And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has also rejected you from being King. 1 Samuel 15:23
God’s actions against the Amalekites is only immoral to those who don’t recognize His authority. He has the right to judge the people He created when they rebel against Him.
God requires OBEDIENCE to his moral laws and commands. The GOOD NEWS is He understood we were incapable in a Fallen world to keep His commandments. God, The Son entered His world, 2014 years ago to save us. He changed history forever and every time we write the date we should remember that fact and rejoice in His MERCY, GRACE and LOVE.
Atheists have no objective standard for morality and basically what ever the group decides stands until another group over rules it. Sodomy was a gaolable offence up to the mid 1970’s in Australia.
God must judge evil otherwise He ceases to be a good God.
The world operates as if God does not judge people and nations today. They could not be more wrong.
The Bible clearly tells us that Jesus will return to save Israel and to usher in His millennial reign from Jerusalem. Jesus even tells us that just as in Noah’s day people will be eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage then He will come unexpectedly to judge nations. Matthew 24:36-39
Israel picture compared to Arab lands
Isn’t it amazing how the Middle East is central focus of the world today. Israel is surrounded by hostile nations intent on destroying them. It is not about land – take a look at the map (Israel in blue). It’s about the final horrendous spiritual battle that leads to the battle of Armageddon which will usher in Jesus millennial reign.

We know the end and already have eternal life so start living eternal now. “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”. What is the Holy Spirit’s agenda for you today? Are you listening?

Foundation for Affirming Moral Absolutes

Truth and Transformation
Without the cross of JESUS CHRIST the world has NO foundation for affirming moral absolutes, for calling corruption by its name – SIN.  The cross of Christ is also the only available force that can withstand and push back the storm of moral relativism that is upon us.
Thanks to the cross of JESUS, we have a firm basis – empirical, historical and philosophical for affirming moral absolutes without the same moral law condemning us. The cross does not just provide a philosophical framework for moral absolutes. It also provides the WAY to deliver us from SIN.
By the cross GOD shows us that the power He wants us to have is not the power to Lord it over others, not power to exploit and oppress, but power to sacrifice ourselves for others.
Of course, God knows we can’t do this in our own strength so He sends the third person of the Trinity, Holy Spirit to indwell all believers. The transformation of the disciples at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended upon them in power is the same power available to Christians today. They were able to disregard the threats of the Jewish leaders, rejoice in persecution and deliberately chose to disregard the state and continue preaching JESUS. This is real evangelism.
The author of Truth and Transformation, Vishal Mangalwadi described by Christianity Today as India’s foremost Christian intellectual is authentic. Vishal has spent time in jail in India for civil disobedience in helping the lowest caste, Dalits. He has planted churches there, is an international lecturer, social reformer, political columnist and author of fourteen books.
Truth and Transformation is a must read for anyone concerned with the state of current world events.
I like Vishal’s explanation for the rational cynicism that has now become the hallmark of secular universities. “The west has exchanged its worldview shaped by the Bible for a lie that the human mind is an accident of blind chance, no more valid than an animal brain”. Remember most of the prestigious universities in the UK and USA commenced as Christian Institutions, e.g. Oxford and Harvard.