Is Jesus the ONLY way?

Have you ever heard someone say or even pondered for yourself this question; “Johnny believes his religion just as much as you believe yours, so what makes you right and him wrong”? Simply put, is Jesus the ONLY way for a person to be saved? Our response to this question has eternal consequences for those seeking truth.

Below are 3 major reasons why so many believers, even Christian leaders, falter when it comes to this question. Those reasons are:

1. OUR DESIRE FOR TOLERANCE
2. THE "GOODNESS DOCTRINE"
3. NO LOGICAL RESPONSE OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE
Reasons 1 & 2 are briefly mentioned below; I will deal with them in greater detail during later posts. Here, I want to focus on how we can respond to this question.

OUR DESIRE FOR TOLERANCE:
Because we live in a culture where tolerance has been assigned a value greater than truth, some have chosen to ignore scriptural truth in order to seem culturally tolerant. This leads one toward accepting a belief that God could have made other paths to Himself outside of grace through faith in Jesus Christ. There is a popular book, written by Dr. Patrick Swift call "One Mountain, Many Paths," which is getting rave reviews. This book supports an idea which, if viewed logically, makes no sense. Like Dr. Swift, I agree we should be respectful of others beliefs, for as you will see below all religions have some redeeming qualities and moral values. However, allowing for the possibility that there are many paths to this "mountain" destroys the character of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the authority of scripture. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will" Matthew 26:29. Jesus is asking, "God, is there any other way?" and God responds, "Son, there is no other way." We know God cannot lie; therefore there cannot possibly be any other way. (See Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2) To claim there might be some other way is to defame the character of God and destroy the value of the cross.

THE GOODNESS DOCTRINE:
Another reason so many have trouble with the exclusivity of Christ is because of what I call the “Goodness Doctrine”. This is a belief that being good, going to church, taking care of our families, and a whole list of other do’s and don’ts gains us saving grace with God. Hardly a day goes by that you don't here someone say, “He is (or was) a good person” in reference to someone's spiritual condition. This attitude is common within Christianity and even includes the leadership in many areas. Once you allow for the possibility that, because you are a “good person”, you will gain saving grace with God, you then must allow for the possibility that any “good person” (based on your standard of good) will also gain this favor with God. Otherwise, God would be unjust to grant you eternal life and not someone who was at least as “good” as you. Many Christians have brought into the idea that God may have many ways to heaven because they will not accept this scriptural truth; there are no good people. Jesus said, “no one is good but one” Matthew 19:17. Paul tell us in Romans 3:23 that, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. We could never be good enough to meet God’s perfect standard because we cannot of ourselves, achieve perfection. James tells us in his epistle that, "whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10. In other words, even the smallest of our sins has separated us from a perfectly righteous God. So there must be some other way besides our "Goodness" to salvation.


NO LOGICAL RESPONSE OUTSIDE SCRIPTURE:
Don’t misunderstand me here, scripture is our guide and clearly states that Jesus is the only way for anyone to be justified in the eyes of God. (See John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:11-12; and many more) Those willing to defend Biblical Christianity should know and use these verses. However, we should also develop abilities to explain the logical & biblical reasons why it HAS to be this way. Sadly, I find myself defending the exclusivity of Christ to professed Christians as much if not more than to those who believe in a god but not necessarily the God of the Bible. To many "Christians" the Bible is no longer the absolute authority in their life. (See post "Instructions from the Master" for more on this subject) Therefore, it is critical to learn how we can logically demonstrate Christ as the only true path, even if only for those within the church. By doing so, we can better respond to the question, “If Johnny believes his religion just as much as you believe yours, what makes you right and him wrong”.

To accomplish this we first need to understand some basic facts about all religions.

NOTE: Scripture references for each point are given at the end of the post.

ALL MAJOR RELIGIONS ARE EXCLUSIVE:
Every one of the 5 major religions and their many sects are exclusionary in some way. (Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity & Islam) They all have elements stating that if you do not do it their way you will not get the benefits they claim exist in eternity.

Keeping this in mind and assuming there is a god, would not this god have some way for us to know him? Otherwise, what would be the point of our creation? Without getting to deep here, what this logically leads to is that one of these "exclusive" religions is actually the real one given us by the real God. All the other religions would have been created by man even though they would have some characteristics of the original one given us by the true God. All these religions would have characteristics which obviously came from man.

Now, when I say man-made religions, I don't mean they were created by "mankind" but refer specifically to the "male" dominated cultures from which all the major religions originate. You might say they are "Male-made" religions.

Male-Made vs. God-Given:
Should we find ourselves with an opportunity to answer the question at hand, we will be far more effective if first we remove the conflict inherent within the question. Instead of arguing back and forth over whose religion is right or getting bogged down with topics like tolerance, goodness and judgment, we should turn the discussion into one of basic logic. The discussion should be about which religion has the characteristics one would expect from a God, verses those one would expect from a male-made god. Let’s apply this logic to 4 areas of life as they relate to religion.

1. Relationships (marital & personnel)
2. Morality & Sin
3. Life’s Purpose
4. Salvation & Eternity

NOTE: There are other areas you can use and we go into greater detail in our EWO classes. These should be

enough to make the point.

1. Relationships:

Marital Relationships;

Remembering that all the major religions originated from male dominated cultures; imagine a group of males developing marriage laws for their new religion. Of course, being “religious men” they would understand the need for marriage as a stabilizing force in society. However, these men would also see its potential problems, especially as it relates to males. I know, if a bunch of my college fraternity brothers were given the opportunity to write the laws for marriage within a religion, they would make sure to include certain provisions favorable to men. They might allow men to marry other women they meet after marriage. Of course, there is no way they are going to allow their wives that same option. No respectable man would let his wife be with another man. Obviously, this provision would be one we might expect from a religion created within a male dominated culture, and if you don’t think so just ask your wife!

Now think about this, would you volunteer to make the following motion before the rules committee of your new religion? "I rise to make the following motion, A man should stay married to his first and only wife, even if she gains 200 lbs., smells, can't cook and won’t give you the time of day, you are to stay married to her until death, and NO you cannot assist in the process. You are to love and care for her because God has made the two of you one. The covenant of marriage is both with her and God."

Do I hear a second?

We would only expect this kind of provision to come from a God who, being the creator, understands the value of unconditional love and the importance of a family structure. You might even expect this God to use the relationship between a man, a woman and their children as earthly examples of his spiritual love for us.

Other Relationships;
Now let’s look at our relationships with respect to other people including those who don't or won't accept our beliefs.

(1) If someone harms us it would be OK to return the favor. Limited vengeance would be accepted in a man-made religion. A real God being fully righteous (because he would determine what constitutes righteousness) and having created everyone would make himself the true arbiter of vengeance. Good fathers don't let their children punish each other, they do it.

(2) In any religion, if someone harms a person or his family there would be some form of social justice. However, in a man-made religion we would certainly not be required to forgive them for their action. No mortal man would insert a provision into a religion that says, if you murder his daughter he is required (even commanded) to find it in his heart to forgive you of your action against his family.

If that's not enough, imagine including with this provision the understanding that a man's unwillingness to forgive demonstrates he is unworthy of forgiveness from God. Can you imagine any man, or especially a woman in this case, providing for the possibility that the man who murdered their daughter might find forgiveness from God one day and they, if unwilling to forgive, might not be forgiven themselves. That idea wouldn't see the light of day in a man made religion unless it was extracted from the true one.

(3) We might include a provision making it acceptable to physically force our beliefs on others. This would be justified based on the belief we worship the one true god and would actually be doing those we force into our religion a favor. If they refuse, it would be acceptable to punish them even unto death for they are bad and might cause others to follow in their path.

However, since a real god would have created everyone, He would want us to love those He created. A real god would expect us to love each other just as we expect our children to do the same.

2. Morality & Sin:
How would man determine what was moral within his religion, and how might he protect himself from being entrapped by those moralities. One way, might be to make morality relative. What is sin for you might not be a sin for me. As a matter of fact, the difference between what is immoral and what is moral might depend on our religious enlightenment or the circumstances within which we find ourselves. Given this, morality could change within the cultural and social enlightenment of our time.

When someone breaks a rule of our man-made religion, they might suffer spiritually or even physically, but it would not cause suffering for our god.

Now, a religion coming from a real God would also have rules given directly to the ones who were expected to keep them. Since that God created us and he is perfectly righteous, his laws would be static not relative. Since this God created us for a purpose his rules would be what are best for us to fulfill that purpose. They would not change with time because he would not change.

Because this God loves us and his laws are for our benefit, we would expect him to be saddened by our rejection of His way.


3. Life’s Purpose:
Man generally defines the purpose of life as; fulfilling his destiny, getting in touch with himself, living a prosperous life, doing good deeds in life, leaving a good legacy, raising a good family or any number of goals all focusing in some way on one's on legacy. Therefore, if man created a religion we would expect some variation of these purposes within that religion.

Now think logically about this, if you or I create something we do so for a purpose. We then want that thing to serve it's purpose, namely to do what we made it to do. A God who created us would be no different. He would not need us for anything other than to fulfill his creative purpose. We would have nothing of value for our creator other than to give him glory by doing his will through fulfilling His purpose. Therefore, any religion claiming to be of God would be one which puts that God above all else including self.

Since this God loves us (he would because he made us) he would want us to love others. He would view selfishness not only as putting ourselves before others but also putting ourselves above Him. It stands to reason that any religion coming from a real God would have God first and others second. In other words, our purpose would be to serve God, then others, and thinking of ourselves last.

Now, since our purpose would be to serve this God, we would need some kind of a relationship with Him so He could be our guide. He would not leave us without some instruction as to how this relationship works.

4. Salvation & Eternity:
A man-made religion would have rules which we could measure ourselves against. How well one followed those rules would determine whatever spoils our religion had to offer upon death. If one claims commitment to our religion but is unable to live up to some measure of these rules, they could not expect the benefits from our god upon death. Someone wishing to enter into our religion would have certain things they must do to gain acceptance. A man-made religion would be unlikely to include a provision whereby someone could live a wicked life, claim a sincere belief in our god upon death and gain the same reward as one who has lived obediently from childhood. Human nature would not allow for this option. The only way man would consider it would be to require that person be punished first and then earn their way out from this punishment, simply because to allow them equal entrance would be unfair to those who lived faithfully for so long. By reward here I mean eternal life with God.

Religion given us by the real God would also have rules written by that God. These rules would exist to help those he created see better how to live the life he has given them and fulfill His purpose for creating them. A real God, being perfectly good, (because he determines what good is) would also have perfection as his requirement to live eternally with him. Otherwise, he would have to allow immoral people to live beside him in eternity which would make eternity much like this place, thereby destroying a large part of its real value. This problem would leave a real God with one of two options; (1) Let immorality be part of eternal life or (2) Create a way to cover or remove our immorality.

We can see that the first option makes no sense, so the later one remains the only logical option God has, if he is to allow someone who has broken His law into His presence.

Therefore, solution to this problem of righteousness could only come from a God who understands righteousness. In other words, the real God would be the only one who could make a way since we cannot make ourselves sinless.

Logically, a perfect & righteous all-powerful God would not be indecisive. Not only would he make A way but he would only have ONE way. If there were many ways then how could God claim to be a righteous judge? Some would gain his favor one way and others in a totally different but unequal way. If that were true we would all shop around for the way which had the least requirements on us and allowed for the most options. In one religion you can get divorced at your connivance in another you must remain faithful. Therefore, God would be judging from (in this case) two different moralities, two different personalities, two different standards. Is god schizophrenic?

Now, the real God who created us would love us all. He would give us every chance to accept this way he has created, even if we came to accept it (sincerely of course) in our dying days. Who among us would turn away a wayward child if he came back and humbly submitted to us asking our forgiveness? A real God would be no different for he would look for every opportunity to bring us back to himself, not wanting to be separated from anyone he created. As a matter of fact, this God would see one primary purpose for those who have found his way, as helping others to do the same. If you had two children who were wayward and one came back, after celebrating his return you would enlist him in the effort to restore your other son, his brother.

A real God would think it ridiculous and quite the height of arrogance for someone to believe they could make themselves so special, via their on goodness, to somehow overshadow their sinfulness and gain favor with a righteous God. Fools, he would call them, and he did.


Conclusion:
It is important to note that all the major religions, and most of the sects found therein, have some of the god-like qualities noted above. We would logically expect this because all people groups can be traced back to the original creation and therefore back to the one real God.

However, there is only one "so called religion" which contains all the traits one would expect from a real God. That one is Christianity. The fact is Christianity is not even a religion; it is a relationship; A relationship between us and the God who created us. He loves you and I so much that He made a way to restore that relationship. He was even willing to do it no matter the cost to Himself, thereby demonstrating His truth in LOVE. Other religions don’t really profess to have a personal relationship with their god as is understood within Christianity. This makes logical sense because how would one have a relationship with a god that doesn’t exist?

Looking back one can see that Christianity best reflects the type of relationship (religion) one would logically expect from a real God and not from one which is man-made. Note the scriptures below demonstrating Christianities uniqueness.

Relationships:
Marital – One Man, One Women, For Life ( Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-6)

Others - “Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43-44)
Vengeance - Is left to God (Romans 12:19)

Morality & Sin:
God and his rules are immutable, unchangeable (Matthew 5:18, Hebrews 13:8)

Our sin causes God great pain (John 11:35)

Life’s Purpose:
We were created to Glorify God. (Genesis 1:26 - 3)

We are to love God and others. John 10:27

Salvation & Eternity:
We have all sinned and must be justified through faith in Christ (Romans 3:23, 24 Romans 6:23)

We are no longer condemned by the law but are freed through Christ. (Romans 8:1,2)

God made a way. (John 3:16)

Any religion that is based on works could not possible be from a truly righteous God for he would have to be willing to accept unrighteousness in heaven. If we are not saved by grace through faith then we have no chance of ever seeing the perfection of heaven. There is only one so called religion which gives a pathway for man to stand blameless before a righteous God and that is Christianity. Anyone who claims God might have made another way is panning a fool's gold. All other religions lead to a logical dead end. They may have certain desirable traits but in the end they are all helplessly man-made, offering us no hope of standing blameless before a righteous God.

There is only one God and only one way. The path may be narrow and it may seem difficult but it is the only path that solves the problem of our sin before God. Believing there is any other way to heaven, outside of the blood of Jesus Christ, is to create your own man-made religion. Call it what you may but it is not Biblical Christianity and it will not stand up to logic or more importantly judgment from a righteous God. We must be willing to believe the unbelievable.

God Bless,

Scott Cosper

Co-Founder, Eyes Wide Open Ministry

Educational Pharisees

What are we thinking?

Let me get this stated right up front, I’m not against religious education. As a matter of fact, I believe part of the calling to be an evangelist or pastor/teacher comes with an unquenchable desire to study God’s Word and learn how best to spread His message within the culture. The problem is when the Christian community begins to place more value on the education than on God’s calling upon a person’s life as His messenger. As I heard one evangelist say, “It’s more important for a leader to know the Master, than for him to have a master’s.

Recently, I have noticed a rise in the number of church’s who have placed ad’s for pastors similar to the one below:

"Seeking full-time pastor for (XYZ Church). Applicant must have Seminary degree, master's level preferred, with 5 years experience" etc. etc

Do these search committees and the assemblies they represent not realize this is actually putting limits on God? It might be safe to assume they are looking for the man God has called for His church, however the words they use betray this assumption, stating they want God's man only if he first meets their requirements. It's shocking to imagine that many of these churches would not have considered some of our greatest pastors both current and past. There are those pastors who meet these qualifications but won’t apply to these churches because of the image (true or not) it sends concerning the spiritual condition of the church and how they view a pastor. Some of these ads sound more like ones for a CEO's than for a spiritual leader filled with the Holy Spirit. This makes the church look more like a business than a fellowship of believers cooperating to spread the Gospel.

Worldview & A Seminary Degree

During a recent bible study a pastor told us of a young seminary student he had recently interviewed for a staff position. The young man felt he needed to let this pastor know what he was learning at seminary school and that he didn’t agree with the teaching. This student was attending a seminary school supported by Southern Baptist Churches through the cooperative program of the Southern Baptist Convention. He was being taught that the first 11 chapters of Genesis were allegory and not intended to be seen as historical fact. Those chapters contain the very foundation of Christianity and explain the very reason we needed Jesus in the first place.
There was genuine shock within the Bible study by those who assumed when one attends seminary they are being taught how to present the truth concerning the inspiration of scripture to those they will lead. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, if we take into account all seminary schools, more students enter school with a Biblical worldview than graduate with one. This explains the following statistic from Barna;

Based on interviews with 601 Senior Pastors nationwide, representing a random
cross-section of Protestant churches, Barna reports that only half of the country’s Protestant pastors - 51% - have a biblical worldview.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=156 In this same article Barna went on to make this statement, “Educationally, the pastors least likely to have a biblical worldview are those who are seminary graduate (45%).” You will also find that the higher the educational level the lower the percentage is of those able to hold on to a Biblical worldview. This means that at the Masters and Doctorate level the numbers are even worse. To make matters worse, many of those are the ones who end up teaching at the university level.

Imagine that when one sees a church sign advertising "Dr. So and So" is our preacher, the chances are high their pastor does not have a Biblical Worldview. Every time I see one of those signs I think of what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 23. In verse 5b Jesus says, “They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.” “Phylacteries” means the wearing of slips of scripture text and “borders of their garments” means they added tassels to the fringe of their garments.” (See Numbers 15:39 for reference to these tassels). Those tassels were to be a reminder, not to follow their own eyes and hearts but God's Holy Word.

Jesus goes on to say they love the uppermost rooms at the feast and the chief seats at the synagogues and desire greetings in the markets of Rabbi, Rabbi. Go to any denominational convention and listen closely to what is said. Let's face it, even though the original meaning of the word "doctor" was "teacher", when someone is introduced as a Dr. we think of a physician, not a bible scholar. You might be thinking, but are they not spiritual doctors of the soul? Well, the answer is NO! They only know the one who is and should be directing people to His wisdom found within His revelation. However, if one doubts the inspiration of that revelation, are they not more likely to give spiritual advice from their own understanding as oppose to taking it straight from Gods Word? Proverbs 3:5-6 teaches us to, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.”

It may seem simple to state but Godly wisdom only comes from God.

Trust in the Word!

Bro. Scott

INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE MASTER

I remember one Christmas my parents decided to purchase one of those fake cardboard fireplaces. To me, a young boy at the time, this thing was huge, with red bricks and about a thousand little slots and tabs. As a father myself, I now understand how my dad's mind was working back then. My father saw this as a simple construction project. He visualized what a fireplace looked liked, he imagined how he would design an erectable cardboard fireplace, then he tossed the instructions and went to work. (Let’s face it the only thing good about instructions is the plastic Ziploc bag you keep after you throw them away.) As you might imagine this was a disaster, it's the closest my parents ever came to getting a divorce. After several hours I went to bed with mom still yelling, "NO, Billy fold slots AA into grooves bb THEN extend flaps...!*@?", well, you get the picture. To this day I don’t remember that fireplace being in our house but I sure do remember the night we attempted to put it together. I am happy to report my parents are still married having just installed their very first REAL fireplace. I stayed at home during installation, just in case!


So what does this have to do with Christianity. Well, just like my father on that faithful evening, many who proclaim Christianity as their religion have all but tossed the instructions. They have visualized what a God would be like, imagined how God would view things in light of our modern day culture, then tossed the instructions and began developing their religious beliefs. Just as we could clearly see the inevitable disaster coming with the fireplace, we are seeing the inevitable results from those who are choosing to lean on their own understanding (see Proverbs 3:5) and ignore the wisdom of God's Word.

Most Christians have heard what 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof (conviction), for correction, for instruction in righteousness”. However, they might not know why all scripture is "profitable for...". In Verse 17 Paul tells us it is so "the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Proverbs 19:27 states, “If you stop listening to instruction, young man, you will stray from the words of knowledge.” The Hebrew definition for the English word "instruction" is defined by such words as reproof, correction and doctrine, which are all found in 2 Timothy 3:16,17. The point here is that if we stop listening to the instructions given us by our (heavenly) Father we also will stray from the words of His knowledge, thereby leaving us ill-equipped and incomplete for our good work.

Today, you are far more likely to hear someone responding to a question about religion begin with, "Here's what I think about that....", rather than "Here's what God's Word says about that...". It's astonishing just how often what follows, "Here's what I think about that..." is a thought which is quite foreign to scripture.

We are living in an age where feelings trump truth.

What we think about religion is of little value unless it is derived from God via the Holy Spirit and is verifiable in His Holy Word. Relying so much on our feelings, even those we might feel are spiritual, without the physical guidance given in scripture can cause us to be lead astray, tossed to and fro like a wave on the sea by what ever new thought comes along. (See James 1: 5-8)

"Instead of becoming guardians of scripture

many Christians are acting more like its editor."

Imagine how easy it would have been for my parents to build that cardboard fireplace if, with instructions in hand, they could have called the designer. Eventually, they did try the instructions (remember AA into slot BB) but by that time the words seemed confusing, and they lacked both the patience needed to read them carefully and the discipline to follow them exactly. Thankfully, as Christians we have the ability to call our designer through prayer, gaining conviction (reproof) through the Holy Spirit and instruction from the Word of God.

However, there is still a problem. Imagine if my father had the instructions in hand and the designer on the phone but, he won't listen carefully to the designer and he keeps trying to change the instructions. That might sound foolish but it is analogous to what so many do with God and His Word, today. As a matter of fact, Scripture describes this as the act of a fool.

"A fool has no delight in understanding but in expressing his own heart" Proverbs 18:2.

Fool, in the Hebrew language literally means stupid.

How is it so many feel they know better how to live life, than the designer of life? This seems especially odd when one considers that scripture describes this as the act of a person who is stupid? Of course, no one would characterize their actions in this manner, but their very words often reveal their heart. Some characterize their beliefs as being derived by using their “God given common sense". "Here's what I think about that...God gave us a mind so we could think for ourselves, use our God given common sense." (click for blog on common sense vs. truth) This statement is a perfect example of a not quite so scriptural response, created by someone doing exactly what Proverbs 18:2 is describing.

In 1 Cor. 1:19 Paul quoted from Isaiah "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." It would seem a grave error for us to lean on our own understanding or our common sense when it comes to religious beliefs in light of what's written in God's Word.

Many Christians are finding the promised abundant life difficult at best or absent at worst. Could it simply be they are trying to experience an abundant life having tossed, or at least selectively chosen, the designers instructions? Could some have unwittingly created religious beliefs which do not mirror those found in Holy Scripture and therefore would not come with the promises or the power found therein? I fear many have fallen prey to this satanic trap designed to keep them from true salvation while keeping others bound to a weak ineffective faith.

Before going futher, let me state for the record I believe a Christian leader should seek to educate himself as much as possible. In fact, if he is truly called of God he will desire to do so based on that calling. However, one need not look far to find religious scholars, pastors and church leaders who are willingly providing cover for those wishing to exalt their own thoughts & feelings above plainly given scripture. This is really nothing more than disbelief disguised as tolerance, understanding or intellect. These leaders are either educated beyond their intelligence, having allowed their faith in human knowledge to cloud their chance at heavenly wisdom, or they are the tares planted among the wheat Christ spoke of in Matt. 13:25. It is infinitely more important that a leader know the Master than to have a masters.

Any truth, knowledge or wisdom worth having will always come from God. Remember, it was God's choice to reveal Himself to us through His Word and we should trust that He knew what He was doing.

Honestly, I'd rather have prayer going up on my behalf from a simpleton who believes the Word, than an Biblical Scholar with a doctorate who doubts its divine revelation.

Believe the Word!
Scott Cosper
Co-Founder"Eyes Wide Open" Ministries

Genesis; Literal or Not

On the surface most evangelical Christians will agree that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. However, it might be interesting to examine the validity of this claim based on their deep seeded ideas, philosophies, and beliefs. As a matter of fact, it would behoove us all to measure our beliefs against scripture from time to time if not continually. Many Christians today seem to have a problem with a literal translation of God’s word. With this in mind, it is easy to see how so many devout Christians have come to embrace the ideas & philosophies of our culture without understanding the ramifications of their beliefs with respect to God’s Word.

Recent surveys indicate less than ten percent of protestant Christians have a biblical worldview. While there are many worldview classifications lets just look at two basic world views. One view is that all things come from matter and have evolved into what we see today (Materialism). The other view is that God revealed the truth to us in scripture and sin is the cause of what we see today (Christian Theism). Many Christians have compromised the latter in order to accept what they believe to be the “facts” of the former.

Here I just want to deal with those who argue for a “non-literal” translation of Genesis as a way to sooth the conflict between man’s ideas concerning the origin of the universe and the inspired Word of God.

Genesis “IS” Literal

The dictionary definition of literal is: “following the words of the original very closely and exactly:” (not figuratively or metaphorically). If you love to read, it is doubtful you have difficulty figuring out whether the writer is being literal or not. If you read, "the clouds lay against the sky like velvet”, you don’t assume that if you could actually feel those clouds they would feel like velvet. If you read, “Jesus is knocking on the door of your heart”, you don’t believe there is literally a little door on your heart being knocked upon. A good writer makes a clear distinction between the literal and the figurative use of language. Shouldn’t we expect that an all powerful God would be able to do the same? Of course, the Bible is quite clear when it uses language that is not meant to be taken literally even when the message is taken literally. The problem is that Genesis (chapters 1-11 being the focus of most "non-literal" reinterpretations) does not lend itself to anything but a straight literal translation. When the attempt is made to translate literal scripture figuratively or metaphorically many will find themselves trapped either by their own logic (what they might define as their “common sense”) or by the contradictions they themselves create in scripture or both. Keeping this in mind let us look at some examples.

A Day is A Day

In order to allow scripture to accommodate the ideas and philosophies of man (antiquity of the earth and evolutionary theory) many have tried to alter the interpretation of what a day means in the Hebrew language by making it synonymous with eons of time in Genesis 1. This is often called “Day Age Theory”. Day in Hebrew is “Yom” and as with any word it can have more than one meaning. The trick, as with all language, is to understand the context. If we say, “back in the day of the Judges” we all understand the word day to mean a period of time. If we read, “Jesus preached all day”, we would understand that to mean some large portion of or all the daylight hours of a day. If we read that Joshua marched around Jericho once a day for 6 days we understand those to be normal 24 hour days.

If we look at the days in Genesis 1 and use what is normally understood as a proper exegesis, it cannot be interpreted any other way than as a 24 hour day. As a matter of fact, you might say God was extremely adimate about it, simple because of the repetitive language used at the end of the each day of creation. At the close of each day scripture says, “…the evening and the morning were the (insert #) day”. This phrase is repeated at the end of all six days of creation. Outside of our desire to allow for man’s theories there is no reason to understand these as anything other than normal days. It is almost, if not entirely, impossible to write the word day in conjunction with evening, morning, or a number and have it mean anything else. Nowhere else in the OT is day used with evening, morning or a number, where it is not clearly understood as a normal day. God used all three of these “helping words” at the end of each day of creation. It’s as if God was being overly obvious in an attempt to help those who might wish to use their “common sense” to make this something other than a normal day.

As mentioned earlier, these reinterpretations of the creation story cause real conflicts with other scriptures. For example, if the word day in Gen. 1 can be reinterpreted to mean thousands or millions of years, then Exodus 20:11 doesn’t make any sense, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hollowed it.” If we don’t read the days of Genesis 1 as literal, then how could we understand this scripture? Many other scriptures clearly state the seventh day is a normal day and to be given over to the Lord. It is this understanding of the 6 days of creation followed by the 7th day of rest that gives us our week.

Adam, One Man

In order to allow scripture to accommodate the ideas and philosophies of man many have tried to alter the interpretation of the word “Adam”. In the Hebrew language, Adam can mean a human being or it can refer to mankind. As stated before, most all words have more than one meaning. However, this fact does not mean we get to assign whatever meaning we wish to a word. It must be understood within the context of the language. Just look at the word “man” in English. If I say, “look at that man in the white shirt”, you know I mean a specific person even if there are 100’s of men running around in white shirts. If I say, “we are studying the history of man in my next class”, you understand the class is not tracing the history of one man but of mankind in general. The same goes for the word man and the name Adam in Genesis. Gen. 2:15 states, “God took THE man and put him in the Garden of Eden…” This is clearly indicating one person or the scripture would read “God took man and…” In vs. 18 God said, “It was not good for man to be alone…” He is not speaking specifically of Adam but of all men. He knew we would need a companion. In verse 23 it states, “And Adam said…”, this is clearly one person talking otherwise all of mankind would have had to awaken at the same time and all make the same statement. That would be ridiculous!

Again, these reinterpretations create problems with other scriptures. Romans 5:12-14 clearly refers to sin coming into the world through “one man” and that man is referred to by name as Adam.

Even in our age of relativism one still means one.

Adam is referred to in Luke 3:38 where Seth is noted as the son of Adam, clearly one man fathered Seth not all mankind. The genealogies that tie together Adam, Noah, Abraham, David and Jesus make it impossible to interpret Adam as anything other than an individual man. If Adam was just a representation of mankind then when did God stop using representations? With Seth, Lamach, Methuselah, Noah, at what point did God start telling the truth?

NO GAP TO SPEAK OF

In order to allow scripture to accommodate the ideas and philosophies of man many have tried to alter the interpretation of scripture by placing a “gap” between vs. 1 and vs. 2 in Genesis. This has become known as the “Gap Theory” and it might be the most ridiculous idea ever hoisted upon scripture. It should be ranked up there with the theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and headed out for the coast of France. However, it is so prevalent that you will find references to it in the notes of both the Scoffield and Dake Ref. Bibles.

The theory misuses scriptures like Isaiah. 45:18, 2 Pet. 3: 5-7 and Jeremiah. 4: 23-26 to create the illusion that there was this pre-historic world that God destroyed in what they call “Lucifer’s Flood”. Beginning in Genesis 1:3 God is re-creating the world. This “dateless past” coming before vs. 3 is where we get all the fossils, rock ages, prehistoric man etc. This theory is really not worth the time or effort to refute here, but it does show to what lengths some will go in their attempt to rectify scripture with the theories, ideas and philosophies of man.

Created With Age

In order to allow scripture to accommodate the ideas and philosophies of man some have tried to use the idea of “Created Age.” At first glance this one seems plausible, which makes it much more dangerous. It is easy to see past the ridiculousness of the Gap Theory or the stretch in logic of Day Age Theory. However, the idea that a created universe would naturally “look old” is one that might seem to have merit on the surface. When God created Adam it is obvious in scripture that he was a grown man. If we were to walk up at that moment we would have assumed he was maybe 20 years old. The animals would have been fully formed and we would have assumed they had been around for a while.

This idea seems plausible until you understand the reason for its existence in the first place. The only reason to make this “created age” argument is so we can resolve the conflict created by millions of years with the stated time in scripture. In order to accept man’s ideas concerning the origins of life and the universe we build this image of God as creating the world that would necessarily look older than it actually is. While the idea has merit with respect to us seeing Adam appearing to be 20 yrs old it falls apart when you assume God created things to look billions of years old. There is no need for it too appear that old. The theory really begins to fall apart when you further understand the ramifications to scripture of this deceptive age.

God's Trick??

God said he created land animals (including dinosaurs) and man on the same day. Man claims that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. That claim is one of the reasons for these alternative interpretations. By the logical conclusions of the “created age” argument, this would mean that God placed “FAKE” bones of non-existent animals in the ground for us to find. This would violate all kinds of scripture not to mention the very character of God himself. It paints God as somehow deceitful. Is it God’s desire here to fool us so we won’t believe in Him? This theory like all the rest can’t pass the test of logic or the spiritual test of scripture. It is just another attempt to find a way to square man’s theories about the antiquity of the earth with God’s revelation in scripture. The problem is that scripture is what always gets changed. Maybe we should consider for a moment that man’s theories might be wrong (they have been before) instead of always looking to change plainly written scripture. (See Proverbs 30:6)

No Death before Sin

The problem of placing sin before death is found in all of the above re-interpretations of Genesis 1, as it is with others not mentioned here. Millions of years became popular in the early 1800’s because of naturalist observations of the earth's crust and the eventual development of the science of geology. Then in 1859 Darwin popularizes the theory of evolution with his book, "The Origin of the Species". As the problems associated with the theory of evolution immerged, more and more time was needed to allow for its incredible claims. This left us with two diametrically opposed ideas as to the origin of man and the universe. One is molecules to man evolution (Materialism) and the other (Creation) as understood from scripture. (We will assume the “aliens brought us here” theory as not yet plausible :)

The only reason to reinterpret the creation story is to allow for our willingness to put man’s theories equal to or above God’s Word. However, none of the alternative interpretations of Genesis has been successful in bridging the gap between these two diametrically opposed ideologies. These re-interpretations run afoul of Hamartiology and Soteriology (the doctines of Sin & Salvation respectively).

Millions of years and evolution means that death, killing, disease, and extinction have been with us long before the existence of Adam in scripture. This means that God’s description of creation could not be true because it was Adam's sin that brought death into the world. Adam is being blamed for something that was already here when he was created. We know Adam lived about 6,000 years ago because of the genealogies found in scripture. (That’s possible one reason God included them.) This would mean, if man’s theories are correct, sin has always been with us which violates the entire understanding of scripture from the sacrificial lambs of Israel to the sacrificial Lamb of God. Romans 5:12-14, 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22, 45 These scriptures make the alternative interpretations of Genesis impossible if one chooses to “literally” believe Christ died for sin. God created a perfect world and sin messed up that perfect world. No other interpretation makes sense based on scripture as a whole or passes the test of logic simply because no other interpretation is true except the literal one given to us by God.

The Danger of Illogical Interpretations

You may have heard this statement before, “well I just don’t buy your literal interpretation of scripture”. Sometimes my sinful nature wishes to rise up and yell, “I don’t buy your illogical re-interpretation of scripture”, but I know there are better ways to respond.

The assumption one makes when calling our interpretations of scripture “literal” is that we have somehow misunderstood God’s “real” meaning. There is an insinuation if not an out right accusation that the cause of our literal interpretation comes from our failure to use “common sense” or our lack of scientific knowledge. This accusation allows the person to feel justified in equating their liberal re-interpretation of scripture with a literal one because they have used their "God given common sense” and we have relied on old fashion "blind faith". Actually, it is just the opposite.

It might be helpful here to restate the definition of literal (“following the words of the original very closely and exactly:” (not figuratively or metaphorically). The person that chooses to not interpret scripture literally, where a literal interpretation is obviously called for, will always set up their interpretation as being an alternative to yours, when in reality it is an alternative to God’s inspired Word. This explains why these alternative interpretations of scripture do not hold water. By their very nature, they will be illogical because they were arrived at by man’s “common sense” and not understood from God’s divine wisdom. In other words, it is not because they are disagreeing with some other persons's interpretation but that they are disagreing with God's Holy Word. Scripture does not lend itself to multiple (and especially contradictory) interpretations. When legitimate interpretational challenges arise, and they do, we can only say that our understanding is not yet clear. What we must not do is use those few instances as an opportunity to reinterpret any scripture however we desire and then just claim it is our interpretation and is equal to all others. There are rules to how we interpret text and understand languages.

What I believe is...*#?@

These different interpretations come about for many reasons, but they are all basically derived from a desire to make God’s Word fit our worldview instead of letting God’s Word determine our worldview. Too often Christians start a discussion about God's Word with the statement, “what I believe is this…” when we should be teaching our people to start biblical discussions with, “what scripture says is this…”. If that were the case we would not have so many Christians who believe the bible says things it clearly does not, simply because starting off a discussion by saying, “what scripture says is…” would assume you know what it says. For example, a recent survey showed that a large number (over 50%) believed scripture said, “God helps those who help themselves.” This was a phrase written by Benjamin Franklin which proves that “common sense” should not be a guide to understanding scripture. If old Ben had understood his Bible he would have understood that statement to go against the very nature of Christ’s teachings. For over 50% of modern day Christians to say it’s in the Bible is a reflection of where we place the importance of scripture and its authority in our lives.

A Pandora's Box

Once we open this “Pandora’s Box”, by failing to interpret scripture as literal where it obviously is literal, then it’s only a short step to begin altering scripture all together. I will guarantee you the churches now allowing practicing homosexuals to become ordained ministers do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, since Gen. 2 is where we get the foundation of one man and one women becoming one in marriage in the first place. The failure of the church to hold tight to proper scriptural interpretation is becoming its downfall. We should love scripture and want to see it become the authoritative guide by which Christians live their lives, because it is what's best for them.

Sadly, even some of our most devoted Christians are destroying the scriptures ability to become that guide for the next generation. WHY? Because;

Once we allow for the reinterpretation of scripture simply because it doesn’t meet our belief in man’s theories or make "common sense" in our culture, we then have no basis by which to say scripture is authoritative in any other area.

In other words, if we claim Genesis chapter one is not literally true then we have no authority by which to tell someone John chapter three is and we have then lost our credibility. From that point on we just look like blind fools with an illogical belief system. Our ability to lead others who might question the truth of Christianity is weakened, that is, unless we can get them to blindly believe just like us or by into one of the aforementioned re-interpretations of scripture.

This explains why the world is influencing the church

instead of the church influencing the world.

For example, the divorce rate among Christians is about the same as among those who do not attend church. Why, because we have altered scripture with respect to divorce. We changed or ignored God’s clear teaching so as to make divorce tolerable within the church. I have heard of pastors who recommended couples divorce even when adultery and pre marital beliefs were not involved. We can’t do that unless we are willing to substitute our wisdom for God’s truth. It’s like telling God, “I know what you said but in this situation I know better what needs to be done.” Yes, it gets done at times with good intentions, however our intentions don’t supersede God’s Word even if they are good.

Pastors are often asked to marry people who are not believers or marry believers to non-believers. Those that do are substituting their “common sense” in the place of God’s wisdom. Counsel with them, love them, present the gospel message to them but don’t go against God’s Word and marry them in their lost condition. Yes, someone else will but at least you won’t have to answer for it. Everyday we see those who are giving advice as if it were “Christian” advice to others and in many cases that advice is at odds with God’s word. I have heard Christians telling other Christians how they hid money from the IRS and gotten away with other questionable if not out right dishonest behavior as if God would understand in this situation.

If we would return to letting God’s Word be the authority in all aspects of our life we would find a life without so much turmoil and confusion. A life of peace. A life worth living. We have today so altered scripture we've forgotten that God’s Word is our authority and not our “common sense” ways or thoughts. (Isa. 55: 8-9). Christian families need to return to and boldly teach that scripture is our authority, not the ideas and philosophies of man. We can do it with love and compassion because telling someone the truth of what God’s Word really says IS compassionate and demonstrates true Christian love.

Trust the Word

Bro. Scott Cosper

Responding to Carl Sagan's Cosmos

Cosmos
Series 2 of 13
"One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue"

Tuesday night we settled in to watch the show “Cosmos” on the Science Channel. What I witnessed was godlessness cloaked in science and decorated with scholarship. To his credit, Sagan was as clever as he was misguided, his chance at wisdom being clouded by all that knowledge and now lost to the sting of death. (Sagan died in 1996) Listening to this gentle soft spoken man, without actually hearing what he is saying, one might find Carl Sagan quite appealing. However, when you imagine the millions of people he and his companions are deceiving with their 40 minutes of manipulations, half truths, false assumptions and even outright lies you want to cry out to God for justice. This article is intended to cast down these claims made by Sagan and his supporters against the knowledge of God.
(2 Cor. 10: 4,5)

Philosophy not Science:

I know many will say the show "Cosmos" is about science, not religion. Well, I enjoy studying and teaching real observable science, but this was pure secular philosophy, or better yet religious propaganda, hiding behind poor science. Evangelical Christians are often accused of ignoring scientific fact and blindly following scripture. We have only ourselves to blame, having to often closed our eyes to these attacks from our culture. On the other hand, many liberal Christians have chosen to put man's beliefs above God's Word and end up left with no logical basis for their faith. Believing they can pick and choose which scriptures to believe, unwittingly make them all worthless. If you say I don't have to believe Genesis 1, on what basis can you then say I must believe John 3? As a whole Christians have been more concerned about what they felt comfortable believing about God’s Word rather than educating themselves as to why they could, should and must believe it all.

Philosophical Religious Propaganda:

Yes, I said philosophical religious propaganda; Sagan’s Cosmos has far more to do with religious philosophy than it does with real science, he said so himself. The shows stated premise is “The search for who we are” This is a purely philosophical or religious question which can never be answered by science. Science looks at how we are made not "who we are or why we were made", that question cannot be answered through science. As you will see, Sagan uses words, phrases, and concepts throughout the show to mislead his viewers. He's doing what we have come to expect from politicians, cleverly disguises his real agenda knowing that, if he were honest concerning his motives, the real message would cause controversy and negatively effect the purpose of his presentation. Sagan and his supporters are interested in converts not controversy.

What is Sagan’s message? - There is no God.

What is his motive? - Convince others there is no God.

"Cosmos" is a witnessing tool used to sway its viewers toward a philosophical religious belief in materialism (all things come only from matter). To see what Sagan believed one need only look at what his widow Ann Druyan (co-writer of “The Cosmos”) said in her NNDB online profile concerning his death; After he (Sagan) died people came up..."and asked me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl." Quote Ann Druyer http://www.nndb.com/people/291/000026213/

Of course they have every right to believe whatever they choose, but do they have a right to government assistance for spreading those beliefs? “The Cosmos”, has been shown in public schools, public libraries, and college classes where the alternative view (mainly Christianity) would often not be allowed. It is a myth to believe we took religion out of public school. We just replaced Christianity with the religions of materialism, secular humanism and atheism. (An people question my decision to home-school my children!) Just take a look at those who received thanks in the credits for this religious propaganda: U.S. Dept of Interior, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Johnson Space Center, NASA, Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Wright Center for Science Education, Cornell University and others. The oft stated view of science educators is that we must keep science and religion separate. However, those in the field of historical science (science of the origins of man and the universe) consistently mix their religious views with science. You will often hear them waxing poetic about the affect their finding life in space will be on the human race. At times the scientists even accept cooperation from those on the “religious” side. This might seem desirable (a dialogue between science and religion that is) until you realize the critical review is always focused on the Bible and never the science. Just look at this amazing statement describing the purpose for the IRAS. (Institute on Religion in an Age of Science)

“Founded in 1954, IRAS is an independent society of natural scientists, social scientists, philosophers, religion scholars, theologians, and others who seek to understand and reformulate the theory and practice of religion in the light of contemporary scientific knowledge..." www.zygonjournal.org/who.html Notice the words, “reformulate the theory” used not in reference to the science but the "practice of religion". I can just let those words speak for themselves.

Not Even Good Science:

Putting the religious aspect aside, "Cosmos" is weak on real science itself. There are amazing assumptions and huge leaps of logic which should drive any real scientist crazy. Cosmos contains some statements that simply cannot be described as anything other than outright lies. Below are just a few of the false assumptions, misleading claims, and outright lies made by this second show in the series, "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue".

The Samurai Story:

Sagan opens with a legend concerning ancient Samurai who where overtaken by rival tribes in the Japanese sea. Later, when local fisherman would catch crabs that had shells with marks resembling a human (Samurai) face they would throw them back. Over time there were more and more of these crabs with this particular facial marking. The crabs without these facial marks were eaten while the others were thrown back (artificially selected) and survived to have offspring and hereditarily pass down this particular feature. Sagan uses this legend to introduce artificial selection, where certain traits are artificially selected for and some against. This is the equivalent of a country allowing only blond men and women to have children, eventually you are going to get a country full of blond people. This has nothing to do with evolution mind you, it is simply genetics. Artificial selection is introduce this way with the hope we will accept the soon to come ridiculous leap in logic as indisputable fact.

An Illogical Leap of Faith:

Sagan now speaks of artificial selection as demonstrated through man's selective breeding of horses, cattle and other animals. We all know controlled breeding can select certain traits in animals and plants. However, Sagan makes an incredible leap in logic when he says, “If artificial selection can do all this in a short time imagine what “natural selection” could do over eons of time." This makes as much sense as saying, “I struck out my little sister so I ought to be able to pitch for the Red Sox.” Artificial selection means the process was controlled from an outside source (Man). The "Natural" in natural selection means the process of change over time happens without an outside source, naturally (without God). Even if we accept that an animal's ability to adapt to its environment would be defined as "Natural Selection", how can something which results from being controlled artificially be used to demonstrate as fact, something which is said to happen naturally without an "artificial" or external controlling factor? Sagan would be more honest if he concluded that since we must artificially control this process to obtain our desired results, then something must have artificially controlled the process to produce the results we observe in nature today. At least that would make sense. Another big problem with Sagan’s logic is that with all our efforts in selective breeding, horses are still horses and cattle are still cattle. How do you take a process that demonstrates animals being selectively bred within their own kind (see Genesis 1:11-25) are producing animals of their own kind, and then use it as an example of animals evolving into different kinds without an external control. It is a ridiculously illogical conclusion.

The fact is, Sagan’s hope is to trick you into believing what we see in artificial selection proves evolution (goo to you) is true, when in fact what we see today (environmental adaptation built into our genetic code through DNA) supports God's Word. I have had many a conversation with good Christian men and women who have fallen for this slight of hand.

Sagan's Imaginary Fossil Record:

Sagan slips in this false claim (a lie) that the fossil record is "unambiguous" in demonstrating this slow evolving process. Amazingly, Sagan's statement is refuted by one of the research scientists he himself used for Cosmos. That man is Dr. Stephen J. Gould a professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University. Dr. Gould writes;

"We know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of
intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically
abrupt.”

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to
construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and
nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the
trade secret of paleontology.”

(S.J. Gould “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” pg. 127 “The return of Hopeful Monsters”
pg.22, 24)

Saying It Doesn't Make It So:

After making such a pitifully illogical argument, Sagan has the gall to actually claim to his viewers that, “Evolution s a fact not a theory, it really happened!”. This is flat out lie, and Sagan knows it. He may believe evolution is true, but to claim it has been proven without question (a fact) could only be labeled as a flat out lie. It is an even more ridiculous statement when one considers the weakness of the preceeding arguement.

Going After God:

Now that Sagan believes he has made the case for evolution as scientific fact, he gets back to the stated purpose, “The search for who we are.” Sagan moves into what I can only describe as his Mr. Rogers (won't you be my neighbor) impersonation. Standing in a field of dandelions and wearing a nice sports coat, this unassuming guy with a soft voice is about to tell you there is no God. He starts by saying, “Our ancestors saw the world and believed there was a designer”. This is clever, because the use of the word “ancestors” leads one to think of ancient people with little scientific understanding of their environment. According to Sagan, our ancestors couldn't help believing in a designer (a God) because there was no other explanation available to them. They were just giving us their best “human explanation". However as Sagan claims, "Darwin discovered another way, equally human & far more compelling”. This is classic psychobabble. Just ask yourself, why would it be "far more compelling" to be nothing more than an animal passing on DNA with no real purpose in life, than to be a person specially created by a God who loved them and had an devine purpose for their life? Even if Christianity were a myth, it would be infinitely more compelling than "you live, you die, that’s it.

Time, time and more time:

Because of what follows, Sagan must first make sure we understand the eons of time in which all this took place and the fairytale (one far more unbelievable than anything you have heard) which started it all: Spontaneous Generation

Even though the show has moved back toward the supposed science of evolution, Mr. Sagan will continue to take shots at God. Twice in this segment he will use the phrase, “quite by accident”, and its use is not quite by accident. This phrase simple means without the assistance of asupernatural God. He uses this phrase when referring to the fairytale of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous Generation is a “one time” event in which non-living chemicals sprang to life in a primordial soup billions of years ago. That eventually became what you see in the mirror every day, via the process of evolution (goo to you). Believing spontaneous generation could occur is equivalent to believing our government has a perpetual motion machine and won’t let us use it. If you believe it’s true then show us how. Since Sagan is an astronomer I will quote one of his astronomy peers concerning this mythological event;

“Supposing the first cell (and DNA) originated by chance is like believing a
tornado could sweep through a junkyard filled with airplane parts and form a
brand new Boeing 747.” Quote by, British Astronomer Sir Fredrick HoyleFor more
on this subject go to: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

Mistakes Create Life?

I have always thought it quite odd that evolution basically states we are here because of errors, continual random mistakes. Without these random mistakes (mutations) you and I would not existent. Where in the world do we see any process improve based on continual random mistakes? Don't we fire people for that? It’s just a thought.

Mr. Sagan is now going to explain to us the process by which evolution takes place on the molecular level via random mistakes called mutations. All mutations are mistakes in our DNA and are very rare, as Sagan admits. However, an extremely small percentage of these already rare mutations are said to be beneficial. Over eons of time these “good mutations” allow certain plants and animals to better survive. Of course, this process was completely "by accident". A point Sagan makes sure you don't miss.

Simply Unbelievable:

Sagan is now full on into his deceit, and has saved his very best for this precious moment. Going all the way back to the fairytale myth of spontaneous generation, you get a graphic slide pictorial of molecules to man evolution (goo to you) from the first organism all they way to you and me. After Sagan walks us through his imaginary evolutionary time table, we get ushered all the way back to the first magical moment as we see the buds of life being visually morph into cells and cells into worms, and worms into fish and fish into amphibians and on and on until "poof" there we are standing tall at the top of the food chain. It's a computer aided visual affect that would make Walt Disney proud. Sagan's is using this visual fantasy to entice you into imagining science has traced man back to his most primitive ancestry. He even claims there is an "unbroken thread" from us to the molecules. It's a great presentation, its good graphic work, it's just not true. I'm sure Sagan believes it’s true, which makes the whole thing nothing more than his own misguided propaganda supporting his own misguided beliefs.

I Need A Lung (NOW!)

As we are shown the individual slides being digitally morphed together, Sagan provides commentary describing each leg of our evolutionary journey. He is so good at this you get the feeling Sagan was right there watching the whole process unfold before his eyes. When he gets to the amphibians he actually says, “As the water in the ponds dried up amphibians evolved a primitive lung until the rains came.” You can just picture some fish flopping in a dried up pond screaming, "I need a lung, I need a lung, and I need it RIGHT NOW!

How, with a process which Sagan himself labeled as "painfully slow", would one evolve a lung? If you don’t get that lung quick and fully formed you can’t breathe. If you can’t breathe you will die. If you die you can’t pass on your “good” mutation to your offspring, therefore you can't evolve a lung if the rains don't come. This is known as "Irreducible Complexity" meaning if you don't have the whole thing all at once it is useless. How would one evolve an eye? It's useless unless you get the optic nerve, a lens, a retina and the knowledge (information) to understand what the image means all at once. If you only mutate an optic nerve it doesn't help an evolutionist says it will be discarded because of its usefulness. If you take this line of thought to its logical conclusion, the only way for the evolutionary process to actually work would be if the organism or its DNA developed the supernatural ability of foreknowledge. (being omniscience, all knowing, you know, like God) This way, using its supernatural foreknowledge the DNA could telepathically communicate vital future information to the "god gene" as to which currently non-useful random mutation will be needed for survival in a few thousand years and which one to discard. It's like the "force".

SAY WHAT?

The "Cosmos" is an Emmy award winning show said to have "popularizing science". Based on the following quotes one might assume what they mean by popularizing science is to make statements so rediculous no one would question them.

Check these brainteasers out;

*Speaking of the prehistoric animals we evolved from: “They moved to the trees and developed a curiosity about their environment”.

I guess the other animals were lazy and not curious about their environment! How would he know this?

*Speaking of newly evolved marsupials: “the young had to be taught how to survive”.

If they were evolving why would they all the sudden have to be taught how to survive? If you assume that prior to his time the marsupials younglings didn't have to be taught how to survive, why would they not continue to pass their prior ability to survive without assistance on to the next generation, as this would be very helpful? Easier on mom and dad too!

*“There is an unbroken thread that stretches from those first cells to us”

They must not have read gotten the missing links memo. See what happens when you don't read your emails!

*"Bone for bone, muscle for muscle, molecule for molecule there are almost no important differences between apes and humans."

I know why he says it's true, but just think about how ridiculous this statement really is.

*Last but not least, “that’s what molecules do when given 4 billion years of evolution”

Yes, and this is what you get from smoking too much pot! NOW HOLD ON, You don't yet realize just how funny and prophetic that comment really was, but read on and you will.

Can you believe NASA gave this guy their Humanitarian Award, twice, for what, spreading atheism throughout the universe? He was honored for encouraging young people to take an interest in science; however he used the opportunity to preach his religious beliefs without a response. This makes me wonder where all the "Christians" at NASA were while they were honoring this man. It's frustrating to think of our tax dollars going to support this, especially when you know it is being shown to millions who will believe it hook, line and sinker.

Oh yeah! That reminds me "The Sinkers"

The Joyful Images of Committed Pot Heads:

At the end of the show Sagan takes us on a calculated tour of the Universe. I use the term calculated because Sagan actually says he and another scientist "calculated" the possibility of their amazing visual fantasy. The show ends with us visiting the imaginary world of Sinkers, Floaters and Destroyers. They are all living in the atmosphere of some planet similar to Jupiter. The graphics are incredible and one can just imagine these creatures playfully going about their evolved duties. As my family watched this segment, the comment was made that someone was smoking marijuana when they imagined this fantasy land. Now, the comment was meant to be playful and funny at the time, just among us. However, we were amazed to discover just how close to reality that comment was when, during research for this post, I found the following quotes from both Sagan and his wife. "I have had a wonderful life, and part of that was due to the fact that I smoked marijuana since I was a young woman." (Ann Druyan in a speech at the 2001 Conference of NORML) Carl Sagan wrote a series of essays under an assumed name, Mr. X. In one essay he said, “Marijuana inspired some of my intellectual work.” What was a joke turned out to be a sad truth. NORML, is an organization working to legalize marijuana and Ms. Druyan seems to be quite an “active participant". (Pun intended, she does sit on their board)

Are these the kind of people we want producing material to "popularize science and help students answer the question, "Who are we?" The hilarious fact is that even this wonderland fantasy scenario couldn't come about via evolution. If the sinkers go too far down toward the
Jupiter like planet they would die in it's toxic, heated atmosphere as stated by Sagan. Therefore, they would somehow need to relay this critical information back to the other unsuspecting sinkers but they can't, they're dead. Now if by some chance they could get this information translated back to the others, the ones receiving this vital information would need to evolve some method of staying aloft long enough to then evolve some method of reproducing while in flight all before they sink to their death? I'll tell you this; I'd be working on mutating that staying aloft gene first.

Maybe you need to smoke marijuana for this to make sense? Nah! Who wants a dope smoking preacher? Ok, forget I asked that question. I could keep writing, but based on that last comment, I must be getting tired. Me and the other monkeys are playing in the snow tomorrow. I wonder if I could evolve me up some gloves and ear muffs by sunrise? :)

Have a blessed day,

Scott Cosper

Eyes Wide Open

Eyes Wide Open Introduction Powerpoint