"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."
Notice the first part of the above verse. "Do not be conformed to this world."
What does this mean for Christians. On the surface, it seems simple enough. It means that we are to live in the world, but not of the world. We are to live for Christ and be as Christ like as we can possibly be, considering we will fall short of that goal. Simple enough of a message.
However, have you ever considered what it means, exactly, in behavior to "not be conformed to this world?"
We are not to be like the world. Consider some of the following examples.
Have you noticed the number of times you will hear on TV the phrase, "Oh my God?" Watch an episode of the huge hit sitcom Friends. It is highly possible that you will hear that phrase a dozen times - in a 30 minute sitcom. Now go out into the world and just listen to the number of times you hear people saying that phrase - or the shortened version, OMG. If we, as Christians, have become so accustomed to that phrase that we use it ourselves, without even considering the Biblical consequences of taking the Lord's name in vein, then we are conformed to the world.
Consider how the world views abortion. A large number of people, even Christians, see abortion as a necessary procedure that must be legal and available at all times. Even though we know from scripture that God knew us in the womb. If we are defending the practice of abortion, or worse yet participating in it, then we are conformed to the world.
Not being conformed means to live as the scripture dictates. We must be immersed in the Word and make all of our decisions with the Word of God in mind. The only way we can do that is to daily study and meditate on the Word.
One of the reasons we end up living our lives conformed to the world, is that we don't want to be seen as freaks or different. We like to fit in. We don't want others to see us as better than anyone else or, as my grandmother would say, "Livin' above your raisin'."
But isn't living different from everyone else exactly what we are called to do in Romans 12:2? If we do not, how can the world see us as living for Christ? The world certainly is not.
Simply put, we need to take heart, get into the Word and be that witness the world so desperately need.
Showing posts with label world views. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world views. Show all posts
Wednesday
Hope in the Ukraine. Christian Pastor Named as Interim President
Good article from Christianity Today. After decades of communist rule, then struggles for freedom and a move back towards oppressive rule, the people of Ukraine have a chance for freedom - including freedom of Religion.
Our prayers should be that Russia's influence wains and that the free governments of the world, particularly our American President and Congress, have the moral courage to support the people of Ukraine.
Our prayers should be that Russia's influence wains and that the free governments of the world, particularly our American President and Congress, have the moral courage to support the people of Ukraine.
Saturday
Trivia Q: What Other Serial Killer of 100's Never Made the News?
Kirsten Power's excellent article in USA Today is spot on. Under what circumstances would the trial of a serial killer of hundreds of people NOT be on the front page of every single newspaper in America?
What if the serial killer's victims were all babies? Wouldn't you expect that every single news show would lead their broadcasts with the update of the trial?
Maybe you've forgotten that Kermit Gosnell is that serial killer. Maybe you didn't realize that the news media is ignoring the trial. But why would they do such a thing?
Maybe it is because Gosnell was an abortion doctor. Maybe they know that allowing the American people to see this level of evil might give a black eye to their "pet issue."
Call all local newspapers and media outlets and demand that they cover this.
We need to know what happened here. Gosnell needs to be held accountable not only in a court of law, but by the American people. That can't happen if we don't know about it.
Further, our local, state and federal legislative bodies need to be held accountable too. What have they done to prevent this from ever happening again?
What if the serial killer's victims were all babies? Wouldn't you expect that every single news show would lead their broadcasts with the update of the trial?
Maybe you've forgotten that Kermit Gosnell is that serial killer. Maybe you didn't realize that the news media is ignoring the trial. But why would they do such a thing?
Maybe it is because Gosnell was an abortion doctor. Maybe they know that allowing the American people to see this level of evil might give a black eye to their "pet issue."
Call all local newspapers and media outlets and demand that they cover this.
We need to know what happened here. Gosnell needs to be held accountable not only in a court of law, but by the American people. That can't happen if we don't know about it.
Further, our local, state and federal legislative bodies need to be held accountable too. What have they done to prevent this from ever happening again?
Friday
Bill Nye the Emotional Guy
In their recent debate, atheist television star Bill Nye and creation science advocate Ken Ham had a decision to make as they planned for their upcoming clash.
The goal of any debate is to win it. And, there are at least two approaches to winning - and Nye and Ham had to decide which approach they would take.
How Debaters win Debates:
1. Make better arguments than your opponents OR
2. Make spectators believe you have better arguments than your opponent.
The former appeals to logic. The latter appeals to emotion. The former is a real win. The latter is a perceived win. Clearly, Bill Nye's approach was the latter.
A thoughtful, intelligent spectator will recognize that a debater who wins using the latter approach really didn't win at all. The truth is not on their side. Unfortunately, many (and maybe even the majority) of people who watch any debate decide who the winner is based upon which debater they like best.
People can be, and often are, deceived simply because they are not discerning about the facts being argued. They are not using logic, but their emotions instead. Put another way, they are open to being manipulated by an emotional appeal.
With that stated, Bill Nye employed several debate tactics that were designed to appeal to the emotions of spectators rather than to their intellect.
Here are a few of the tactics Nye used on the unsuspecting:
1. Pepper your opponent with statements and questions knowing that there is no way he can address them in a five minute or one minute rebuttal. Nye wanted you, the spectator, to assume that his points were all accurate because Ham did not respond to some of them. Nye did not want you to make the connection to the fact that Ham could not respond to them due to lack of time.
This is a tactic that is frequently used in debates. Did you fall for it in this debate? The way to counter this tactic is to research the statements Ham made after the debate is over.
2. Act as though your opponent didn't answer questions you asked him. Nye repeated questions that Ham had already answered by saying "you still haven't told us" or "we're still waiting for you to tell us." One example was that Nye repeatedly and directly challenged Ham to show how the creation model could make predictions. Even after Ham addressed it with a PowerPoint slide, Nye continued on as though Ham had not addressed it.
Nye was hoping that spectators would not realize that Ham had answered the question. His idea was to make it look as though Ham was trying to avoid answering the question. Did you fall for it?
3. Try to make your opponent appear to be intolerant, stupid, backwards, dangerous, radical, isolated and in the minority. Nye did this over and over and over again.
Nye repeatedly said "I am a reasonable man," with the implication that Ham is not reasonable.
Nye repeatedly said "This is unsettling" or "this is dangerous" with the implication that Ham is a dangerous man.
Nye repeatedly made statements like "You expect 'the rest of us'" to believe you and your followers. The idea here is to make it look as though it is Nye and all of "us" against Ham.
Nye repeatedly said "there are billions of people around the world who are religious but don't agree with you." The idea was to make it look like Ham is too radical for even those who embrace religion. Ask yourself this question, how many of the billions of religions people around the world agree with Nye?
Nye referred to himself and those with his worldview as "real scientists," scientists "on the outside." Of course, the implication here is that Ham and all the scientists who believe that God created are not really scientists.
The topic of the debate was "Is Creation a Viable Model in Today's Modern Scientific Era?" Nye, however, repeatedly said the topic was "Is Ken Ham's model...." He said "Ken Ham's model" at least fifteen times in the debate. Why? He wanted the spectator to believe that Creationism is only held by a very few. There is also an implication that Ken Ham came up with the idea and only has a handful of radical followers.
Nye repeatedly made statements like "if we abandon science" and "if we stop being innovative." He appealed to the voters of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States while making these statements. Nye wanted the audience to believe that if people believe that God created, then America would stop developing medicines, exploring the universe and inventing new technologies.
Nye is hoping spectators do not realize that, in the history of America, most probably a majority of innovations and technologies were invented by Christians. Our innovation comes because of our belief in a Creator who has ordered His creation in a way that makes things discoverable.
Even today, the vast majority of relief, mission and justice organizations around the world are the work of Christians.
Nye not only sought to put Ham in a poor light, he disparaged Scripture too. He did it by rehashing arguments that almost no serious critics of the Bible use today because they have been soundly refuted by Christian and secular scholars. Nye was not concerned with the facts. He had a goal to manipulate the audience into doubting the accuracy of Scripture.
Did you fall for any of this?
4. Get people to like you better than the other guy. Nye told about his hardworking dad who came from humble beginnings and couldn't even tie his own bow tie. He told about his cousin-once-removed who suffered from cancer. He spoke of the joy that his work gives him. He wanted people to identify with him and believe him.
Did you fall for it?
Now that the debate has ended, one question that must be answered is "did the use of any of these tactics present a single, logical argument supporting Nye's position?"
Be careful what you fall for!
The goal of any debate is to win it. And, there are at least two approaches to winning - and Nye and Ham had to decide which approach they would take.
How Debaters win Debates:
1. Make better arguments than your opponents OR
2. Make spectators believe you have better arguments than your opponent.
The former appeals to logic. The latter appeals to emotion. The former is a real win. The latter is a perceived win. Clearly, Bill Nye's approach was the latter.
A thoughtful, intelligent spectator will recognize that a debater who wins using the latter approach really didn't win at all. The truth is not on their side. Unfortunately, many (and maybe even the majority) of people who watch any debate decide who the winner is based upon which debater they like best.
People can be, and often are, deceived simply because they are not discerning about the facts being argued. They are not using logic, but their emotions instead. Put another way, they are open to being manipulated by an emotional appeal.
With that stated, Bill Nye employed several debate tactics that were designed to appeal to the emotions of spectators rather than to their intellect.
Here are a few of the tactics Nye used on the unsuspecting:
1. Pepper your opponent with statements and questions knowing that there is no way he can address them in a five minute or one minute rebuttal. Nye wanted you, the spectator, to assume that his points were all accurate because Ham did not respond to some of them. Nye did not want you to make the connection to the fact that Ham could not respond to them due to lack of time.
This is a tactic that is frequently used in debates. Did you fall for it in this debate? The way to counter this tactic is to research the statements Ham made after the debate is over.
2. Act as though your opponent didn't answer questions you asked him. Nye repeated questions that Ham had already answered by saying "you still haven't told us" or "we're still waiting for you to tell us." One example was that Nye repeatedly and directly challenged Ham to show how the creation model could make predictions. Even after Ham addressed it with a PowerPoint slide, Nye continued on as though Ham had not addressed it.
Nye was hoping that spectators would not realize that Ham had answered the question. His idea was to make it look as though Ham was trying to avoid answering the question. Did you fall for it?
3. Try to make your opponent appear to be intolerant, stupid, backwards, dangerous, radical, isolated and in the minority. Nye did this over and over and over again.
Nye repeatedly said "I am a reasonable man," with the implication that Ham is not reasonable.
Nye repeatedly said "This is unsettling" or "this is dangerous" with the implication that Ham is a dangerous man.
Nye repeatedly made statements like "You expect 'the rest of us'" to believe you and your followers. The idea here is to make it look as though it is Nye and all of "us" against Ham.
Nye repeatedly said "there are billions of people around the world who are religious but don't agree with you." The idea was to make it look like Ham is too radical for even those who embrace religion. Ask yourself this question, how many of the billions of religions people around the world agree with Nye?
Nye referred to himself and those with his worldview as "real scientists," scientists "on the outside." Of course, the implication here is that Ham and all the scientists who believe that God created are not really scientists.
The topic of the debate was "Is Creation a Viable Model in Today's Modern Scientific Era?" Nye, however, repeatedly said the topic was "Is Ken Ham's model...." He said "Ken Ham's model" at least fifteen times in the debate. Why? He wanted the spectator to believe that Creationism is only held by a very few. There is also an implication that Ken Ham came up with the idea and only has a handful of radical followers.
Nye repeatedly made statements like "if we abandon science" and "if we stop being innovative." He appealed to the voters of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States while making these statements. Nye wanted the audience to believe that if people believe that God created, then America would stop developing medicines, exploring the universe and inventing new technologies.
Nye is hoping spectators do not realize that, in the history of America, most probably a majority of innovations and technologies were invented by Christians. Our innovation comes because of our belief in a Creator who has ordered His creation in a way that makes things discoverable.
Even today, the vast majority of relief, mission and justice organizations around the world are the work of Christians.
Nye not only sought to put Ham in a poor light, he disparaged Scripture too. He did it by rehashing arguments that almost no serious critics of the Bible use today because they have been soundly refuted by Christian and secular scholars. Nye was not concerned with the facts. He had a goal to manipulate the audience into doubting the accuracy of Scripture.
Did you fall for any of this?
4. Get people to like you better than the other guy. Nye told about his hardworking dad who came from humble beginnings and couldn't even tie his own bow tie. He told about his cousin-once-removed who suffered from cancer. He spoke of the joy that his work gives him. He wanted people to identify with him and believe him.
Did you fall for it?
Now that the debate has ended, one question that must be answered is "did the use of any of these tactics present a single, logical argument supporting Nye's position?"
Be careful what you fall for!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)