Friday, December 27, 2013

Pagan origin of Christmas , nobody should judge you.

The pagan Origins of Christmas, should any Christian be bordered.

   When was Jesus born?
A.    Popular myth puts his birth on December 25th in the year 1 C.E.
B.     The New Testament gives no date or year for Jesus’ birth.  The earliest gospel – St. Mark’s, written about 65 CE – begins with the baptism of an adult Jesus.  This suggests that the earliest Christians lacked interest in or knowledge of Jesus’ birthdate.
C.     The year of Jesus birth was determined by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk, “abbot of a Roman monastery.  His calculation went as follows:
a.       In the Roman, pre-Christian era, years were counted from ab urbe condita (“the founding of the City” [Rome]).  Thus 1 AUC signifies the year Rome was founded, 5 AUC signifies the 5th year of Rome’s reign, etc.
b.     Dionysius received a tradition that the Roman emperor Augustus reigned 43 years, and was followed by the emperor Tiberius.
c.       Luke 3:1,23 indicates that when Jesus turned 30 years old, it was the 15th year of Tiberius reign
.d.      If Jesus was 30 years old in Tiberius’ reign, then he lived 15 years under Augustus (placing Jesus birth in Augustus’ 28th year of reign).
e.       Augustus took power in 727 AUC.  Therefore, Dionysius put Jesus birth in 754 AUC.
f.        However, Luke 1:5 places Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod, and Herod died in 750 AUC – four years before the year in which Dionysius places Jesus birth.D.     Joseph A. Fitzmyer – Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America, member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and former president of the Catholic Biblical Association – writing in the Catholic Church’s official commentary on the New Testament[1], writes about the date of Jesus’ birth, “Though the year [of Jesus birth is not reckoned with certainty, the birth did not occur in AD 1.  The Christian era, supposed to have its starting point in the year of Jesus birth, is based on a miscalculation introduced ca. 533 by Dionysius Exiguus.”E.      The DePascha Computus, an anonymous document believed to have been written in North Africa around 243 CE, placed Jesus birth on March 28.  Clement, a bishop of Alexandria (d. ca. 215 CE), thought Jesus was born on November 18.  Based on historical records, Fitzmyer guesses that Jesus birth occurred on September 11, 3 BCE. II.     How Did Christmas Come to Be Celebrated on December 25?A.    Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25.  During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration.  The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.”  Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week.  At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.
B.    The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time.  In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).
C.    In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it.  Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]
D.    The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday.
E.      Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia.  As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.”  The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated by drinking, sexual indulgence, singing naked in the streets (a precursor of modern caroling), etc.
F.      The Reverend Increase Mather of Boston observed in 1687 that “the early Christians who  first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.”[3]  Because of its known pagan origin, Christmas was banned by the Puritans and its observance was illegal in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681.[4]  However, Christmas was and still is celebrated by most Christians
.G.    Some of the most depraved customs of the Saturnalia carnival were intentionally revived by the Catholic Church in 1466 when Pope Paul II, for the amusement of his Roman citizens, forced Jews to race naked through the streets of the city.  An eyewitness account reports, “Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them and at the same time more amusing for spectators.  They ran… amidRome’s taunting shrieks and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.”[5]
H.     As part of the Saturnalia carnival throughout the 18th and 19th centuries CE, rabbis of the ghetto in Rome were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the city streets to the jeers of the crowd, pelted by a variety of missiles. When the Jewish community of Rome sent a petition in1836 to Pope Gregory XVI begging him to stop the annual Saturnalia abuse of the Jewish community, he responded, “It is not opportune to make any innovation.”[6]  On December 25, 1881, Christian leaders whipped the Polish masses into Antisemitic frenzies that led to riots across the country.  In Warsaw 12 Jews were brutally murdered, huge numbers maimed, and many Jewish women were raped.  Two million rubles worth of property was destroyed. III.     The Origins of Christmas Customs
A.     The Origin of Christmas Tree
Just as early Christians recruited Roman pagans by associating Christmas with the Saturnalia, so too worshippers of the Asheira cult and its offshoots were recruited by the Church sanctioning “Christmas Trees”.Pagans had long worshipped trees in the forest, or brought them into their homes and decorated them, and this observance was adopted and painted with a Christian veneer by the Church.
B.     The Origin of Mistletoe
Norse mythology recounts how the god Balder was killed using a mistletoe arrow by his rival god Hoder while fighting for the female Nanna.  Druid rituals use mistletoe to poison their human sacrificial victim.The Christian custom of “kissing under the mistletoe” is a later synthesis of the sexual license of Saturnalia with the Druidic sacrificial cult.
C.     The Origin of Christmas Presents
In pre-Christian Rome, the emperors compelled their most despised citizens to bring offerings and gifts during the Saturnalia (in December) and Kalends (in January).  Later, this ritual expanded to include gift-giving among the general populace.  The Catholic Church gave this custom a Christian flavor by re-rooting it in the supposed gift-giving of Saint Nicholas (see below).
D.     The Origin of Santa Clausa.       
Nicholas was born in Parara, Turkey in 270 CE and later became Bishop of Myra.  He died in 345 CE on December 6th.  He was only named a saint in the 19th century.
b.      Nicholas was among the most senior bishops who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and created the New Testament.  The text they produced portrayed Jews as “the children of the devil” who sentenced Jesus to death
.c.       In 1087, a group of sailors who idolized Nicholas moved his bones from Turkey to a sanctuary in Bari, Italy.  There Nicholas supplanted a female boon-giving deity called The Grandmother, or Pasqua Epiphania, who used to fill the children's stockings with her gifts.  The Grandmother was ousted from her shrine at Bari, which became the center of the Nicholas cult.  Members of this group gave each other gifts during a pageant they conducted annually on the anniversary of Nicholas’ death, December 6.
d.      The Nicholas cult spread north until it was adopted by German and Celtic pagans.  These groups worshipped a pantheon led by Woden –their chief god and the father of Thor, Balder, and Tiw.  Woden had a long, white beard and rode a horse through the heavens one evening each Autumn.  When Nicholas merged with Woden, he shed his Mediterranean appearance, grew a beard, mounted a flying horse, rescheduled his flight for December, and donned heavy winter clothing.
e.       In a bid for pagan adherents in Northern Europe, the Catholic Church adopted the Nicholas cult and taught that he did (and they should) distribute gifts on December 25th instead of December 6th.
f.        In 1809, the novelist Washington Irving (most famous his The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle) wrote a satire of Dutch culture entitled Knickerbocker History.  The satire refers several times to the white bearded, flying-horse riding Saint Nicholas using his Dutch name, Santa Claus.
g.       Dr. Clement Moore, a professor at Union Seminary, readKnickerbocker History, and in 1822 he published a poem based on the character Santa Claus: “Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.  The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, in the hope that Saint Nicholas soon would be there…”  Moore innovated by portraying a Santa with eight reindeer who descended through chimneys.
h.       The Bavarian illustrator Thomas Nast almost completed the modern picture of Santa Claus.  From 1862 through 1886, based on Moore’s poem, Nast drew more than 2,200 cartoon images of Santa for Harper’s Weekly.  Before Nast, Saint Nicholas had been pictured as everything from a stern looking bishop to a gnome-like figure in a frock.  Nast also gave Santa a home at the North Pole, his workshop filled with elves, and his list of the good and bad children of the world.  All Santa was missing was his red outfit
.i.         In 1931, the Coca Cola Corporation contracted the Swedish commercial artist Haddon Sundblom to create a coke-drinking Santa.  Sundblom modeled his Santa on his friend Lou Prentice, chosen for his cheerful, chubby face.  The corporation insisted that Santa’s fur-trimmed suit be bright, Coca Cola red.  And Santa was born – a blend of Christian crusader, pagan god, and commercial idol. IV.   The Christmas Challenge·       Christmas has always been a holiday celebrated carelessly.  For millennia, pagans, Christians, and even Jews have been swept away in the season’s festivities, and very few people ever pause to consider the celebration’s intrinsic meaning, history, or origins.·       Christmas celebrates the birth of the Christian god who came to rescue mankind from the “curse of the Torah.”  It is a 24-hour declaration that Judaism is no longer valid.·        Christmas can't be substantiated with scripture therefore it isn't a Christian doctrine of faith .  There is no Christian church with a tradition that Jesus was really born on December 25th.
Should we celebrate Christmas
Against the backdrop of its pagan origin just as the modern day calender is of pagan origin , it is imperative that we understand that based on scriptures human traditions are not expected to override biblical doctrines especially when it against the principles of salvation by grace through faith. Therefore , emphasis is on the meaning of an event  not the date. The modern Christian today with this  understanding buys a property that has hitherto been used as a shrine or brothel and he changes the name , not the property into a Church. We have been given dominion over all creation even dates and cultures , and mandated to do all things to the glory of God. All things are yours the bible declares , the world can't tell me how to use my property. It is what I call the 25th of December that matters not what historical paganistic concepts declare."So let no one exult proudly concerning men [boasting of having this or that man as a leader], for all things are yours, Whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas (Peter), or the universe or life or death, or the immediate and threatening present or the [subsequent and uncertain] future—all are yours, AMP:And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.1 Corinthians 3.21-23
Ownership
Psalm 24 says the earth belongs to God and john 1. 12 God's licence of ownership has been given to anyone who receives Jesus as lord. We are told in John 1 by Him all things are made including the dates and material from where idols or gods are made.
The will of God is that Christmas be celebrated everyday however on the 25th of December we give it a global status against the backdrop of the increasing number of those who would wish Christianity and all that symbolises salvation is annihilated.
The law of liberty in Christ under the dispensation of grace.
"All things are legitimate [permissible—and we are free to do anything we please], but not all things are helpful (expedient, profitable, and wholesome). All things are legitimate, but not all things are constructive [to character] and edifying [to spiritual life]." 1 corinthians 10.23
"Therefore let no one sit in judgment on you in matters of food and drink, or with regard to a feast day or a New Moon or a Sabbath. Such [things] are only the shadow of things that are to come, and they have only a symbolic value. But the reality (the substance, the solid fact of what is foreshadowed, the body of it) belongs to Christ. Let no one defraud you by acting as an umpire and declaring you unworthy and disqualifying you for the prize, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions [he claims] he has seen, vainly puffed up by his sensuous notions and inflated by his unspiritual thoughts and fleshly conceit, "And not holding fast to the Head, from Whom the entire body, supplied and knit together by means of its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. Colossians 2. 16-18
under the dispensation of grace no man has the authority to judge your decision to wether celebrate Christmas or not .

Credits to Lawrence Skelemes

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

FAITH TO DO THE EXTRAORDINARY

FAITH FOR EXTRAORDINARY LIVING .

John 20:25 "The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

Like Thomas most people would only believe only when they have evidence . Our five senses were given to us by God to aid in our interaction with earthly life. However , if we do not reprogram our way of thinking to acknowledge the limits of our five senses, they will keep us from believing. Faith can perceive things that the senses cannot (Heb. 11:1). For instance, someone could be in love with you without you knowing it.

There are two kinds of faith , the first , human  and the second  supernatural or God-kind of faith. Human faith is based on physical things that we can see, taste, hear, smell, or feel. God's kind of faith believes independently of physical circumstances. To receive God's gift of salvation, we have to use the supernatural, God-kind of faith which isn't limited by our five senses but yet logical. This is because, to be saved, we must believe for things that we can't see or feel. We haven't seen God or the devil. We haven't seen Heaven or Hell. Yet we have to believe that these things exist. Human faith can't believe what it can't see, that's why there is so much disaster in the world claiming the lives of people who were warned through dreams and visions but the never believed it and paid dearly for it.

Man is so incapable of believing  the gospel on his own. To receive God's gift of salvation, we have to receive the supernatural, God-kind of faith first. Where does this faith come from and how do we get it?

Romans 10:17 says, "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." God's Word contains His faith. As we hear the Word of God about salvation, We receive God's faith so that we can believe the good news of our salvation. We actually use God's faith to get saved.

This God-kind of faith doesn't leave us after our born-again experience.

God's faith becomes a fruit of the Spirit which is in our hearts. We never lose this supernatural faith , we grow in it as we daily learn how to use it. The more you expose you expose yourself to the teaching of God's word the more you grow in faith. Receive grace as you read this now for an extraordinary breakthrough in Jesus name.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Sunday, December 8, 2013

YOU ARE TOO LOADED TO BE FRUSTRATED

Priceless Jewel of God ,You have been equipped and empowered with everything you need. You aren't meant to struggle through life in order to achieve anything. Our heavenly Father has deposited  in you the strength ,creativity and ideas you need to attain the highest level of success . You have been annointed for excellence. You are fully loaded. Reject depression , think success always. God loves you. "The LORD is my shepherd; I have all that I need." Psalm 23.1 Bible

Saturday, December 7, 2013

SATAN ISN'T AS POWERFUL AS YOU THINK HE IS .

SATAN IS ONLY AS POWERFUL AS YOU MAKE HIM .
Matthew 27:4 "Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? ....
False Religion thrives on flattery of it's victim and the magnification of the perceived enemy above the capacity of the victim thus creating room for exploitation. The devil's crowd may flatter as long as they can use you, but you can be assured that when there is no longer anything in it for them, they will forsake you just as the chief priests did Judas. Many persons have spent their time and money building religious edifices only to be dumped.
  Satan is the father of deception, often presenting himself as being concerned for our welfare as he did to Eve in the garden of Eden. A trade mark of false religion is the over emphasis on personal welfare ,thus neglecting reconciliation, social justice and the protection of the environment.
  Our victory over the enemy is dependent on how conversant we are with his strategies . Our lord Jesus Christ  stripped Satan of all his authority (Mt. 28:18). The power that Satan uses against us now, is deception. Those who ascribe other powers to him have already fallen prey to one of his lies. The devil deceives us and uses our own power and authority against us. The thing that makes deception so deadly is that those who are deceived don't know it. Once they realize they are deceived, they aren't deceived any and are made free.

The best defense against the devil is to be God conscious through worship and meditation on biblical materials . It is in our power to choose who's presence we desire to be influenced by , God or Satan. We are never far away from God's precence , its not something we go in to and come out of , He is forever with us. "If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there" (Ps. 139:8). Anytime Satan's oppression is present, God's presence is there too (Heb. 13:5). It's just a matter of where our focus is. Focusing on your problem is a trick of the devil to make us look hopeless , put your attention on God and watch that situation dissolve in Jesus name.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

REJOICE ,YOUR SIN PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY TAKEN CARE OF

YOUR SIN PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF .

Luke 23:18 "And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:"
This is a true example of the meaning of substitutionary sacrifice , where one person takes the place of a condemned fellow even if they did not ask for it. This is what it means to be born again. A new opportunity at life eternally free from guilt and condemnation because someone else took all our guilt and condemnation on the cross of Calvary about 2013 years ago.
Jesus suffered the death that Barabbas should have experienced, and Barabbas went free without asking for it.
Likewise, we were all guilty (Rom. 3:23) and condemned to death (Rom. 6:23), yet Jesus suffered our punishment so that we may go free (2 Cor. 5:21). Just as Barabbas had nothing to do with this substitution, so "God commended his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8).

Barabbas however had a responsibility after he no longer pronounced not guilty by law . He had to choose whether or not to accept this new start and remain free, or go back to his old ways and come under the judgment of the law again. Likewise, we have all been freed through the substitutionary death of Jesus, but we have to choose whether to accept our freedom by putting faith in Jesus or to reject it, by denying Him.

Our eternal freedom from the guilt of sin and resurrection to a Christlike life, is already a reality in our spirits but will only become a physical and emotional reality when we know and irrevocably accept it. In the same way that Jesus died for the sake of our sins once and for all, and death no longer has dominion over Him, the person who recognizes their freedom from sin through Christ's crucifixion , will not allow sin to rule over him anymore , failure to recognize this leads to a child of God struggling with the filth of sin. As you read this now, receive grace to live a life of honour and excellence as you exercise your dominion over sin in Jesus name.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

YOUR SADNESS SHALL BE TURNED INTO JOY

YOUR SADNESS SHALL BE TURNED INTO JOY
Dearly ,Irreversibly and intensely loved child of God , our heavenly Father isnt ignorant of your pains and He has promised that today something will happen to you that'll turn your sadness into joy. In Every sad experience, there's a valuable lesson to learn designed to prepare you for a greater future. Be ever so greatful to God for wisdom acquired in whatever situation you find yourself. .."....Ask, using my name, and you will receive, and you will have abundant joy." John16.24 .Bible .Receive grace for overflowing joy in your heart as you read this now in Jesus name.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

A SLAVE TO LOVE BY CHOICE.

A SLAVE TO LOVE BY CHOICE
Jesus replied, “If I said anything wrong, you must prove it. But if I’m speaking the truth, why are you beating me?” JOHN 18:23

God's kind of love is never self-serving or self-seeking. This love is sacrificial by nature even at the point of death  (Jn. 15:13), because through it we seize to be relevant .  The only thing that matters is the safety of the other person.

God's type of love is volitional, that is, an act of the will. It is not sentimental therefore , it has nothing to do with feelings , though it affects our emotions . It is a duty we have for another person . We can choose to love even when we don't feel like it and we can always conduct ourselves in a godly manner, when we feel God's kind of love. God's kind of love is also the antidote to selfishness and pride. These is the solution to the many breakup in families.  By looking away from yourself you overcome selfishness and this is only made possible  to falling in love with God more than with ourself. It is in discovering God's love that we destroy selfishness.

Jesus didn't feel some emotional sensation when He chose to die for us, but that was the greatest demonstration of God's kind of love that the world has ever seen. He made a choice in spite of His emotions. Because He was consumed with God's love, He acted properly, even when His emotions didn't agree.
As you read this now recieve grace to be the ultimate example of God's kind of love in your relationship in Jesus name.

Monday, November 18, 2013

God isn't ignorant of your pains

"The eyes of the LORD search the whole earth in order to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him" 2Chronicles 16.9

Saturday, November 16, 2013

We are stronger together , join a bible believing church today .

"Stay alert! Watch out for your great enemy, the devil. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour. Stand firm against him, and be strong in your faith. Remember that your Christian brothers and sisters all over the world are going through the same kind of suffering you are."1 peter5.8 Bible.  Fellowship in a bible believing church is a prerequisite for a long lasting loving relationship among the married. Join us at 
Gracevine family church by jdp new bridge , alcon rd, last bus stop, woji town, port harcourt, nigeria 8.30am sunday. 



Thursday, November 14, 2013

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ATHEISM THRIVES. EUTOPIA....? Part 1

Romans 1:28-32 MSG Bible

Since they didn’t bother to acknowledge God, God quit bothering them and let them run loose. And then all hell broke loose: rampant evil, grabbing and grasping, vicious backstabbing. They made life hell on earth with their envy, wanton killing, bickering, and cheating. Look at them: mean-spirited, venomous, fork-tongued God-bashers. Bullies, swaggerers, insufferable windbags! They keep inventing new ways of wrecking lives. They ditch their parents when they get in the way. Stupid, slimy, cruel, cold-blooded. And it’s not as if they don’t know better. They know perfectly well they’re spitting in God’s face. And they don’t care—worse, they hand out prizes to those who do the worst things best!

Saturday, November 9, 2013

HOW TO OVERCOME TEMPTATION: YES YOU CAN!

HOW TO OVERCOME TEMPTATION . YES YOU CAN !!
Mark 14:38 " Keep watch and pray, so that you will not give in to temptation. For the spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” Keep watch and pray, so that you will not give in to temptation. For the spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” . Our thoughts governs our actions .Temptation is linked directly to what we repeatedly think upon (Heb. 11:15). Temptation is positional and has to be entered into. It is avoided when we refusing to entertain thoughts that generate temptation (Prov. 23:7). We may not be able to completly stop thinking,but we can reject the negative thoughts in this world, by choosing to think on the positive truths of God. This is what we do when we pray .In prayer, we have our minds set upon God and therefore, are not receptive to thoughts that conceive temptation. Temptation or sin must be conceived (Jas. 1:14-15). In the physically , the easiest way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is to avoid conception, so it is in the spiritual world.It is easier to avoid being tempted by being in constant communion with God, than it is to overcome temptation once it has been conceived.We are admonished as believers to reflect and meditate upon eight positive principles of thinking that will lead to a victorious Christian life (Phil. 4:8). These are things that are "true," that is: honorable, truthful and upright. Things that are "honest," that is: honorable, truthful, genuine, not characterized by deception or fraud. Things that are "just," that is: in accordance with what is right, or right conduct; any circumstance, fact or deed that is right. Things that are "pure," free from defilement or impurity.Things that are "lovely," pleasing, agreeable, inspiring love or affection. A "good report," that is: a saying or report that is positive and constructive rather than negative and destructive. "Virtue," which is moral excellence, righteousness and goodness. "Praise," or what is praiseworthy; expressing one's esteem of a person and his virtues. We need to focus on the good in every area of our lives.Celebrating every work of God's hand such as the air we breath will bring peace and keeps our hearts and minds following hard after the Lord. Receive grace to overcome every temptation against you and recover all that the enemy has stolen from you in Jesus name.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Gratuitous evil and God . The Athiest's misconception .

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL IN THE WORLD. PART ............2
If there actually is a God who is all knowing and wise then , Why did God allow Satan in to the garden of Eden ?where was God during the temptation in the garden ? Why does. God allow so much evil and suffering in the world.?
It is like the question often asked by the Nigerian Atheist :
Despite the fact that Nigeria is ranked one of the most religious countries in the world, why does God allow for the prevalence of so much corruption especially among church folks? This question is  akin to the atheist question on the issue of gratuitous evil and discernment. 
The average atheist position is that the problem of gratuitous natural evil seems to create a problem for people who want to be moral. They perceive a baby dying of a painful disease as a moral evil and then judge God to be an immoral monster for allowing that to happen. But the theist's view of God's sovereignty suggests that the athiest's judgment is in error: The the questions often asked by atheists is, how do we know God does not have some greater reason for allowing that suffering? But doesn't that mean that all of our moral judgments are possibly in error? If we lack the knowledge and scope of cognition to judge God as immoral for allowing a baby to die of a horrible disease, are we not similarly unqualified to judge a human who can cure a dying baby, but chooses not to? Going even further, if we see someone about to die in a burning building , should we try to save them? What if God is trying to accomplish some greater good by allowing that person to die?

In short, if we are in no position to judge the morality of God's actions or inactions, how are we in a position to judge each other's moral actions or to even make moral decisions in the first place? As the disease-stricken baby shows, our moral judgment can err. How can we know, then, when our moral judgment is in error? If we assume the theist's response to the problem of evil is correct, then our moral sense errs quite frequently, usually in response to all the horrible natural evil surrounding us. Does this not render attempting to behave morally absurd?

THEIST ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS

It is the absence of an argument whose premises are attested even more powerfully than the existence of objective moral values and duties that makes the  atheist a moral sceptic and anti-realist. The atheist would need to put himself/ herself  in the shoes of the theists and ask if they confront the same problem as the Nietzschean (Nie·tzsche   (Friedrich Wilhelm 1844-1900 German philosopher who reasoned that Christianity's emphasis on the afterlife makes its believers less able to cope with earthly life. He argued that the ideal human, the Übermensch, would be able to channel passions creatively instead of suppressing them) . After all, it was the death of God that led Nietzsche to proclaim the advent of nihilism ( the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value: the belief that a society's political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed ). But the theist has the resources to establish objective moral values and duties. The atheist can recognize that the argument from apparently gratuitous evil in the world will not do because of the infeasibility of proving that the evil we see is, indeed, gratuitous. So what justification is there for being an atheist and, hence, a moral sceptic?
Given our historical and cognitive limitations, it is clear that we are simply not in a position to say with any sort of confidence that the evil we observe in the world is pointless or unnecessary.

This ofcourse is not in defence of consequentialism as a theory of ethics. According to consequentialism, the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is determined solely by its consequences. This is a laughable theory of ethics. On consequentialism if your torturing and raping a senior citizen would somehow ultimately redound to the benefit of mankind, then not only is this action morally permissible for you, but you are morally obligated to do it! Rather the theist holds that we have certain obligations to fulfill even if no good consequences result and certain prohibitions to obey regardless of the benefits that might ensue from flouting our duties. As a theist, I see our moral duties as grounded in God’s commands, which are reflections of His holy and loving character, not in the consequences.
As for God’s own actions, I don’t think that God has any moral duties to fulfill, since He presumably doesn’t issue commands to Himself! So it is meaningless to speak of the moral rightness or wrongness of God’s actions. What we can ask is whether His acting in a certain way would be consistent with His character. Would it be consistent with His character, for example, not to intervene to save a baby from dying of a horrible disease or someone from perishing in a burning building? And for the theist the answer is, yes, God can have good reasons for not intervening in such situations and so does not act contrary to His character. This is against the backdrop of the theist's philosophy of  an afterlife which can be scientifically proven through the law of conservation of energy(for matter cannot be totally destroyed but can only be changed from one state to another. )

So suppose that I am a person who wants to do his moral duty. I am a doctor who can save a baby from dying of a disease. Do I have an obligation to do so? Of course, all things being equal. For God has commanded us, to love our neighbour as ourself  ,I would violate this command if I did not try to save the baby. Of course, all things are not always equal: suppose I am in the middle of critical surgery and cannot leave to save the baby without losing the patient. Then love of my neighbor does not require me to abandon the patient for the baby. This is why moral decision-making can sometimes be so challenging .
Again, all things being equal, you should try to save the person threatened by the burning building. (But if that means, for example, abandoning your own children to be drowned in order to do so, then you are not so obligated.) “What if God is trying to accomplish some greater good by allowing that person to die?” It doesn’t matter! You have an objective duty to fulfill which God has laid upon you. You do your duty and leave it up to God to work out the consequences. After all, He knew in advance whether or not you would try to save that person and factored that into His plan. It’s not as if you’re going to mess up His providential plan by intervening!

Now all of what’s been said so far is preliminary to the atheist's real question: “how are we in a position to judge each other's moral actions or to even make moral decisions in the first place?” The answer is that we do not discern our moral duties by trying to look into the future and determine whether the consequences of our action are on balance good or bad. Rather (i) God has written His moral law upon our hearts (Romans 2.14-15), so that we have God-given moral intuitions to direct us; (ii) God has revealed to us His moral law in Scripture, e.g., the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount; and (iii) God has created man in His image, so that every person is invested with intrinsic moral worth and therefore to be treated as an end and not a means. While these guides do not make moral decision-making always easy, I find that it is more often than not pretty clear what my moral duty is in most everyday situations. It’s obeying the command not discerning it  that is hard to fulfill .

Conversely ,if consequentialism were true, then you would be absolutely right that we could never determine our moral duties. Some action which appears horrible in the short run could turn out to be a great boon to mankind( for example ,the humiliating death of Christ ), and an action that appears to be beneficent could turn out to be disastrous in the long run. We can be thankful that God has not abandoned us to such moral chaos but has given us resources to help discern His moral will for our lives.

Friday, October 18, 2013

EVOLUTIONISM IN CREATIONISM AND THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MANKIND

EVOLUTIONARY CREATIONISM AND THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MANKIND
From all indications the entire animal and plant kingdoms are just two twigs on the branch of Eukaryotes . There are still the two other branches of the Bacteria and Archaea to be accounted for. The extrapolation of the Darwinian mechanisms from peppered moths and fruit flies and finch beaks to the production and evolution of every living thing is a breathtaking extrapolation of gargantuan, brobdingnagian proportions. We know that in science such extrapolations often fail. For example, Albert Einstein attempted to extrapolate his principle of relativity from the special theory to a general principle of relativity that would relativize not only uniform motion but also accelerated and rotary motion. But the extrapolation failed. Instead, what Einstein discovered was a new theory of gravitation. The name “general theory of relativity” is thus something of a misnomer.

Where is the evidence for the extraordinary extrapolation the current paradigm involves? Michael Behe says that “the evidence for common descent seems compelling,” but “. . . except at life’s periphery the evidence for a pivotal role for random mutations is terrible.” Now if he’s wrong about this, then what is the evidence?  But what is it? looking at the evidence objectively , there's no good reason to think that the neo-Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to explain the evolution of the extraordinary diversity of life that we see on this planet during the time available.

So its not convincing that evolutionary creationism is true. It seems that so-called progressive creationism fits the evidence quite nicely. Progressive creationism suggests that God intervenes periodically to bring about miraculously new forms of life and then allows evolutionary change to take place with respect to those life forms. But as for grand evolutionary change, this would not take place by the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation undirected by God. Rather we would need miraculous interventions of God in the process of biological evolution to bring about broad evolutionary change. So instead of evolutionary creationism, we would have a kind of progressive creationism whereby God creates biological complexity over time.

Ancient Near Eastern context, refer to man as God’s representative regent on Earth and in order to fulfill such a function, man would have to possess certain properties inherent to personhood, like self-consciousness, rationality, freedom, and the ability to stand in personal relationships. These are the sort of properties which theologians have traditionally identified as constitutive of God’s image in man. These are not properties belonging to man’s hominid body but to his soul. So it seems a matter of indifference how man’s physical body might have originated. However God chose to bring about our hominid bodies, the crucial thing that makes us human is our soul, invested with the aforementioned features. 

credits to William 
Crain 

Thursday, October 10, 2013

MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE -AN ATHEIST ARGUMENT

Calculating the Probability of God’s Existence
Question
The atheist says by mathematical deduction, to find out the probability of an event happening, you simple divide the event by the total of all events. A simple example of this is the probability of rolling a 1 on a six-sided die, which would be 1 (the event you want) divided by 6 (all possible events). So when you want to know the probability that god exists, you simple divide the one you choose by all possible other events. Since you have no proof that indicate any one god is more likely than any other god, this gives you an infinite number of possible events. So doing the probability you get 1 divided by infinity which is zero." When questioned that infinity is the incorrect constant to use the atheist replies ,why isn't infinity the right number to use? Do you have some proof for a specific god that nobody seems to know about? If you don't, then how is any other god not just as likely? This is basic logic. Since I don't have to prove they exist, I can make up new gods all day long. When something is unprovable it has a infinite set of like instances by default. Again, that's basic logic.
ANSWER

This question raises some technical issues in probability theory, to which I’ll return at the end of this answer.

Probabilities are always relative to some background information. . . . Now the atheist says God’s existence is improbable. You should immediately ask, ‘Improbable relative to what?’ What is the background information? . . . The interesting question is whether God’s existence is probable relative to the full scope of the evidence.
It is evident that the conclusion was made  considering no background information at all! The atheist seems to be talking about a sort of absolute probability of God’s existence Pr (G) in abstraction from any background information B and specific evidence E. That’s a pointless exercise. The atheist seems to be imagining all the possible deities that could exist and asking, “What are the chances apriori that a certain one of these exists?” How silly! That’s like inquiring about the absolute probability that a certain person, for example, you, exists, given the infinite number of possible persons there could be. Nobody is interested in such absolute probabilities, if there even are such things. What we want to know, rather, is the probability of your existence or God’s existence relative to our background information and specific evidence: Pr (G|E & B).

As for the technical issues, when the question of , “If you don't [have evidence of God’s existence], then how is any other god not just as likely? arises,it's logical to say,” the atheist is presupposing a theory of logical probability which is highly controverted and is rejected by almost all probability theorists today. Timothy McGrew, Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan, who writes on probability theory explains that most theorists would deny that in the absence of evidence would conclude on the premise of  absolute probability just as the atheist would.

It is correct that in the complete absence of evidence there is a sort of symmetry of ignorance about competing views. We’d have no idea which is true. But the atheist interprets this to mean that the competing options are all equally probable. And that’s false. To see why, consider an illustration provided by the mathematician Peter Walley of a closed bag of colored marbles. If you reach in and draw a marble, what is the probability that the marble will be red? Walley says,

A naïve answer is to say that, because there are two possible outcomes (red or non-red) and no information to favour either, the probability must be 1/2 . . . . But one could apply the same principle to the colors blue and green instead of red . . . and they cannot each have the probability 1/2 . . . . Any precise assessment seems quite arbitrary.1

According to Walley, the correct answer is to say, “I don’t have any information at all about the chance of drawing a red marble, so I do not see why I should bet on, or against, red at any odds.”

Wally then provides a different model of probability which assigns, not precise values to different alternatives, but intervals. For example, in the absence of any information about the color of the marbles in the bag, the model assigns the vacuous probability of 0 to 1 of drawing a red marble, which is just what it should be for a state of complete ignorance.

Applied to the existence of God, what this means is that in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, we should simply have no opinion about whether or not God exists. There is no implication that the probability of God’s existence is 0.

The atheist' theory resembles Rudolf Carnap’s Logical Foundations of Probability (1951), in which Carnap attempted to formalize prior probabilities in terms of state descriptions and structure descriptions of a system. McGrew comments,

The attempt to nail down prior probabilities in an objective manner using state descriptions and structure descriptions does capture two of our intuitions: it permits learning from experience, and it endorses the commonsense idea that in the utter absence of information, it would be rash to be very confident of a complex contingent claim. But it also has many problems that have been well known since the publication of Carnap’s Logical Foundations of Probability in 1951. In particular, the probabilities are relative to the language used in the description – adding more predicates changes the probabilities, a fact that Carnap himself understood very well. There are other approaches to learning from experience that do not suffer from this defect. To use this sort of artificial system to raise a presumption against the existence of God is really rather comical.

As confident and appealing as it may seem to “basic logic.” the atheist' position lacks commonsense .

Notes

[1] Peter Walley, “Inferences from Multinomial Data: Learning about a Bag of Marbles,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 58/1 (1996): 3-57, pp. 4-5.
Culled from
William Lane Craig

Monday, October 7, 2013

MIRACLES : A VIOLATION OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY . AN ATHEIST ARGUMENT .

Arguments for the Possibility of Miracles  There are two arguments for the possibility of miracles: one from the side of God, the miracle-worker, or the cause, and the other from the side of the world, or the effect. We must show that both are open, not closed, to miracles.   First, there is no defence against miracles in God’s nature, no assurance that God would not work a miracle. For if there is a God, he is omnipotent , and thus able to work miracles. Whether he would freely choose to do so or not is not a matter we can know a priori, for it would depend on his free choice. An omnipotent God could not be compelled to work or not work a miracle. So there is no obstacle to miracles in God. If there is a God, miracles are possible.   Second, there is no obstacle to or defense against miracles on the part of the world of nature. If God created it in the first place, that is, if nature is open to the possibilities of existing or not existing, then it is open to the possibilities of containing miracles or not containing them. In other words, if God can bang out the Big Bang of creation, he can certainly add some smaller bangs of miracles. If the author can create the play, he can change it too. And if the play is dependent on God, its author, for its very existence, then it is also dependent on him for whatever else he may want to do in it.  

Objections Against Miracles  Each objection tries to prove that miracles are impossible (or overwhelming improbable). If miracles are impossible, then they are not actual, and if no miracles ever actually happened, then Christianity is false. For the fundamental claims and doctrines of Christianity are all miracles: Incarnation, resurrection, salvation, inspiration. If any one of these objections is valid, the whole of Christianity is refuted.     

Objection 1: Miracles violate the principle of the uniformity of nature.
Reply: What is meant by the “uniformity of nature”? If it means that we can explain whatever happens wholly in terms of the system of natural causes, then the objection begs the question. It amounts to saying “miracles violate the principle that miracles never happen.”
 
Objection 2: A miracle, by definition, must violate some law of nature, and therefore must be a maximally improbable event. But then it is always more likely that the event never really occurred as described (or remembered), or that it did not really violate the laws of nature.  
Reply A: A miracle does not “violate” the laws of nature – any more than a school principal violates the schedule of classes by cancelling gym for a special assembly. Violations take place whenever someone who has to follow or uphold an established order fails or refuses to do so – for example, when the gym teacher cancels classes on his own to lead his students in an hour of spontaneous prayer. But the principal has done nothing like that if he modifies the schedule within the limits of his authority.   Now the Creator of the universe has authority over all creation. It is truly odd to call his suspending this or that regularly observed sequence a “violation,” as if it were something he should feel guilty or embarrassed about. A miracle violates nothing. When one happens, God has (mercifully) modified the schedule of the day.
 
Reply B: Why are miracles called “maximally improbable”? They are certainly unusual, but how do we know whether they are likely to happen or not? Only if we have already decided whether or not it is likely that God exists – or that he would ever work a miracle. In that case calling miracles “maximally improbable” is not a neutral description: it stacks the deck against them. For it places every report of miracles in a setting where it is most likely that God does not exist or does not intervene in the system of natural causes, and therefore that the event reported is not a miracle at all. Hence the conclusion that reports of miracles should be disbelieved is really assumed in, and assured by, the words used in the premises to describe them.
 
Reply C: We are creatures of habit. Life is one darn thing after another – often the same sort of darn thing. We expect that today is going to be pretty much like yesterday, and we know that people, including ourselves, are given to exaggeration and deceit. So we naturally approach stories of “signs and wonders” with deep suspicion. Our experience of humanity teaches us to have our guard up much of the time. And when we hear of “miracles” from people of questionable or unstable character, we dismiss them as mere oddities, frauds or delusions. But when an event seems for its setting so right, and the person to whom it is imputed so noble, then it seems to demand a more serious response. The place of fittingness has not often enough been acknowledged in discussions of miracles. But surely it is a key factor in the way we concretely assess events we hear about – or even witness.  

Objection 3: To accept miracles would be to abandon the method by which science operates.
Reply: Nonsense. All the natural sciences operate by assuming certain things as given: the world of matter, natural causes operating within that world, and an order or regularity that makes empirical investigation possible. That is why questions like: “How come the world of matter exists at all – rather than nothing?” or “What caused the Big Bang – the absolute beginning of all material being?” are not, strictly speaking, questions within physical science. This does not mean that such questions are unreal, only that science as such cannot answer them. A scientist who believes that God caused the universe to exist has not abandoned scientific method, but, merely acknowledged its limits.   Consider the following example. A doctor witnesses a most unusual event: a patient of his with terminal AIDS is suddenly cured after bathing in the waters of Lourdes. He thinks: “Some cause has reversed the progress of this disease – but what exactly was it?” so he sets out in search of this unknown cause. He checks on all the drugs the patient had taken before, during and after the pilgrimage. He investigates the water of the shrine to see whether some as-yet unknown element in it is able to destroy the AIDS virus. After weeks of fruitless labour, he begins to wonder whether even this terrible disease could be psychosomatically reversed. Finally, he throws up his hands and admits that as a scientist he can find no plausible empirical explanation. This is a possible scenario. But there is another.   Suppose that while visiting Lourdes to gather water for testing, the doctor finds himself deeply moved, even shaken, by the faith of the pilgrims he sees there. He has already been impressed by the faith-filled charity which radiates from his newly-cured patient who was once so bitter and self-absorbed. He feels the same thing here at the shrine, only in almost over-whelming intensity. So he inquires about the message of Lourdes, then about Christianity. Finding no plausible empirical explanation, he comes to believe, as a person who is also a scientist, that God did specially intervene in curing his patient of AIDS, and that no description of the event which left God out would be adequate. But notice: he did not come to disbelieve in empirical explanation. He did not cease to be a scientist. He simply acknowledged that empirical explanation has its limitations, and believed that, in this case, the true explanation transcended them.

  Objection 4: Miracles are an affront to the glory of God. If he designed the system of nature, and then has to intervene in its regular workings he must be an incompetent architect.
Reply: This argument would only be true if God designed a system in which he should never intervene – in which he should never answer prayers or reveal himself in special and spectacular ways. If you acquired a newly-built house and found it had no bathrooms, that would indeed reflect badly on the architect. For the concrete design of the house would lack what it unquestionably ought to have. But if miracles happen, then God did not design a system in which he should never intervene. The intervention is part of the plain; he designed it that way.   Is anyone in a position to say God ought not to have designed the system this way? We do not, and cannot, know the extent of God’s creation. There may be worlds in which there are no specially answered prayers, no interventions in the system of natural causes. How can we really know that it was wrong for him to have created a world in which he does intervene?  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

REPOSITIONED FOR TESTIMONIES OF FINANCIAL INCREASE

POSITION YOURSELF TO RECIEVE TESTIMONIES OF  FINANCIAL INCREASE NOW
The number 10 is the spiritual number for divine sufficiency , accomplishment and prosperity , it is in the light of this truth that this month holds a lot for those who believe and has been prophetically declared as the month of testimonies confirming increase in your finances .
Dear Friend,the supply of our need as promised by the lord is guaranteed however it is POSITIONAL . The scriptures in 1Kings 17. Shows us how God does this through the experiece of Elijah the prophet.1 Kings 17:2-4:And the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, [3] Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. [4] And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.Elijah's provision wasn't where he was; it was where God told him to go! This is profound!Some of us have an impression from God to do something. Maybe to start a new business, make a job change, move to another town, go to Bible college, speak to a person, etc. We are persuaded to do it, but we keep holding back because the provision isn't there yet. You're saying, "God, I can't do what You're asking without first seeing the provision. How do I know all these things are going work out?" This principle in 1 Kings applies directly to your situation. God is sending the provision for your needs not to where you are but to where He told you to go! The question is, "Are you positioned to recieve it" Some of us aren't experiencing supernatural provision because we aren't positioned . There is a position  for you.In verse 4,  we see the ravens on their way to where Elijah was supposed to go.First Kings 17:5 says,So [Elijah] went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.Elijah wouldn't have seen God's provision if he hadn't gone where God instructed.One of the reasons we aren't seeing a greater provision from God financially, emotionally or in our circumstances is because we aren't doing what God told us to do. We've got a word from God that we haven't acted on. We're somewhere other than where He told us to be.Now, by the doctrine of  God's grace He provides things for us and that it's not based on our obedience or holiness. God loves us independent of our performance-that's absolutely true! But does this mean obeying Him is unimportant? Just the opposite.God has a plan for your life and He chose you from your mother's womb and ordained you to be a servant of God and He has great things planned for you, things earmarked for you that has your name on them. But if we don't obey, step out, and do what He tells us to do, God still would provide, but we would miss out on it. We have to be positioned .God just needs our cooperation to bring things to pass .This isn't intended to hurt or condemn anyone, because I know you doing your utmost best and now thinking, Maybe that's why things aren't working in my life-I haven't been obedient to what God told me to do! Well... that's absolutely correct! It's not that God won't bless you because you haven't obeyed Him; it's that His blessing is positional ! It's like receiving a mobile phone as a gift, you would need to go to where there is sufficient network to use it.  If the reason you won't step out is because you've got some form of "security" but you're miserable and things are just going wrong, I encourage you to do what God told you to do.God is meeting all of your needs-He's sending His supply to where He told you to be. This is one of the great lessons from the life of Elijah.Let's look at 1 Kings 17:6:And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook.As I mentioned before, I believe that since God had already commanded the ravens, if Elijah hadn't obeyed, God would still have been faithful to send the provision where He told him to go. I believe that these ravens would have brought bread and meat every morning and evening but that it all would have piled up beside the brook and gone to waste. Elijah could have starved to death even though God had been faithful to provide for his needs.Here's something else to consider: How did Elijah know which spot along the brook Cherith to go? If the brook was ten miles long, he could have been five or ten miles away from where the ravens were bringing him food. The ravens could fly faster than Elijah could walk or run. I'm convinced that one of the ways he knew he was at the right spot was because the ravens were already "positioned" with the bread and meat. When Elijah saw the provision God had promised, that was one of the signs that he was in the right place.The same will be true of you when you step out. You have to take a step of faith with no guarantees that things are going to work. And then you will start seeing the provision of the Lord. It'll be confirmation that you're going in the right direction and doing what He told you to do. You'll be able to say, "It was God who told me to do this."This is how it's worked in my life. God's provision isnt given accidentally but positionally . I'm a product of  1 Kings 17 taking  steps of faith got me where I am. And I'm going to keep taking steps of faith. All you have to do to get started is take a step of faith this could radically change your life if you would act on it and may the God of Elijah prove himself strong on your behalf in Jesus name.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

USING MAKE- UP, WEAVON, AND OTHER BEAUTY ASSESORIES WILL NOT AND CAN NOT LEAD A PERSON TO HELL.

USING MAKE UP , PUTING ON WEAVON AND OTHER BEAUTY ASSESORIES WILL NOT AND CAN NOT LEAD A PERSON TO HELL . WORSHIP GOD IN THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS.
Do not be decieved by those who claim to have died and met with God and were given codes of conduct and score card and ordained as global ecclesiatical umpires for every human being on earth. They are not to be taken seriously for God can not go contrary to His word and the word of God is not to be given a personal interpretation . God does not have umpires in the church. These self acclaimed prophets or prophetesses are nothing but mere dreamers . Jeremiah 23.25

"Let no one defraud you by acting as an umpire and declaring you unworthy and disqualifying you for the prize, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions [he claims] he has seen, vainly puffed up by his sensuous notions and inflated by his unspiritual thoughts and fleshly conceit, :And not holding fast to the Head, from Whom the entire body, supplied and knit together by means of its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. :If then you have died with Christ to material ways of looking at things and have escaped from the world’s crude and elemental notions and teachings of externalism, why do you live as if you still belong to the world? [Why do you submit to rules and regulations?—such as] AMP:Do not handle [this], Do not taste [that], Do not even touch [them], Referring to things all of which perish with being used. To do this is to follow human precepts and doctrines. Such [practices] have indeed the outward appearance [that popularly passes] for wisdom, in promoting self-imposed rigor of devotion and delight in self-humiliation and severity of discipline of the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh (the lower nature). [Instead, they do not honor God but serve only to indulge the flesh.]" COLOSSIANS 2.18-23 Amplified . Bible.            
NB. Do feel free to share this post you could be saving a life.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

MIRACLES AND SCIENCE (PART2)

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements

Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure .Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible

Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.

Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design Lack of understanding of basic and established principles of physics and engineering

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (see also: Falsifiability)

Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience"

Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa

Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience: This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation), but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g. Statistical hypothesis testing).

Presentation of data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. Reversed burden of proof: In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.

Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" to dismiss negative findings.

Lack of openness to testing by other experts

Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference"):  Some proponents of ideas that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.
Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to share data so others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.

Appealing to the need for secrecy or proprietary knowledge when an independent review of data or methodology is requested.

Absence of progress

Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims ,Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia. 
Lack of self-correction:
scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time. By contrast, ideas may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience. Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated, and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations.

Personalization of issues

Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.

Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results

Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy)

Use of misleading language

Creating scientific-sounding terms to add weight to claims and persuade nonexperts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless: For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled. Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.

MIRACLES AND SCIENCE. (Part 1)

PSEUDOSCIENCE
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.  Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.  Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.

Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters.

The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience has ethical political implications, as well as philosophical and scientific issues. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.  Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.

The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience usually dispute the characterization.

While the standards for determining whether a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice is scientific can vary from field to field, a number of basic principles are widely agreed upon by scientists. The basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible, and able to be verified by other individuals. These principles aim to ensure experiments can be measurably reproduced under the same conditions, allowing further investigation to determine whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is both valid and reliable. Standards require the scientific method to be applied throughout, and bias will be controlled for or eliminated through randomization, fair sampling procedures, blinding of studies, and other methods. All gathered data, including the experimental or environmental conditions, are expected to be documented for scrutiny and made available for peer review, allowing further experiments or studies to be conducted to confirm or falsify results. Statistical quantification of significance, confidence, and error are also important tools for the scientific method.

GOD IS SPEAKING TO YOU NOW

THIS IS HOW TO RECOGNIZE GOD'S VOICE

John 12:28 "Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it

JOHN 12:20-28
This verse makes it clear that it was a voice that the Father spoke in; however, there were different reports of the same event. Some people heard a voice and thought it was an angel who spoke. Others thought it was thunder.

This is a confirmation that  "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). A carnal man with a hardened heart will always find some natural explanation for the supernatural even if he heard an audible voice from God.

A hard heart keeps us from perceiving spiritual truths and stops us from understanding. When a person doesn't understand God's Word, Satan finds no resistance when he comes to steal it away. A hard heart keeps us from remembering. The hardened heart always forgets valuable  spiritual lessons that have been learned . Likewise, some people can quote scripture or remember what the sermon was about, but they lack insight into  the spiritual life in it or and can't retain what they did perceive, because of a hardened heart.

Jesus didn't need to hear this audible voice of God because he had a more sure word of prophecy than the audible voice of God from heaven (2 Pet. 1:18-20). Jesus knew the "voice" of the Old Testament scriptures that spoke of the Christ being glorified and He could also hear the Father's voice in His heart as He had on so many other occasions. This audible voice didn't come to reassure Jesus, but it came to those who had ears to hear, so that they might believe.Receive healing in your heart and grace to recognize God' voice now in Jesus name.

Monday, September 2, 2013

THERE IS CONSCIOUSNESS 99 YEARS AFTER DEATH

SECURE & COMFORTABLE ETERNITY
Luke 16:22 "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and
was buried;"
LUKE 16:19-31
This story is not a parable but an event that really took place and clearly teaches that there is life after death. It shows that there is no
"soul sleep" where our souls are awaiting the resurrection of our bodies, but we go into a conscious eternity immediately. It also shows
that there are only two destinations possible after death. We either go to a place of torment for the wicked or a place of blessing for the
righteous. There is no "limbo" or "purgatory" and there is no second chance, illustrating the finality of our eternal destiny once we die.
Abraham's bosom is a symbolic term designating a place of comfort for the righteous dead. It was located in the heart of the earth, in the
same region as hell, where the ungodly dead go. The rich man's body was in the grave and yet this scripture speaks of him lifting up his
eyes and seeing Lazarus in Abraham's bosom. Our soul mirrors our physical shape so closely that it is recognizable. It is probable that
one's soulish body is an exact duplicate of their physical body.
Part of this man's torment was from the flames. However, he was also tormented by the thought of his loved ones' lives on earth and their
eternal destiny. Surely his helplessness to warn them would make his misery worse.
Also, the fact that he could see Lazarus and Abraham in a place of total blessing and comfort would keep him from ever adjusting to his
situation.
In the light of Jesus' words, we can see that hell will be much more than just a place of physical torment. Those who are consigned to that
place will also be tormented with the thoughts of what could have been if they had trusted Jesus. The greatest witness that anyone could
ever receive is the witness from God's Word. The gospel is the "power of God unto salvation".
Share God's word of Salvation today and experience a lift in Jesus name.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

BAD PEOPLE GO TO HEAVEN AND GOOD PEOPLE TO HELL

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE GOOD TO MAKE HEAVEN 
Mark 10:21 "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."MARK 10:21-27 The scripture speaks of Jesus loving this young businesman despite the fact that he was visibly lying about keeping God's commandments. This is stated after this young man said he had kept all of God's commands, which was not the truth. Jesus was showing him that he had broken the very first commandment that states, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3), and also the tenth commandment that says, "Thou shalt not covet..." (Ex. 20:17). Jesus' tough answer of "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor" was not intended to hurt this young man. It was said from a heart of love and intended for his own good.  Money had become his god and it had to be dethroned before Jesus could become Lord.This young man lacked faith in Jesus as his Savior the one thing needed to be saved. He was trusting in his goodness and not in the salvation that Jesus offered as a gift. So many people are making the same mistake today. They trust in there religious devotion instead of God.Jesus only came to save sinners.Those claiming to be good are living in denial .Ecclesiastes 7.20  Unless an individual acknowledges that he is a sinner, he cannot be saved. Because the whole world is guilty before God, He has provided one way of salvation for everyone. In the same way that everyone is guilty, everyone also has been justified freely by God's grace.That does not mean everyone is saved. Everyone has had the sacrificial offering of Jesus made for their sins by grace but grace alone doesn't save.We have to put faith in what God has provided for us by grace. Although the price has been paid for the sins of the whole world, only those who receive it by faith will benefit from the salvation that Jesus offers. Receive grace as you read this now for an undeniable encounter with God that would confirm your place in heaven as you ask Jesus to be your lord . Amen.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

QUICK WAY TO OVERCOME TEMPTATION

FRUSTRATION
 [1] Definition: A feeling of disappointment or defeat at being unable to accomplish one’s purpose.
1 Frustration is an indication of a lack of faith and trust in the Lord.  ·   · Philippians 4:6,7 · Hebrews 10:35, 36 meditate on God's word
2  Sometimes the Lord allows our plans to be frustrated because it’s simply not His time or His will.   · Numbers 22:18b · Proverbs 13:12 (God’s delays are not always denials.) · Proverbs 21:30 (If the Lord doesn’t want something done, no matter how “good” your ideas and plans are, they won’t work!) · Ecclesiastes 3:1 · 2 Corinthians 13:8 · James 4:13-15 · Psalm 37:4,5 (If you put the Lord first and trust Him, He’ll help things to work out.)
3 Frustration can result from trying to do things in our own strength.  ·   · Zechariah 4:6b · John 15:5
4 Sometimes frustration results from attempting a task that is beyond our training and experience or is not our “calling.” · Psalm 131:1 · Proverbs 15:22 (Taking good counsel before an endeavor is a good way to avoid potential frustrations.) · Jeremiah 45:5a      
5  Regardless of the source of frustration, pray to be more patient, trusting, and depending upon the Lord.     · Galatians 6:9 · 2 Peter 1:5,6 6.  Let the Lord do it through you – in His way and in his time.  · 2Corithians 3:4,5 · Matthew 26:39b (Jesus had to yield His will to God, too.)
  7. Regularly attending fellowships and listening to other peoples testimonies will encourage you. Heb 10: 24-25, psalm 73: 2,3,14-17. Question ; how do we overcome frustrations? Prayer: lets pray for those that are frustrated for comfort and strength.    

Monday, August 19, 2013

The works of your hands shall prosper

And the Lord your God will make you abundantly prosperous in every work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, of your cattle, of your land, for good; for the Lord will again delight in prospering you, as He took delight in your fathers
Deuteronomy 30.9,

FREE WILL

Everyone acknowledges that we have at least the illusion of free will. I take it that my sense of freely choosing is not mere appearance only, since if it were, nothing I think or do is of any significance whatsoever. Even the decision to believe in determinism would be meaningless, no more significant than having a toothache. Since freedom of the will is a necessary condition of the meaningfulness of my life, I may as well assume that I do have it. After all, if I do not have free will and my life is meaningless, who cares?

So I think that determinism is incompatible with free will, but that determinism has not been demonstrated to be true. So what does it mean to have free will? Some thinkers have said that it is the ability in causally identical situations to choose either A or not-A. It seems to me, however, that this so-called Principle of Alternative Possibilities is not a necessary condition of willing freely. I’m persuaded by illustrations like that given by Harry Frankfurt to show that freedom does not require the ability to choose other than as one does. Imagine a man whose brain has been secretly implanted with electrodes by a mad scientist. The scientist, being an Obama supporter, decides that he will activate the electrodes to make the man vote for Obama if the man goes into the polling booth to vote for Romney. On the other hand, if the man chooses to vote for Obama, then the scientist will not activate the electrodes. Suppose, then, the man goes into the polling booth and presses the button to vote for Obama. In such a case it seems that the man freely votes for Obama. Yet it was not within his power to do anything

Such thought experiments have been criticized on the grounds that no one could know what the man was going to do before he actually attempted to do so; hence, his free decision must be aborted by the activation of the electrodes. But while this objection seems cogent against human examples of prevention or intervention, it occurs to me that if God has middle knowledge and so knows what a person would freely do in any set of circumstances God might place him in, then the objection has no force. Suppose, for example, that had God known that Pontius Pilate would not send Jesus to the cross, He would not have placed Pilate in such circumstances. In that case, Pilate did not under the circumstances have the ability to let Jesus go. Yet he freely sent Jesus to the cross, since nothing determined him to do so.

This suggests that what is critical to free will is not the ability to choose differently in identical circumstances but rather not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Sometimes philosophers call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.

This understanding of free will has relevance to the case of God Himself. Jesus, being divine, was impeccable (could not sin). Therefore, there was no possibility of his yielding to Satan’s temptations in the wilderness. Yet he resisted sin freely because nothing external to him determined his choices. Like the man with the electrodes implanted in his brain, Jesus could not have chosen to sin, but he freely resisted sin. Again, God cannot choose to do evil, yet He freely does the Good because nothing outside Him determines Him to do so.

So, to return to the case of human agents, certainly a free choice influences physical events, most obviously in the case of basic actions in my own body, like freely lifting my arm. We are not causally determined to make all the choices we make; rather many choices are up to us and are therefore free choices. We are held accountable for such choices because they are not the result of random brain events but are undertaken for reasons which we weigh and act

I’m not sure what you mean by “some ethereal and unintelligible source,” but if you are referring to God, I agree that if God secretly determines my every thought and action, then I am but a puppet whose actions are meaningless. But a God endowed with middle knowledge of what persons would freely do in any set of circumstances God might place them in can be provident over human affairs without infringing on human freedom.
William Lane Craige

Beauty is a characteristic of a person, animal, place, object, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure or satisfaction. [

HOLINESS IS A  ASSOCIATED WITH BEAUTY
Worship the lord in the beauty of  Holiness.
"Give to the Lord the glory due to His name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness or in holy array." Psalm 29.2
Whenever the word 'holiness ' is mentioned it evokes a sense of awe, fear and obsolete distasteful worship. However , when we take a critical look at the etymology of the word against the backdrop of a historical -theological critical analysis,  we discover that ,what has been hitherto displayed as piety is a far cry of the true concept of Holiness as stated in the holy scriptures.
Definitions
Holiness means ,the state of being set apart for God's use. Can you imagine if a set of Chinaware were set apart for the use of a special guest at our  christmas dinner , say, if the governor were to visit, I guess we would sort for the most exquisite Chinaware or borrow in other to creat a lasting impression. Those Chinawares would be sanctified  or made holy for the governor's  use. Likewise the church is a type of Chinaware reserved for the  mornarch of the universe and the king of kings, Jesus Christ, now ,what state should the church be.? The answer is best seen in the presition and detailed approach in the building of the temple by king Solomon 1kings 6. 1-38 the process involved exquisite decorations running in to millions of dollars that took seven years to accomplish .
The bible describes the born again Christian as the temple of the Holy spirit. Now ,how beautiful should a place where the most influential personality worships. A picture of what it should look like is best left to the immagination .God says we should worship Him in the beauty  of holiness.
Beauty
The etymology of the word as used in scripture is that which connotes decoration from the Hebrew word, 'hădârâh' and is  Feminine as in the decoration of a woman : depicting honour,magnificence as in the splendor of an ornament :it also exhibits as it's characteristics ,  comeliness ,excellency ,glorious , majesty.

ISLAM A BLESSING TO CHRISTIANITY

What do Muslims think about Jesus?

Muslims love and respect Jesus. They consider him one of the greatest of God's prophets and messengers to humankind. A Muslim never refers to him simply as "Jesus," but always adds the phrase "may the peace and blessing of God be upon him." The Qur'an confirms his virgin birth, and a special chapter of the Qur'an is entitled "Mary." The Qur'an describes the Annunciation as follows:

"The Angels said, 'O Mary! God has chosen you, and purified you, and chosen you above all the women of all nations

'O Mary, God gives you good news of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, honored in this world and in the Hereafter, and one of those brought near to God. He shall speak to the people in infancy and in old age, and shall be of the righteous.'

She said: ' O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me?' He said: 'Even so; God creates what he wills. When He decrees athing, he says to it, "Be!" and it is."' (Qur'an 3:42, 45-7)

Just as God created Adam without a mother or a father, He caused Jesus to be conceived without a father:

"Truly the example of Jesus in relation to God is as the example of Adam. He created him from dust and then said to him, "Be!" and he was." (Qur'an 3:59)

During his prophetic mission, Jesus performed many miracles. The Qur'an tells us that he said: "I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I make for you out of clay, as it were, a figure of abird, and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by God's leave. And I heal the blind, and the lepers, and I raise the dead by God's leave." (Qur'an 3:49)

Jesus, like Muhammad, came to confirm and renew the basic doctrine of the belief in One God brought by earlier prophets. In the Qur'an, Jesus is reported as saying that he came: "To attest the Torah that was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you; Ihave come to you with asign from your Lord; so be conscious of God and obey me." (Qur'an 3:50)

The Prophet Muhammad said: "Whoever believes that there is no deity except God, alone without partner, that Muhammad is his messenger, that Jesus is the servant and messenger of God; His word which he bestowed on Mary and a spirit proceeding from Him, and that Paradise and Hell are true, shall be received by God into Heaven."

Culled from Discovering Islam.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

IF THERE IS A GOOD GOD , WHY IS THERE SO MUCH EVIL IN THE WORLD..? ATHEIST ARGUMENT.

IF THERE IS A RIGHTEOUS GOD WHO IS GOOD WHY IS THERE SO MUCH EVIL IN THE WORLD. ?Atheist Arguments. This is the bane behind the atheistic disposition by many philosophers who can't understand the modus operandi of divinity in the light of the multifarious societal ills. It is the against this backdrop that I hereby bring to fore these issues which have hitherto been classified as no- go areas by many a religious body in our quest for a more civil society founded on well grounded theological knowledge .It is my hope that most theist would avail themselves of this information in our quest to bring the gospel to the academic community . Analysis on the aforementioned question , would be based on the following models .First , the Free Will Model: God wanted us to freely love him, which meant allowing for the possibility that we might choose against him. And we have--all of us since Adam and Eve. Free will provides a great good—self-determination--and carries with  it significant responsibility, which is also a great good. This is especially true of relationships involving love: such must be entered into freely. Evil is an unfortunate result of human free will. If God were to intervene at every point of our wrongdoing, our free will would be compromised. So evil in the world is not entirely God's fault; however, this position does not claim that God is not responsible in any way for evil. If you have the power to intervene and do not, that implies choices. Among theists there are a number of positions on the nature of God and free will. The two most important for our purposes are the libertarian and compatibilist positions. The compatibilist believes that human free will and God’s determination of all things are compatible, while the libertarian holds that God has restricted his power in order to make human free will possible  and whatever position you may hold would not rule out the place of God’s sovereignty in our lives. Secondly considering The Soul Making Model: We are functionally incomplete [potentially complete]  souls in need of improvement and growth. If we are to assume a free-will [consequent free will and or antecedent condition free will  ). Evil is a necessary condition for a world in which we overcome obstacles and struggles in order to develop. In fact, many higher-order goods (e.g. self-sacrifice, endurance, courage, compassion on the poor, etc.) are not possible unless we have to overcome evil. This model points out that God often allows the condition of suffering to improve us. We become purified through life's trials.     The Possible Worlds design Argument: This suggests that God designed the world in such a way that it included the possibility of evil, but that if rightly perceived, we would understand that all of it works together for a greater good Ro 8:28 “That's why we can be so sure that every detail in our lives of love for God is worked into something good”‘. This is a subset of the first two because both models assume a world in which moral action/ growth is both possible and meaningful. Namely, a world with free will and the possibility of soul making is a better world than one with only automatons. According to design it is safe  to stress the  position of a  world that has regularity in it. consequently there must be a cause and effect for our actions. Thus, evil can have both actual and possible justifications. Actual evil has its purpose in being necessary for some greater moral purpose, while possible evil warns us against the consequences of our actions (e.g. gazing directly in to the sun at noon could result in blindness) This raises a number of issues, including: Couldn’t God have created a world in which we are free and/or our souls improve and yet we always choose the good? Why can’t God intervene when evil is committed yet still maintain our freedom or soul improvement? Is  human freedom really justified? Are we free enough for our moral choices to be meaningful? If we must exercise our free-will position then  it is impossible to actually imagine such a world, that free will makes no sense in a context where God is always intervening, and that significant freedom must have real consequences.  There is therefore an Eschatological Hope: 1 Co 15:24” After that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power”.  Granting all the above, God has also promised that such evil and suffering is only for a finite time in human history. God will bring an end to it all, and evil will be rightly answered by its destruction. Furthermore, the future hope that God offers will judge, compensate and/or at least put into perspective this present world’s evil. Of course, this model raises the question as to whether good can be said to actually "balance off" evil and suffering. This is alternately understood as either the afterlife and/or the final state of all things. An extension of this is that the Church should be a community that looks to that future justice by modeling it now: believers are to avoid fatalism and work toward God's promised  peace and justice. that begins in God’s work on the cross. Resistance to evil and suffering can be a form of obedience to God. On the  question of who goes to hell from a biblical point of view anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior automatically has a place in heaven, and I must state it has nothing to do with your character but rather on the price paid on the cross for our sins :{ present, past, and future sins inclusive} Tit 3:5“ he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins, giving us a new birth and new life through the Holy Spirit. “Ro 8:1 THEREFORE, [there is] now no condemnation (no adjudging guilty of wrong) for those who are in Christ Jesus, who live [and] walk not after the dictates of the flesh, but after the dictates of the Spirit.  AMP  IF THERE IS A RIGHTEOUS GOD WHO IS GOOD WHY IS THERE SO MUCH EVIL IN THE WORLD. Atheist Arguments. This is the bane behind the atheistic disposition by many philosophers who can't understand the modus operandi of divinity in the light of the multifarious societal ills. It is the against this backdrop that I hereby bring to fore these issues which have hitherto been classified as no- go areas by many a religious body in our quest for a more civil society founded on well grounded theological knowledge .It is my hope that most theist would avail themselves of this information in our quest to bring the gospel to the academic community . Analysis on the aforementioned question , would be based on the following models .First , the Free Will Model: God wanted us to freely love him, which meant allowing for the possibility that we might choose against him. And we have--all of us since Adam and Eve. Free will provides a great good—self-determination--and carries with  it significant responsibility, which is also a great good. This is especially true of relationships involving love: such must be entered into freely. Evil is an unfortunate result of human free will. If God were to intervene at every point of our wrongdoing, our free will would be compromised. So evil in the world is not entirely God's fault; however, this position does not claim that God is not responsible in any way for evil. If you have the power to intervene and do not, that implies choices. Among theists there are a number of positions on the nature of God and free will. The two most important for our purposes are the libertarian and compatibilist positions. The compatibilist believes that human free will and God’s determination of all things are compatible, while the libertarian holds that God has restricted his power in order to make human free will possible  and whatever position you may hold would not rule out the place of God’s sovereignty in our lives. Secondly considering The Soul Making Model: We are functionally incomplete [potentially complete]  souls in need of improvement and growth. If we are to assume a free-will [consequent free will and or antecedent condition free will  ). Evil is a necessary condition for a world in which we overcome obstacles and struggles in order to develop. In fact, many higher-order goods (e.g. self-sacrifice, endurance, courage, compassion on the poor, etc.) are not possible unless we have to overcome evil. This model points out that God often allows the condition of suffering to improve us. We become purified through life's trials.     The Possible Worlds design Argument: This suggests that God designed the world in such a way that it included the possibility of evil, but that if rightly perceived, we would understand that all of it works together for a greater good Ro 8:28 “That's why we can be so sure that every detail in our lives of love for God is worked into something good”‘. This is a subset of the first two because both models assume a world in which moral action/ growth is both possible and meaningful. Namely, a world with free will and the possibility of soul making is a better world than one with only automatons. According to design it is safe  to stress the  position of a  world that has regularity in it. consequently there must be a cause and effect for our actions. Thus, evil can have both actual and possible justifications. Actual evil has its purpose in being necessary for some greater moral purpose, while possible evil warns us against the consequences of our actions (e.g. gazing directly in to the sun at noon could result in blindness) This raises a number of issues, including: Couldn’t God have created a world in which we are free and/or our souls improve and yet we always choose the good? Why can’t God intervene when evil is committed yet still maintain our freedom or soul improvement? Is  human freedom really justified? Are we free enough for our moral choices to be meaningful? If we must exercise our free-will position then  it is impossible to actually imagine such a world, that free will makes no sense in a context where God is always intervening, and that significant freedom must have real consequences.  There is therefore an Eschatological Hope: 1 Co 15:24” After that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power”.  Granting all the above, God has also promised that such evil and suffering is only for a finite time in human history. God will bring an end to it all, and evil will be rightly answered by its destruction. Furthermore, the future hope that God offers will judge, compensate and/or at least put into perspective this present world’s evil. Of course, this model raises the question as to whether good can be said to actually "balance off" evil and suffering. This is alternately understood as either the afterlife and/or the final state of all things. An extension of this is that the Church should be a community that looks to that future justice by modeling it now: believers are to avoid fatalism and work toward God's promised  peace and justice. that begins in God’s work on the cross. Resistance to evil and suffering can be a form of obedience to God. On the  question of who goes to hell from a biblical point of view anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior automatically has a place in heaven, and I must state it has nothing to do with your character but rather on the price paid on the cross for our sins :{ present, past, and future sins inclusive} Tit 3:5“ he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins, giving us a new birth and new life through the Holy Spirit. “Ro 8:1 THEREFORE, [there is] now no condemnation (no adjudging guilty of wrong) for those who are in Christ Jesus, who live [and] walk not after the dictates of the flesh, but after the dictates of the Spirit.  AMP