I have a very intriguing question and no one has ever given a satisfactory answer. Will you please?

“Are you born by own will? Not certainly. I am a Muslim because I have been born among Muslims and those who have been born among Christians, Jews, and Hindus etc. become what ever teachings and knowledge they get from their parents, teachers or society.

It is a common belief among Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus that only members of their sect will be rewarded by God and people of other religions will go to hell. When a person does not have any control on birth and adopts religion where he has been born by God, why God will punish or reward on the basis of religion?

Kindly guide me. Thanks.

This is indeed a question that should be examined? Are we born of our own will? Can we control our environment that compels us to act and to live and to think? How can a Muslim or Hindu or Christian be punished by God when she is merely acting in accordance with her environment? Is the Beaver condemned by God for chopping down trees and making damns? Does the Raven stand in judgment for feeding on the robins’ young? Should the Lion feel guilt because he has feasted on a fawn? Of course not, in these examples each animal is acting in accordance with his nature. The beaver in his beaver nature, raven in raven and lion in lion.
But applied to humans, how should we conclude? Indeed man is defined by his environment. You could know nothing about me, but if you looked at my house, saw my clothes, you could know something about me. You could see the dvds I own and determine what type of movies I like. You could see my small and yet modest library and know even more about me.
The question remains, is man defined by his environment and merely a product of it, or can he shape and mold his environment? I was born into a culture with a Christian background. Does this mean that my only possible choice for my life is a Christian one? If what you say is true and then being born among a religion will always lead to that religion. If it is like the beaver, or the raven, or the lion then just as a beaver will act only according to his beaver nature, and a raven a raven and a lion a lion then so also man will act according to his man nature. But is this compulsion seen within humanity? An acorn will always grow into an oak tree. If the proper conditions are met then an acorn will grow into an oak tree every time. There is no doubt, no wavering, acorns produce oaks. If for whatever reason the acorn does not produce an oak it is not considered normal.
Is a human an acorn? If he is left to grow will he produce the same results every time? If what you argue is true, namely that each person born into a religion has no option other then that religion, then at least two conclusions follow. 1. Man is like an acorn and despite any situation he will become what he was born into 2. If the first premise is true, then there are no counter examples now, nor have there ever been. A counter example would be a person who is born into a religion and for whatever reason did not embrace that religion.
Have there never been any Avant-gardes? No front runners? None who rose up and were known as rebels? For if acorns produce oaks, there would ever be any other tree. But is this the case? How many examples have there been in history? Is history not comprised of people who rebelled against their environment? Who fought the status quo? Consider even Muhammad, was he a product of his environment? Did he follow the religion of his father and those before him? What about Jesus? Was he not mocked and beaten because the religious leaders of his day thought he was acting contradictory to the religion of his father? Of the community he was born into? These are just two examples, if there is just one counterexample then we know that a human need not always become the product of his environment.
Even in my own life and experience I can think of counterexamples. I know people born into atheist homes who became Christians, people born into Christian homes that became atheists, people born into Muslim homes who became Christian, and people born into Christian homes who became Mormon. Can you not think of any examples yourself?
I think you are conflating the idea that humans are inherently religious with specific religious compulsions. Humans are religious. Even the original humanist manifesto referred to secular humanism as a religion and that man would be saved through reason and technology. Wherever humans are and whatever they do, they are religious. When a human is born into a specific culture where a specific religion is favored of course that would push his natural religious fervor toward that religion. But this is not compulsion.
It is the duty of all men to seek the truth. The ability to reason and to know is one of the greatest gifts given to man. But his reason is not infallible. Consider the book of Revelation. The Apostle John probably knew Jesus better then any other apostle, however when he was confronted by a mighty angel he thought because of the majesty of the being, it must be God and began to kneel. The angel stopped him because God alone is worthy of worship. If John, someone who knew Jesus so well could be confused as to mistaking a being for God, would it not seem likely that someone who has only heard of Jesus could become (at times) confused? It is for this reason that Paul compels the early church to test the spirits to see if they are from God.
Man is free to embrace or to reject his environment and culture. If the culture he is born into denies the God of Biblical Christianity, then that environment and culture should be rejected. I don’t say this as a biased man, but rather a man who has studied the pertinent historical and biblical accounts, who has spent hours seeking the truth. It is my prayer that all people who seek the truth and make it their goal, for then he will understand the words of Christ who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the father but through me.”

“I contend that we both atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Throughout the last few months I have come across this quotation several different times and would like to respond to it here. Usually this quotation is given with a barrage of various pagan, Norse, Greek, Roman, and various Mythological gods and at the end of the list is “Yahweh.”

At first, the quotation and the list of gods seem like something of a powerful case against theism. We readily dismiss the existence of Thor, Apollo, Shiva, and many other contrived beings, and yet Christians are willing to devote their lives to this one specific God. The questions remains, what makes Yahweh so special?

When I come across people who hold, “when you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” In response, I dismiss all these other gods because simply there is no evidence for them. That’s what it all comes down to, evidence. There is historical, personal, ontological, teleological, cosmological, and axiological evidence that is extended to Yahweh and Yahweh alone.

The God of Christianity is the only being that meets all of the areas of evidence I just listed. So, Mr. Roberts, I cannot dismiss my God for the reason I dismiss these gods, because the evidence is just to compelling. Yahweh truly is the King of Kings and LORD of LORDS. He is the only being worthy of worship.

Searle goes on to explain that the man in the room is similar to a computer. While computers process information at an incredible rate, this does not entail they have the capacity to think about what they process. Artificial life, in order for it to be what most consider real, would have to not only produce inputs and outputs, but have thoughts on those inputs and outputs, or rather participate in a function found only in humans, the use of second order mental states. Second order mental states are essentially thoughts about thoughts. It would be impossible for a machine to do this. Indeed a machine could evaluate evidence and determine probabilities concerning various outcomes, but this is hardly second order mental states. I should note however, that in time, machines, or androids, or a type of AI could become so anthropomorphized that they are barely distinguishable from humans, but this hardly means a true artificial intelligence, but rather very clever and careful programming.

Back to the article. While there are some possibly very intriguing uses concerning the science mentioned in the article this is in no way creating life. Essentially this is more like the photocopying of a cell. The process includes, taking existing DNA, sequencing it, rebuilding and programing it, and  placing the DNA into an existing live cell and watching it grow according to how it was programmed. Now, I am not intending to diminish this fascinating work, but in no way is this creating life, it is merely the rearranging of created life.

One of the current trends in atheism is to either take anything that is somewhat of a breakthrough in a field of science and claim “this is an amazing breakthrough, therefore God does not exist.” Or use obscure religious beliefs or fringe cult members as evidence that God does not exist or the religious are merely mentally deficient. The first trend is really done without realizing it (or at least it seems most atheists don’t realize it) and therefore I am forced to go to these various atheist forums and make comments like “atheism?” or “why is this subject being discussed under the guise of atheism?” Usually no one responds to me. As for this article my response was, “why is this subject being discussed under and atheism forum? At times it seems like atheists are like those religious people who claim to see miracles everywhere, “I found my car keys, it’s a miracle,” instead the atheist claims, ’science did something really cool, therefore God does not exist!’” It is beyond the scope of this essay to argue this point further, but science and theism are in no way fundamentally contradictory.

As for the second trend, I always tell my students, “if you want to refute something, you must refute it at its best. If you had the choice to refute a ‘moral’ atheist who loves his wife, provides for his family, and gives to the poor, or refute an atheist who is a murdering rapist, we should choose to refute the better example of atheism.” When I first ask my students which of the two we should  refute, they usually miss the mark at first and assert the second man should be refuted. But I remind the student, Christianity can measure up to and overcome any other worldview at its best (not for any other reason then, the most superior being in all of existence would bestow the most superior worldview or lifestyle). Atheists like to point out pedophile priests or suicide bombers, but such claims are informal fallacies, stemming from (but not limited to) “red herring”, “poisoning the well”, and “straw man” and none address the fundamental evidence for theism. Atheists (and at times Christians too) think that if she were to sink another’s boat it would entail that her boat is floating. But this is not the case. Poking holes in the Christian worldview will in no way seal the holes of atheism (or vice versa). While lifestyle or actions should play somewhat of a role in determining the relative superiority of a worldview, the debate should come down to evidence. Who is more justified in believing what they believe.

It seems at best “strange” for an atheist to make the assertion “We are God.” and for the people that tout to hate religion they seem to make many religious claims. I hear atheists refer to their “conversion” to atheism. Despite other similar terminology atheists still vehemently maintain, “atheism is no religion.” Once I read an atheism argue, “atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.” Ok, but the very mention of such an argument leads me to believe that atheism is more then a lack of participation. Considering the example presented atheism is more like a man confronting a stamp collector and saying, “why do you collect stamps? That is a child’s hobby! Who even collects stamps, really?” As soon as someone is willing to fight for a belief (either verbal or physical) this begins to stretch into the realm of religion. Religion is essentially, whatever is most important to a person. It cannot be stated that having a belief in a or many supernatural beings is what necessitates a religion for many Buddhists are atheists. Buddha was an agnostic, he didn’t think the existence of God was a very important question. But who would claim devout monks who live in monasteries (and are atheists) are not religious? Further, many people do not know this, but the original humanist manifesto referred secular humanism as a religion and through reason and technology mankind would find salvation. This title again, backs the thesis that atheism is just another religion.

Since I spent so much space on these tangents, I will respond the article tomorrow.

When happiness and pleasure is focused on the LORD your joy and happiness does not fade when the world around you corrodes. Does this mean I have not cried at each of the events I mentioned? In no way! In fact I do not remember a time when I have cried so much. But the difference in my tears and the maintaining of happiness, as the apostle Paul stated mentions, we do not mourn as people without hope. If I placed my sole source of happiness in the unfortunate events that recently occurred I would be in shambles right now. But as it stands, I feel the pleasure and goodness of the LORD, I am influenced by His word, and dedicated to seeking Him.

Consider Job, here is a guy who loses everything. His family, wealth, health, and friends; and he boldly claims, “For He knows the way that I take and when He has tested me I shall come forth as gold.” If Job’s happiness and contentment was in any other source besides the LORD could he have uttered these words? Of course not, but since His everything was directed at the LORD He was able to be confident in his assertion.

I challenge you consider to what you place your hope and trust and happiness in? If it is anything but the LORD, you will find yourself to be most unhappy when events become unfortunate. Happy is he who trusts in the LORD.

And what about the justification from government officials? They claimed the average person could not understand the need for the bailout. Well, not only are people smart enough to know when something is amiss, consider vice president Biden’s explanation to a kid about the bailout, “We need to spend money so the country does not go bankrupt.” Are you kidding me? I wish I was there and I could ask Biden the question, “Hey, so I am struggling financially so I decided to follow your advice and spend money so I wouldn’t go bankrupt. However, as it turns out, reckless spending of money in no way prevents bankruptcy. If fact, it only hastens its arrival…explain!” People seem to think that a government is immune from normal rules of money management or even logic altogether. Are you kidding me? What makes a government so special that it doesn’t have to make sense? Was this not Orwell’s very thesis of the oppressive government in “1984”? In this book the government attempted to get people to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. This was such a crucial goal for the government because it knew that if people truly believed that something that did not make sense was true then anything could follow—if people believe that 2 and 2 is 5 they are open slabs of clay for molding. America, the bailout is our governments version of 2 + 2 = 5! There is no aspect of reality that makes sense that failing private companies should be saved by taxpayers money. In order for capitalism to work and be profitable the companies need to  fail. There is no doubt in my mind that an emerging company would buyout the failing one and things would continue. If you think I am jumping the gun, do a little research on the bailouts that occurred in Japan in the 90s. Find out how well that worked out.

Remember the great quotation from V for Vendetta, “People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of the people.”

Part three will be presented tomorrow.

But then “change” came to America! By change, Obama meant, keeping the patriot act, allowing wiretapping, continuing the imperialism overseas, and maintaining reckless spending! WHERE IS THE CHANGE? If you condemn Bushes foreign policy you must condemn Obama. Having a “D” by his name does not suddenly mean you must support all of his decisions. I am tired of people blindly following Obama. It is getting absurd, you cannot suddenly think fighting this war is a good idea, because Obama said it and not Bush.

So 30,000 more troops are being sent to a war torn nation. Are you telling me that a couple hundred men living in caves represent a clear and present danger to the United States?! BRING OUR TROOPS HOME! Our nation has enough issues to worry about without devastating another country for no reason whatsoever other then to assert our imperial prowess.
Part two will be presented tomorrow.

What is worth note is when I saw the man in trouble there was no deliberation or thought in my head. I saw a need and met it. True servitude is both thoughtful and mindless. If any of my readers know me, they will be shocked that I am claiming in any sense that it is good to be mindless, but allow me to continue.  Thoughtful servitude makes sense. We should be intentional in how we serve and help others and even in some situations plan on how to help and serve. When I say mindless, I mean we should act in all situations as a servant. Our servitude should not come down to deliberation. We should see a need and then meet that need.

Of course this does come with caution. For example, if your friend asks for money and you give it to him and he spends that money getting booze so he can get drunk. If he asks you for money again, you should not mindlessly hand the money over, but rather realize the greater act of servitude would be to not pay for him to sin against God. Therefore, servitude is both thoughtful and mindless. If these are separated servitude becomes less powerful.
I challenge you be a servant today, use your mind to be intentional in your actions, but be mindless in your deliberation to help! Take care, and God bless!