Chillin IN St. Louis

I am currently in STL taking some seminary classes, along with the Vitamin Z, so posts will be minimal this week...

Song of the Week

Ministering to Young Adults often leaves weeks with this as a fitting theme song, this week was one of them...

You Thought I was Gansta...

I got nothing on the J. Pizzle, Check Out Piper...

Here is more from Josh Harris:

My friend Kirk emailed this picture of one of one the girls from his church with John Piper at New Attitude. Evidently she asked him to do a "W" for the "word of God" since that was the theme of the conference. Kirk pointed out that of course Piper had no idea he was also flashing the "Westside" gang symbol. Represent!

Props: J. Harris

Guns and Youth Camp

Ok, so I admit I am a bit of a pacifist when it comes to guns, and saying we need them to protect ourselves or family, but Los what about hunting, you ask. Well get a bow and arrow and go hunting, sitting in a tree with high powered rifle waiting for Bambi is as much of a sport as playing basketball with a 5ft rim or Nascar. So when I heard about this church promoting their youth camp by having a shooting competition I shook my head... Read here from Church Matters:

Windsor Hills Baptist Church plans to hold a shooting competition at their youth conference where they are giving away some fairly hefty fire power. The motives are clearly at least in part good. The church’s youth pastor, Bob Ross, claimed the main thrust of the conference wasn't about guns but rather "teens finding faith".

Perhaps this doesn't sound strange to you: to a Brit like me, it sounds about as responsible as giving away 6 packs of extra strength lager to try to encourage 8 year olds to attend vacation bible school - and no, even now we have returned to Europe, this isn't our plan!

The plan has unsurprisingly provoked some comments by local media.

But, if you are not planning to give away guns to encourage youth to attend your retreat, what it the hook that you would like to use? Is it the gospel, or is it something that would be extremely appealling to young people intent on pursuing the things of this world, whether it be guns, beer or something a little tamer? Is it OK for a youth group to be sold on the great programme planned and then sneak the gospel in through the back door? How can we be sure that we are presenting the gospel to young people in a way that is by no means deceitful or manipulative?

Giving away free stuff if you come to church always reminds me of the credit card companies on the college campus giving away a free t-shirt if you sign up, and that is not a good thing to be compared to.

Apparently they had almost canceled this shoot fest '08 and left this note on their website:

Although the shooting competition that was to take place during the Youth Conference had been canceled, due to false statements^* made by the Oklahoma City TV Channel 5 (KOCO) and subsequently reported also by media outlets across the country, a shotgun was donated last Saturday so that the competition could go on as planned.

If Congress, back when our country was fighting for its independence could give engraved muskets to the fifteen or so eleven year old boys that their teacher, Mr. Akins, led into battle against the British, then we can give away a firearm still today, especially since our Supreme Court just re-emphasized our Second Amendment rights.

And if "Congress back when our country was fighting for its independence" thought slavery was ok and that women should not vote and Natives were ruthless savages less than human, then....

Props: Church Matters

Evolution on Trial

This week for my church's Vacation Bible School for the wee ones, the theme is "Amazon Experience", which deals with creation and flies directly at the world's view of Darwinism. Each night starts with a skit and tonight's talked about how the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that it is not billions and billions like we have been taught in schools and on the History Channel. What is interesting is how after the skit I thought about all the people that would get upset over this teaching sense it flies in the face of "science", and as I drove home I started to wonder how many of the people that will be upset understand even what they are upset about. Is it a scientific fact, or just something many believe blindly because "experts" say it is so. Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason puts it best when he shows that we need to be really careful what theories we state as actual "facts".

The real question is whether the evidence supports evolution or not, not whether we can baptize evolution with the word "God" so Christians feel comfortable.

To put it simply, lest there be any confusion about the matter, evolution must be dealt with scientifically, on its own merits. Is it an adequate explanation of the origin of things?

I think it's wholly inadequate. Contrary to the Pope's views, the more knowledge we get, the more problems we see with the origin of life by evolutionary means--the more problems we see with the change from one kind of life into another by evolutionary means.

The passage of time and the increase of knowledge haven't helped evolution; they've hurt it. Evolution was popular early on precisely because there was so little information about the process. Now we know much more about the details of biochemistry and genetics, and information theory, and the incredible complexity of even the simplest living thing. It's become evident that evolution is just not capable of explaining life.

You want proof for that? Here, it's very simple. This is my handy-dandy evolution refuter. It's the simplest way I know to right to the heart of the problem, proving that evolution is not based on fact, but on philosophy.

For evolution to be a fact, you must have two things, minimally. First, you've got to have life coming from non-life--abiogenesis. Second, you've got to have a change in that life from simple forms to complex forms over time. You must have the kick-off, and you must have the rest of the game.

Now, here's my question: How did life come from non-life? How did the game get started by evolutionary means. Does anyone know? Guess what? Nobody knows. Oh, there are some ideas and people have suggested some possible ways, but nobody has sketched out any way that really answers the question. There are so many problems and complications. There are competing models that have been suggested, but they're just starting places. They're just ways of saying, "Let's start here, and we'll see where it leads." There are possibilities, but no one knows how it happened, or even how it could have happened in enough detail to be compelling."

Now, here's the kicker. If you don't know how it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes, how do you know that it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes? Evolution is claimed to be a fact, but you can't have the fact of evolution unless you have the fact of abiogenesis. Yet nobody knows how such a thing could ever take place. And if life can't be shown to have come from non-life, then the game can't even get started.

Then why do we call evolution a fact when evolution can't even get off the ground, based on the information we have right now. The answer you get is always the same: Because we're here. It must have happened . That's called circular reasoning, friends, based on a prior commitment to naturalism that won't be shaken by the facts.

Which proves that this is not about science, it's about philosophy.

Check out the rest here at STR

I am a Mac fan but this is funny....

Props: Time

More Aerodynamic....

In an effort to save on gas, drastic measures have been taken to become a more aerodynamic driver...

Keep Singing...

Wow, this is a great video and a good song too...


Props:The Chandlers

Piper on Why Saul Died and a Pastor's Soul

John Piper has written some observations he has had recently during his own personnel time in the Word. What is cool is that Piper was not preparing for a sermon, or a book or even a Desiring God blog post, but was reading to "feed my soul", how often do pastors or those that vocationally proclaim God's Word through the pulpit or in books do not get away for their own soul's sake? I often find that I can justify my own distance from "quiet times" as saying I am in His Word when I prepare for a message, Piper shows that there is a difference between preparation and feeding one's own soul in personal in depth study. Piper today was studying Saul's death and David's rise, here is a quote from what he observed and chewed on in God's Word.

One reason Saul died is that he committed suicide. Another is that he broke faith with the Lord much earlier. Another is that God put him to death. None of these excludes the others. To say God is the decisive actor does not mean Saul did not act. To say there are physical causes for a death (suicide) does not mean there were not moral causes (infidelity).

To say that Saul brought his demise on himself (by infidelity and suicide) does not mean God did not bring it on him. We would be unfaithful to Scripture if all we said was that the reason Saul died was the natural consequence of his own behavior. We must also say, “The Lord put him to death.”

There was real punishment, not just impersonal, natural consequences. God is personal. God put him to death. There was punishment by a judge and executioner. There was wrath. The Bible is designed to make sure we do not turn death and hell into impersonal consequences. “The Lord put him to death.”

Therefore, I was sobered this morning. I trembled in my spirit. I bowed to God’s right and authority to give and take life. I reverenced him. Blessed be the name of the Lord.

Now chew on that, and then chew on some more of what Piper shared about his "quiet time" in the Word here

AND

Then dive into your own personel time, here