Answers for Life

-wisdom for a confused and broken world-

Fair and Balanced Review of a Controversial Film

Posted by thinkpoint on May 13, 2008

I’ve received some heated reaction to my columns on Intelligent Design and more recently on Stein’s film Expelled. Rarely do these responses contain actual engagement on the issues. Mostly I receive verbal jabs with tones of condescension. Why do people resort to labeling and arrogance rather than substantive discussion? Why such angry rhetoric instead of rational dialogue? For those eager to learn, consider the helpful links below:

User Friendly (To the point)

 

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=7746

 

More complex (But excellent)

 

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Schloss200805.html

 

 

Posted in Ben Stein, Creation, Expelled, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science, Worldview | No Comments »

Tolerating Religious Truth

Posted by thinkpoint on May 9, 2008

 

Should we be obligated to regard all religions as equally true? Those who think this way often view religious truth as subjective rather than objective. In this sense, religious truth is something we create for ourselves rather than some objective reality we discover. But this individualized and subjective approach to truth is not applied to all disciplines. Most of us want the truth from our doctor or our mechanic, not just a feeling. In history class, we want the truth not someone’s version of it. When testifying in court, we hold people accountable for telling the truth, the whole truth, so help you…… Then we test their claims to verify the truthfulness of them.
 
In many spheres of life, truth is regarded as an objectively verifiable reality. On matters of opinion, like saying, “Chocolate is the best ice cream,” truth becomes a subjective feeling or matter of taste. There’s no need to launch serious arguments on these matters. If, however, I say, “Hitler was evil,” I have expressed an opinion worthy of defense. On such viewpoints, I must line the facts up to support my opinion. Likewise, religious beliefs must accurately correspond with reality.
 

Applying this to Christianity, if the account of Jesus Christ is not based on real events or facts, the person who believes it is a fool no matter how it makes him feel or how much meaning he claims to get from it. His beliefs are based on imaginary thoughts and feelings. C. S. Lewis was right when he wrote, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”  

 

Some religious claims are objectively true; some are simply false. To distinguish the true from the false, one must ask, “Do these claims correspond with reality and facts independent of anyone’s opinions about them?” Religious claims are mostly claims about reality. Such claims must be investigated to learn if they are objectively true or false. For example: God either exists or He doesn’t. God, as Christianity teaches, has revealed Himself at a certain time in history or He hasn’t. If I conclude that another person’s religious affirmations are false, it does not mean I cannot respect their right to hold them. Tolerance only becomes a virtue where there is strong disagreement and respect for those with whom you disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Christianity, Criticism, Diversity, Fear of religion, Judging others, Oprah, Philosophy, Relativism, Tolerance, True Christianity?, Truth | 1 Comment »

Debate over the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment

Posted by thinkpoint on May 7, 2008

 

In debate over the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment (SB 1250), those who compare gender and race discrimination with sexual orientation are using tactical deception to emotionally sway an unsuspecting public. Wrongful discrimination (in actual civil rights cases) injures people for what they are by nature not for their sexual preferences. We have laws to protect human rights for all people. If homosexuals want same-sex-lifestyles, they shouldn’t demand special laws to protect their sexual preferences. If we start protecting sexual preferences from discrimination, where will it end? On what basis will we decide that some sexual preferences should be endorsed and defended by the state and others rejected?

 

The flawed logic serving the battle for gay rights works off of the assumption that one is born gay and cannot change. Ask those who once practiced the homosexual lifestyle but are now free from it what they think of this argument? Although some people could be biologically inclined toward homosexual behavior and others had it forced on them against their wills, ultimately it becomes a behavior people choose. Any other view disrespects human dignity. Two men could live together and deeply care for each other without being homosexual. Homosexuality only becomes part of the equation when they commit sexual acts with each other. As a result, “homosexual” refers not to one’s nature, disposition or desire but to one’s behavior.

 

After many years of counseling others, I am convinced that those who practice homosexuality do not genuinely accept that they were meant to live the gay lifestyle. Even radical homosexual activists, if honest, would admit that their fight for gay rights is not the answer for their inner frustrations, resentments and despair. Deep inside, they know that changes in legislation or public opinion will not remove the agony they feel. The homosexual lifestyle robs people of both dignity and freedom. Court decisions and marriage licenses will not give these people the dignity or freedom they desire.

 

Steven W. Cornell

Senior Pastor

Millersville Bible Church

58 West Frederick St.

Millersville, PA. 17551

  • Contact Speaker Dennis O’Brien (email dobrien@pahousegop.com or call 717-787-4610) and Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (email wdeweese@pahouse.net or call 717-783-3797) and ask them to assign SB 1250 to a committee where it will be brought up for a vote in a timely fashion when it comes over from the Senate.  Tell them SB 1250 deserves a vote.
  •  

     

     

    Posted in Deception, Discernment, Diversity, Gay, Gay Marriage?, Homosexual lifestyle, Homosexuality, Marriage, Tolerance | No Comments »

    Nat Hentoff on the Death Penalty

    Posted by thinkpoint on May 7, 2008

    Columnist Nat Hentoff wrote a piece for our local paper titled, U. S. Supreme Court tinkers with the machinery of death. Hentoff is right about one thing, filling vacancies on the Supreme Court will be among the most important decisions of the next president. Even though I’ve had my hesitations about President Bush, I am grateful for his appointments to the high court. His choices might be his most important and enduring legacy and the best thing he did for our Country.

    Hentoff obviously sees things differently—especially regarding the death penalty. Like many death penalty opponents, he carelessly glosses over the fact that we are dealing with premeditated murderers. He champions the notion that civilized people don’t practice capital punishment but fails to address the barbaric acts of murderers in these civilized societies.

    Finally, Hentoff illogically equates the act of a murderer with the act of capital punishment. The death penalty is punishment not murder. It’s also a punishment that fits the crime. Those who willfully take the life of another must forfeit their own lives.

    Unfortunately, the death penalty is needed to protect civilized society. Elimination of it supports barbarism and anarchy. Those who willfully take the life of another must sacrifice their own lives. Some killing is unjust and we call it “murder.” Other killing is just and this we might call “self-defense” in some cases and “just punishment” in others. When capital punishment is abused by inequities in due process, revisions in the judicial system are needed, not elimination of the penalty.

       

     Steve Cornell

    23 West Cottage Ave.

    Millersville, PA. 17551

    s.cornell@millersvillebiblechurch.org         

     

     

    Posted in 2008 Election, Capital Punishment, Death, Death penalty, Murder, Politics | No Comments »

    Expelled: C. S. Lewis saw it coming

    Posted by thinkpoint on April 28, 2008

    Last Thursday evening, I saw Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at one of our local Cinemas. After the film, four professors from Franklin and Marshal College graciously hosted a discussion panel for a sizable crowd. Under the moderation of Dr. Michael Murray (Humanities and Philosophy), each professor took a few minutes to respond to the documentary. Numerous questioned followed and things remained generally calm.

     

    Although released in a limited number of theaters, according to one source, Expelled brought in over five million dollars in ten days and was ranked sixth in political documentaries. The film is provocative in its effort to give a voice to highly credentialed scientists who have been severely mistreated because they dared to make reference to Intelligent Design in mildly commendable ways.

     

    Stein’s use of historical associations with the founding principles of America, Adolf Hitler’s atrocities and the Berlin Wall will deeply disturb some viewers as it did some of our panel members. Stein, however, is not merely interested in stirring extremes, he passionately (albeit with his typical dry humor) sets forth a case for the dangers of allowing academic elitists to profess commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression when in reality they vigorously suppress it and belittle those who disagree with them.

     

    Not surprisingly, in an unintended way, many critics of Expelled substantiated the claims of the film with their biased rhetoric against it. In the movie reviews in the Sunday News of Lancaster, Expelled was ridiculed and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (well-known for its inaccuracies) was praised—go figure!

     

    It’s alarming when the academy launches irrational hostility toward reputable scientists who dare to attribute intelligent design to biological structures. C. S. Lewis foresaw all of this when he warned against the reign of philosophical naturalism in the academy. According to Lewis, naturalism is the view that the physical world is a self-contained system that works by blind, unbroken natural laws. Naturalistic philosophy declares that nothing beyond nature could have any conceivable relevance to what happens in nature. Let’s be honest: There is not one shred of scientific evidence for this conclusion. Only faith could allow you to believe it.

     

    The real need in the discussion about intelligent design is, as one professor noted, “a separation of the philosophy from the real science, both in order to have an honest, unbiased scientific enterprise, and to protect the public from getting the false impression that scientific evidence has shown that the evolutionary process is our true creator.”

     

    Steven W. Cornell

    23 West Cottage Ave

    Millersville, PA. 17551

     

     

    For further review,

     

    Supporting sources:

    http://www.discovery.org/expelled/

     

    Opposing sources:

    http://www.expelledexposed.com

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer

     

     

    Posted in Ben Stein, C. S. Lewis, Creation, Expelled, Intelligent Design | No Comments »

    Pride: Should it be removed from the seven deadly sins?

    Posted by thinkpoint on April 23, 2008

    Pride-Seven Deadly Sins

     

    Is it wrong to be proud?  For many years, pride was regarded as the first of the seven deadly sins. In Scripture, “a proud look” or “haughty eyes” tops the list of seven things God hates (Proverbs 6:16-17). Most agree that there is a type of pride that is good. It seems good to take pride in your work or in an achievement of excellence. We feel right about encouraging our children to be proud of themselves — not in an egotistical sense but in a way that promotes healthy self-esteem. If pride is a feeling of satisfaction at a job well done or a healthy sense of worth as one made in God’s image, it is a good thing. 

               

    But there is an uglier side to pride. Sometimes it comes in “the form of inordinate self congratulations” or a “blend of narcissism and conceit that we detest in others and sometimes tenderly protect in ourselves” (C. Plantinga).  When pride involves this blend of self-absorption and an overestimation of one’s ability or worth, it is a destructive force; it is anti-community and more importantly, it is anti-God. “What sin makes God seem more irrelevant? God wants to fill us with his Holy Spirit, but when we are proud we are already full of ourselves. There’s no room for God” (Plantinga).

               

    Augustine depicted pride as the great political enemy in the city of God. Scripture teaches that “God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble” (I Peter 5: ).  “According to traditional Christian wisdom, a main problem with pride is that it recognizes neither sin nor grace; in fact, pride hammers them flat and discards them” (Plantinga). This is why a proud heart is opposed by God.  

               

    For a long time there was widespread agreement in our culture about the evils of sinful pride. But attitudes toward pride have shifted significantly. “What has changed is that, in much of contemporary American culture, aggressive self-regard is no longer viewed with alarm. Instead, people praise and promote it.” Are we now living in an ego-centered culture in which “human life degenerates into the clamor of competing autobiographies?” In such a culture, the self exists to be explored, indulged and expressed but not disciplined or restrained” (Plantinga).

     

    For a cultural gut-check, enter American Idol. One columnist referred to this program as “the self-esteem movement on steroids.” It stretches credulity to believe that most of those who audition really think they can sing well. Is this what we wanted to accomplish by making self-esteem the primary goal of education? It appears that we have facilitated new levels of delusional self-perception. Scary stuff if you ask me!  Perhaps this is a contributing factor to the pervasive struggles with depression in our culture. Our expectations are too high because our egos are too inflated. What a set-up for disappointment!

    The original sin was pride. It was the sin that occasioned the fall of Satan himself. We learn this in a New Testament list of qualifications for church leaders. The leader “…must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil (I Timothy 3:6, NIV). Conceit is defined in another scriptural passage which says, “I give each of you this warning: Don’t think you are better than you really are. Be honest in your evaluation of yourselves, measuring yourselves by the faith God has given us” (Romans 12:3, NLT). Another translation warns not to “think more highly of yourself than you ought.” This is at the heart of sinful pride.

    While exposing pride, we must not encourage false humility. Some people are so humble they’re proud of it. Pre-tending to be humble isn’t the same as actually being humble. Pretentious humility is self-refuting. Those who use humility to seek out praise are perhaps the most proud. Discerning people will see through this behavior.

    Humility does not ask us to continually engage in self-deprecating statements. We must learn to think soberly about ourselves. This often necessitates the help of others when we miss the mark. True self-perception is slippery territory but it is possible to be both humble and aware of one’s giftedness. Admitting our sins, faults and limitations fosters stronger humility. Being humble involves showing deference to others in a courteously respectful manner. It is the opposite of arrogance, boasting and self-absorption.

     

     

    Jesus taught and demonstrated humility as God’s way for us (See: Luke 22:24-30; John 13:1-17; Philippians 2:3-10). According to Jesus, humility is the mark of true greatness. “At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:1-4). “And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. (Matthew 23:12 NAS)

    Jesus said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?’” (Matthew 16:24-26).

     

    It’s time for all of us to return to Jesus and learn the joy and freedom that comes with humility and self-denial. Those who take the path of self-denial in an age of self-expression, self-worth and self-indulgence, will be set free! A proud heart is an imprisoned and hardened heart. A humble heart that turns to God is free and full of grace.

     

     

     

    Steve Cornell

     

     

    Posted in Christian life, Contentment, Cynicism, Deception, Depression, Despair, Discernment, Discouragement, Encouragement, Humility, Repentance, Self-deception, Spiritual disciplines | 1 Comment »

    Sexual Orientation and Gender

    Posted by thinkpoint on April 21, 2008

     

    In his piece in USA TODAY, Might Our Religion be Killing Us?, Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, mixes apples and oranges when he groans about conservative religious organization being resistant to equal rights for women and gays. Being female has to do with one’s nature; being homosexual is a choice of lifestyle.

     

    Wrongful discrimination (in actual civil rights cases) injures people for what they are by nature not for their sexual preferences. We have laws to protect human rights for all people (and most conservative religions support those laws). If homosexuals want to have their same sex lifestyles, they shouldn’t demand special laws to protect their sexual preferences. If we start protecting sexual preferences from discrimination, where will it end? On what basis will we decide that some sexual preferences should be endorsed and defended by the state and others rejected?

     

    The flawed logic serving the battle for gay rights works off of the assumption that one is born gay and cannot change. Ask those who once practiced the homosexual lifestyle but are now free from it what they think of this argument? Although some people might be biologically inclined toward homosexual behavior and others have had it forced on them against their wills, ultimately it is a behavior people choose. Two men could live together and deeply care for each other without being homosexual. Homosexuality only becomes part of the equation when they commit sexual acts with each other. As a result, “homosexual” refers not to one’s nature, disposition or desire but to one’s behavior.

     

    After many years of counseling others, I am convinced that those who practice homosexuality do not genuinely accept that they were meant to live the gay lifestyle. Even radical homosexual activists, if honest would admit that their efforts are merely a cover up for their frustrations, resentments and despair. Deep inside, they know that changes in legislation or public opinion will not remove the agony they feel. The homosexual lifestyle robs people of both dignity and freedom. Court decisions and marriage licenses will not give these people the dignity or freedom they desire.

     

    _______________________________________
    Steven W. Cornell
    Senior Pastor
    Millersville Bible Church
    58
    West Frederick St.
    Millersville, PA  17551

     

     

     

    Posted in Gay Marriage?, Homosexual lifestyle, Homosexuality, Sex, Sex Scandals, Sexual temptations, Sexuality | No Comments »

    Expelled: Embarrassment to the academy

    Posted by thinkpoint on April 19, 2008

    By Steve Cornell

     

    expelled_370x100

     

     

    The harsh criticisms aimed at Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled” substantiate the concerns raised by the film. Stein “…calls attention to the plight of highly credentialed scholars who have been forced out of prestigious academic positions because they proposed Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to Charles Darwin’s 150-year-old theories about the origins of life. Instead of entertaining a debate on the merits of competing theories, the scientific establishment has moved to suppress the ID movement in a “systematic and ruthless” way at odds with America’s founding principles, the film asserts” (Jill Stanek, WorldNetDaily).

     

    Opponents of intelligent design wrongly insist that it is the same as biblical creationism. Don’t be fooled by this diversionary argument. Intelligent design is not code language for teaching biblical creationism. It is the study of signs of intelligence in the natural world. As a discipline, it doesn’t require the God revealed in Christian scriptures as the designer. The fact that many who believe in intelligent design also believe that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), should not be used to discredit the scientific method.

     

    Scientific inquiry should always be empirical research that follows the evidence wherever it leads. Unfortunately, in the academy, much of what passes for science is driven by a philosophy of materialism. On this account, acceptable research must begin with “in the beginning there was only particles and impersonal natural laws.” This kind of “science” rules out of order intelligent design no matter what the evidence shows.

      

    Yet empirically detecting design is common to many other disciplines. In her new book, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity, Nancy Pearcey identifies other disciplines that depend on discovery of design. “Detectives are trained to distinguish murder (design) from death by natural causes. Archeologists have criteria for distinguishing when a stone has the distinctive chip marks of a primitive tool (design), and when its shape is simply the result of weathering and erosion. Insurance companies have steps for deciding whether a fire was a case of arson (design) or just an accident. Cryptologists have worked out procedures to determine whether a set of symbols is a secret message (design) or just an accident.”

     

     

     

    Using the same principles found in each of these disciplines, scientist are capable of distinguishing products of nature from products of intelligence. This is simply the way most people understand the world. Pearcey offers several examples: “Walking on the beach, we may admire the lovely pattern of ripples running across the sand, but we know it is merely a product of the wind and the waves.  If, however, we come across a sand castle with walls and turrets and a moat, do we assume it too was created by the wind and waves? Of course not. The material constituents of the castle are nothing but sand and mud and water, just like the ripples all around it. But we intuitively recognize that those starting materials have a different kind of order imposed upon them. A friend of mind once took a ship up the West Coast to Canada, where he was greeted by a colorful display of flowers spelling out, ‘Welcome to Victoria.’ It was a sure guarantee that the seeds were not blown there randomly by the wind.”

     

    In his book The Design Revolution: Answering Tough Questions about Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski explains that,  “As a theory of biological origins and development, intelligent design’s central claim is that only intelligent causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there are well-defined methods that, based on observable features of the world, can reliably distinguish intelligent causes from undirected natural causes.”

     

    Every critic of intelligent design I’ve met has admitted never reading any work by a leading proponent of it. This is academic dishonesty. To be fair, many who believe in creation also speak carelessly about evolution. They fail to respect the difference between the scientific evidence of evolution within nature and the unscientific use of evolution as a philosophy of ultimate origins.

     

    When critics of intelligent design cry, “Creationism!” and advocates chant, “Evolution is just a theory”, no progress is made toward better understanding. Intellectual integrity requires one to research a viewpoint before critiquing it. Expelled demonstrates the exclusionary bias against the science of intelligent design. I can only hope it serves as an embarrassment to much of the academic community. It is simply impossible to have a profitable discussion when otherwise intelligent people substitute thoughtful analysis for condescending ridicule. Let’s expel the bias so that we can have thoughtful debate. 

     

     

    Steven W. Cornell
    Senior pastor
    Millersville Bible Church
    Millersville, PA. 17551

     

     

     

     

     

    Posted in Atheism, Ben Stein, Creation, Expelled, Fear of religion, Intelligent Design, Science | 3 Comments »

    I need your help!

    Posted by thinkpoint on April 16, 2008

    Help me, please!

     

    I will soon take some time away to finalize my book on Forgiveness and Reconciliation. I am convinced of the need for this material. Too many people confuse forgiveness with reconciliation and become enablers under the banner of Christian forgiveness. After 14 years of teaching on this theme at conferences and seminars, I have become convinced of the need for a book. One of the common responses I recieve when I teach on this is: “Where were you 20 years ago. I could have been spared a lot of pain and confusion if I understood this teaching back then.”

     

     

    I am asking for several things from all those who read my blog.

     

    1.     Pray for me to be able to put the material together in a way that will help many people.

    2.     Email me your forgiveness and reconciliation stories. If I have permission to use them, I will conceal the names to protect the innocent!

    3.     I have not decided on a good place to go to write a book—any suggestions??? I know I must go away to focus exclusively on this project.

    4.     Any other way you might want to help, please contact me at s.cornell@millersvillebiblechurch.org

     

    Many thanks!!!

     

    Steve Cornell

    Posted in Christian life, Christianity, Church, Discouragement, Marriage, Spiritual growth, Spiritual transformation, Suffering, Trials | No Comments »

    Do you resent God? (responding to God’s Discipline)

    Posted by thinkpoint on April 14, 2008

    mad at god

     

    Audio message: “Do You Resent God?”  by Steve Cornell

    http://www.millersvillebiblechurch.org/_audio/Do%20You%20Resent%20God%20(Part%205%20of%20Five%20Essentials%20series)%204-13-08.mp3 (This message is based on Proverbs 3:11-12 as explained in Hebrews 12:1-15)

     

     

    Seven Truths about God’s Discipline from Hebrews 12:

     

    1.        Discipline was modeled by Jesus (vv. 2-3)

     

    2.      Discipline is a mark of membership in God’s family (vv.5- 8)

     

    3.      Discipline includes hardships and hostile treatment (v. 7 w/ v. 3)

     

    4.      Discipline is sometimes misunderstood (vv. 5, 6. 15)

     

    5.      Discipline should lead to respect and submission toward God (vv. 9-10a)

     

    6.      Discipline leads to formation of godly character (v. 10)

     

    7.      Discipline is painful training in right living (v. 11)

     

    Additional thoughts on discipline:

     

    Discipline is necessary to life:

    Like it or not, discipline is part of life. Without it, we easily slide into habits that become defeating. To live well and be effective always necessitates discipline. Discipline challenges our natural tendencies toward laziness, carelessness, lack of focus, and even defeat. Most of us would willingly admit to needing more rather than less discipline. But we know it doesn’t come easily.

    Discipline Defined: More than punishment

    The word discipline carries a range of meaning from teaching to punishment. It includes educating, training, coaching, correcting, and chastising. The overall aim of discipline is to develop the moral, mental and physical character of an individual; to foster skills, abilities, character traits, and behavior patterns whether personal or social. Discipline can be self-imposed or gained through outside forces and influences. Typically, the later leads to the former. Common spheres of discipline include, home, school, law enforcement, military, athletics and Church. When a society becomes undisciplined at any level, everyone in it suffers.

    God believes in Discipline:

    It should not surprise us to learn that God also believes in the value and need of discipline. God repeatedly reminded his people that he disciplines those he loves (see: Proverbs 3:12; Hebrews 12:6). God’s discipline is compared with the discipline of an earthly father who cares enough to train his son (Deuteronomy 8:5; Psalm 103:13).  

    Posted in Suffering, Trials |