"I want you to throw out your pre-conceived notions about Christianity for a moment and think about what Jesus said," a national evangelist told thousands seated at the Amphitheater at California State University Stanislaus.
-
(Photo: Harvest Crusades)Evangelist Greg Laurie speaks to thousands at the Amphitheater at California State University Stanislaus during the Central Valley Harvest Crusade, Aug. 24-26.
"Who better to tell us what God is like than Jesus?" posed Greg Laurie at the Central Valley Harvest Crusade, his third evangelistic outreach this summer.
Some 48,000 people flocked to the Harvest Crusade with thousands more watching top Christian artists perform and Laurie preach via live webcasts. The evangelistic crusade has been months in the making, involving around 150 churches and 3,000 local volunteers.
Addressing pre-conceived views of Christianity that some visitors may have attended the three-night event with, Laurie affirmed what many believe – that there are hypocrites in the church.
"I'd like to say to you that there are no hypocrites in the church, but there are because the church is made of real people," said Laurie Saturday night. But "just because there are hypocrites doesn't mean that's going to get you off the hook when you stand before God," the evangelist and Southern California pastor stressed.
"Jesus didn't say 'follow my people.' He said 'follow me,'" he highlighted. "Jesus will never let you down."
Speaking to those who may view Christianity as a religion of rules and regulations, Laurie mimicked such a person saying, "Ah, man. God is just out to ruin our lives. With all of its rules and regulations, who wants to get into that kind of thing?"
When Laurie had his Christ decision-making moment in high school, he hadn't originally set out to become a Christian. He was part of the party scene and had a mother who divorced seven times. And he thought Christians were Jesus freaks.
"A lot of us are like that. I'm going to draw my own picture of [who] God [is]," Laurie told the Harvest crowd.
And he didn't deny that sin can be fun. "It's fun to sin for a while. We've all had fun. But it comes with a penalty," he warned.
"It (sin) promises freedom but it brings slavery," said Laurie. "It promises pleasure but it ultimately brings misery."
Rather than judging from their own views, Laurie asked the crowd to see what Jesus says about what God is like.
Like the renowned story Jesus told of the prodigal son and the father, God will throw His arms around you and say "Welcome home, son/daughter," said Laurie.
Nearly 4,000 people accepted Jesus Christ over the Aug. 24-26 event. Laurie's next Harvest preaching is slated for New York on Sept. 23.
RSS
The problem with Greg Laurie's presentation of the Gospel is that it lacks what is needed to save self-righteous people. Only those already humbled by their circumstances will respond in humility. For all the rest of us proud hearted individuals we see no need to respond to a Jesus that is touted to give "a better life' as if Christ is A better way, instead of the ONLY way. And what is the sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross FOR? Life enhancement? no, Greg needs to understand his jesus is not Jesus and his gospel is not The Gospel that saves from the just reward of Hell. Shame on you Greg for making even more false converts.
One day a very well known Professor Scientist called all his fellow scientists over to his house for dinner. Once they have finished eating and drinking, he cleared the table of everything and asked them to remain seated. "Please clear your minds" he said, "because I will show you something, then I would like you to give me your best theory on what you could do with what you see. Everyone's opinion counts, no matter how wild or extreme it is."
Then he brought in a small sack of dirt and poured it in the middle of the table and then sat down himself. "What do you think?" he asked them.
There was silence for a long time until one man said jokingly: "I see a pile of dirt. It has a stench to it and some of it got on my pants." Everyone laughed except the host. When they noticed his seriousness, they all looked at each other somewhat confused.
"It looks like the dirt from your vacuum cleaner."
"It does, doesn't it?" The host replied. "Do you think we could make a vacuum cleaner out of this?
"It would be very difficult, if not impossible." They all agreed. "There just don't seem to be enough chemical elements present to make even a small knife, not alone to make all the parts needed for a working vacuum cleaner."
"So what do you think would be needed to do the job without adding anything to the pile of dirt that you see before you?" The host replied with annoyance.
Again a long silence. Angrily the host stood up and almost yelled at his friends. "Time! Time and a great energy you fools! Isn't that what we teach our students?"
"A few days ago, this here pile of dirt was a most incredible machine the world has ever known. It walked, talked, reasoned, loved, cried, felt and expressed pain, but most of all, it gave me life. And then, she died. This pile of dirt, my dear friends, is my mother. From the deep sorrow I now feel, I realized that I teach people to believe that in a few billion years, this pile of dust will reassemble itself and once again become my mother. I will no longer teach this."
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
KJV
hburra: You contradict yourself. If there actually were objective evidence, faith would be unnecessary. If you only find evidence after you already believe it to be true, then that is not objective evidence, its a case of confirmation bias.
Citizen - you are no doubt well educated and an effective debater. Our arguments will not be able to change your mind or heart. That's where God comes in. God, although invisible, has already provided plenty of physical evidence for his existence, holiness, power, and sovereignty. But one additional ingredient is needed that may seem strange: faith. God gives us the capacity for faith. I urge you not to resist God's call to trust in Jesus for the free gift of salvation that Jesus gave us through his work on the cross.
Nerohdam: If you work in science, then you must know about Occam's Razor, and the placement of the burden of persuasion on those who make claims, rather than on those who seek to refute them. Therefore, if Christians do not carry the burden of persuasion with regard to their claims, we should not believe them, and the same goes for all other religions. Atheism is the default until a religion carries its burden of persuasion.
Terratone: um, what? I specifically stated that I rejected faith in all the gods that have been proposed, including the christian god. Indeed, the social contract has nothing to do with creators. It arrises among human beings as they attempt to organize and maintain societies. Your objections appear confused and hysterical. You're desperating throwing every objection you can imagine to the concept of secular ethics, regardless of whether it even makes sense in regard to the social contract, much less whether it is an actual substantive objection, or merely based on the fact that it doesn't include your imagined deity. It clearly stings you to see it demonstrated that morality and ethics are not the sole providence of your abstraction, nor is it necessary. In response, you resort to fearmongering, which is not only an invalid reason to believe something, it once again demonstrates your desperation when faced with ideas that make your god ideas irrelevant. Are you afraid you'll go to hell if you don't believe in god?
And I need to proofread my statements jeez... could have done a "w" here and there.
Citizen: I will now ask you then to prove the other religions or even atheism is true.
Also, in science you can not prove anything 100%. I work in the science field and basically you remove things which are not true and make an EDUCATED guess based upon your hypothesis.
Again if you are honestly seeking then the answer will come. If you are debating for debatements sake then I might was well be talking to a rock in all seriousness and not out of malice...
I have written this rebuttal, but with a certain sadness in mind. In my opinion Citizen, you are not searching for truth. My fear is that you have sealed yourself in this cocoon of denial that will one day be ripped from you.
Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
I hope and pray that you do not continue to “mock” God. The results are irreversible in the end whether you adhere them in your thinking or not.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Heb 10:26-31 (KJV)
Since we know the definition of the scientific method, there was no need to define it again unless it comes before a long diatribe of unproven suppositions. It is rather inane to say that they, (creationists) do not provide positive evidence. To disprove a “Theory”, you must provide positive evidence. Just because you have a forum where you can make statements of an all encompassing and boisterous nature, does not make your statements correct. More likely than not, ego is what is at stake in your syntax rather than truth.
It is rather refreshing though; even you must agree, although begrudgingly on your part, that you cannot in all wisdom adhere the the labeling of not believing in god, for indeed, in your darkened mind you make yourself the end all and be all of all that you see, in essence you by your actions, are to yourself your own god. You say you identify for a standard of moral code of ethics yet you deny where they themselves stem from. The Creator. I find it sad that you pick and choose as if you are in some sort of buffet of what you will accept, and what you will deny. Just because you do not give glory to God does not not detract from where true“ethics come from”. Why send the website for ethics? I have them already in the Ten Commandments. You apply ethics to your “life” so long as it suits your taste. When they don't you put them aside as orphans on the road, never claiming to have known them. God says to us in His word “I change not”.
God is unchangeable. God's word is unchangeable. In Matthew 24:35, the Lord Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Malachi 3:6 (KJV)
Terratone: Yes, activities do have to meet certain qualifications before they can be considered science. The most important of those is adherence to the scientific method, which involves, among other things, attempting to locate positive evidence to either prove or disprove a falsifiable hypothesis. This not what creationists/IDers do. What they do is try to disprove the theory of evolution (they are utterly failing, but let's leave that aside for a moment), suppose they managed it. They would have to offer positive, physical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. They've also failed to do that.
-
The other definitions are indeed trivial for purposes of our discussion. They are red herrings.
-
Nerohdam was suggesting the processs of elimination as an alternative to positive physical evidence, as far as I understood him.
-
I'd like to preserve for the record my objection to the statement "you believe there is no god" That is not an accurate statement. Say rather that I reject faith in all the gods that have been proposed. However, that what is more important is that I identify for you a standard of morals and ethics that does not rely on supernatural creator entities, and here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract .
As for who is jumping to conclusions in the matter of germ theory and brain chemistry, its still you.
Nerohdam, cont'd: You did not answer the question, you dismissed it. One of the central truth claims of Christianity-god answers prayers-is being challenged objectively, and repeating dogma instead of switching to the objective realm to answer the challenge does not work.
JC: How would you go about determining what the chances are, that didn't amount to making up numbers based on your pre-ordained conclusion? You are making the argument from incredulity ("I would be shocked if it happened that way, and that constitutes evidence that it didn't happen that way.") Unfortunately, your personal feelings, as I think we've already talked about, have no bearing on the objective truth of the matter.
“You have yet to give evidence that we actually have a pre-ordained purpose, and as for the human condition, "god" has been used many times in the past to explain things about humanity and the world, and later its been found to be unnecessary.”
Later its been found to be unnecessary... By whom? In what context? What lambasting we as Christians would receive if were predisposed to throw out such half hearted attempts of an “answer”. The double standard that you have in your responses are palpable.
“ Disease and insanity used to be thought caused by divine retribution, then we discovered germs and brain chemistry. History shows that jumping to the conclusion "goddidit" is probably not the best way to go. “
First you besmirch God's character by injecting “divine retribution” and then you interject germs and brain chemistry as if they in themselves were simple in complexity by nature and not woven by the wisdom of a Holy God. I wonder in reality who is “jumping” to conclusions in this more heady matter?
Philippians:4:8: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Unless you have God, these thought are beyond your reach. At best, a cheap two dimensional copy and selfish to its very core. Used or be used is the anthem of the ungodly. Provoke and do not provide. Chastise and not bring up. Promote self and demean others is it's battle cry.
"Nerohdam1: creationism/ID does not meet definition 3a, which is the definition that applies to the profession of science. The other definitions are informal and colloquial."
Question: Why does Creation/ ID not "meet" the definition that applies to the profession of "science"? Hmm... Possibly due to presuppositions as to what the "profession is"?
Assumptions rather that well thought out searching. Cheap short cuts and prideful ignorance rather than humble, heartfelt, and truthful searching.
"The other definitions are informal and colloquial." Pardon me if I am wrong but this sentence smacks of arrogance. Trivializing the rest of the definitions opens volumes of the inner workings and character of the writer.
"How can you eliminate anything if you don't look to the positive physical evidence to set the standard for judging what is and is not objectively true."
Your supposition of the positive physical evidence being neglected in the processes of elimination is unfounded and not well thought out. Rather than holding desperately to the "facts" you cling to, honestly search out what is so readily available to probe.
Also what standards do you pursue since you believe there is no God? Why should you care? Eat and be merry for tomorrow we die. In your existence without God you are without merit. A blob of flesh without any true nobility. Your thoughts are inconsequential, mere guttural sounds emanating from a hole perchance to fall somewhere you call your face. You without God are meaningless and without any “purpose”. In the “world's” terms you are a bag of chemicals. If you grow old or injured, and cannot pull your own weight, you should be exorcised for the betterment of society. Survival of the fittest. Your standards are selfish and soulless without the refining interaction from a Holy God that exists outside your thought processes.
I'll answer your further response and JC later.