This article was originally posted on Creation.com. Atheists credit the Gospel Two high-profile atheists concede that to get practical help to the poor and liberate them from poverty you need Christianity’s teaching about man’s place in the Universe
by David Catchpoole
Although an atheist, veteran British politician Roy Hattersley is considered something of an authority on the origins of the Salvation Army, since he wrote a best-selling biography of William and Catherine Booth.
Hence it wasn’t too surprising that a BBC program3 about the Salvation Army’s effectiveness sought his opinion on the subject. The narrator, Peter Day, put it to Hattersley that, “This sort of thing, a sort of social entrepreneurial drive which starts off out of a particular place and circumstances—those sorts of things often run out of steam after a generation or two. Is the Salvation Army in danger of running out of steam?”
Hattersley’s response was immediate and effusive:
“I don’t think the Salvation Army is remotely in danger of running out of steam. And I think it remains a vibrant organization because of its convictions. I’m an atheist. But I can only look with amazement at the devotion of the Salvation Army workers. I’ve been out with them on the streets and seen the way they work amongst the people, the most deprived and disadvantaged and sometimes pretty repugnant characters. I don’t believe they would do that were it not for the religious impulse. And I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid’ rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army.”
Roy Hattersley is not the only high-profile atheist to publicly note, grudgingly or otherwise, the fruit of the Gospel.
The Following article is from the website of Dr. David Levy, DrDLevy.com.
My heart was pounding wildly as I climbed the back stairs at the hospital and entered the pre-operative area. Nurses, anesthesiologists, and doctors rushed by holding charts, IV bags, and vials of medicine. I have some nervous anticipation before surgery, especially before complex cases, but am always the portrait of a confident neurosurgeon. Even the smells of the hospital — rubbing alcohol, latex, sterilized steel — trigger feelings of ascendancy in me.
But today I was terrified.
I had made up my mind to pray for a patient before surgery.
For years I had passing thoughts about praying for patients, not just in my head but in their presence. But I could not imagine what prayer would look like in the medical practice. In all my training and in practice, I had never seen a physician pray for a patient. The surgeon’s motto is “heal with steel.” Prayer is a polar opposite.
My own opinion of spirituality and medicine had changed a great deal since medical school. I had always believed that spirituality and medicine were weakly connected and could be explained by the placebo effect. But as I grew in my appreciation for the connection between our physical and spiritual lives, my opinion changed.
One Saturday I was in the dentist’s chair preparing to have a filling replaced. My dentist friend had the Novocaine syringe with the long needle in his hand. Like most surgeons, I hate having the needle or scalpel turned on me. My dentist friend sensed my apprehension, put his other hand on my shoulder, and said a short prayer asking God to guide his hands during the procedure. A sense of peace washed over me. The procedure went fine, and I went home feeling not just fixed but encouraged.
That confirmed to me that God wanted me to pray with my patients before surgery and transmit that same kind of peace to them. But I remained skeptical and kept giving God my best reasons against it.
The Following article is from the website of Dr. David Levy, DrDLevy.com.
If God hasn’t offended you yet, He will. This principle is seen throughout The Bible (See Biblical Lessons on Offense blog post). Our response to offense is important to any relationship including our relationship with God. What we are willing to suffer without immediate explanation demonstrates how much value we have in the relationship. If I didn’t show up for an appointment with you, causing you to be inconvenienced, you would expect an apology the next time we see each other. In fact, there would be tension in our relationship until I explained why I inconvenienced you. With God, we often feel inconvenienced by a presumed lack of help, but often, we receive no explanation.
When we really want something for ourselves or our loved ones, and it appears God doesn’t care or doesn’t respond favorably, the pain can cause offense, since God could have given us our desire. We may not see it at first but anger and bitterness with others is traceable to God, who claims ultimate responsibility. Working through offense with God is an overlooked and underestimated obstacle to maturity, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and self-control. It is here we have an unprecedented opportunity to trust God when we don’t get our desires.
Many people are angry at God for things in life that have not turned out the way they planned. It might be akin to an individual desiring immediate surgery because of great pain, but not having the experience to see that the pain will improve with time, and surgery may not be the answer, in fact, they may be worse off than before surgery. When God allows tragedy/pain/suffering, it is tempting to reason that either God is not good, not loving, not all-powerful, or not ultimately responsible.
This excellent article soundly debunks the “science-versus-religion” mythology that has grown up around the life of 17th century astronomer Galileo Galilei. It was originally posted on Creation.com.
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
by Thomas Schirrmacher
The 17th century controversy between Galileo and the Vatican is examined. Fifteen theses are advanced, with supporting evidence, to show that the Galileo affair cannot serve as an argument for any position on the relation of religion and science. Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.
The process against Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in the 17th century is frequently used as an argument against creationist scientists and theologians, who make their belief in the trustworthiness of the Bible the starting point of their scientific research. Absolute faith in the Bible, critics say, blinds creationists to scientific progress and hinders science. Thus, Hatisjorg and Wolfgang Hemminger wrote in their book against creationism:
‘Today’s Creationism … turns against the great Christian naturalists of the 15th and 16th century, against Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton. It repeats the proceeding against Galileo and argues in principle with the Inquisitors, for the issue at the trial was, among other things, whether the natural scientist had the freedom to set experimentation and observation above Scripture … . Today’s Creationists in principle have the same standpoint as the Inquisitors because they follow their empirical-biblicistic method.’1
This, of course, is nonsense. Galileo was a scientist who believed in the trustworthiness of the Bible and sought to show that the Copernican (heliocentric) system was compatible with it. He was fighting against the contemporary principles of Bible interpretation which, blinded by Aristotelian philosophy, did not do justice to the biblical text. Galileo was not blamed for criticising the Bible but for disobeying papal orders. Today, most creation scientists read the Bible differently from the contemporary school of biblical interpretation, i.e. higher criticism, and therefore are criticised by the liberal theological establishment and by natural scientists.
The picture of the Vatican process against Galileo Galilei, used by the Hemmingers and others, is not drawn from historical research but from heroic hagiography. The picture of a life-and-death battle between a completely narrow-minded Christian church and an ingenious and always objective natural science in the Galileo affair depends on too many legends.
How do abortionists describe preborn children and the violent abortion procedures they perform on them? A video has gone viral that exposes what abortionists admit when they don’t realize the cameras are rolling.
Live Action‘s “What is Human?” undercover investigative video probes America’s late-term abortion industry, and reveals chilling admissions from abortionists on the humanity of children in the womb. The video, which has garnered millions of views on Facebook and YouTube combined, has been shared approximately 50,000 times, and counting. “What is Human?” details the willingness of abortionists to brutally slaughter babies able to survive outside the womb, and exposes the violent and inhumane nature of late-term abortion procedures that occur daily in abortion facilities.
On Thursday night, Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, participated in a debate about gay marriage. We’ve assembled some of the key moments and exchanges from that debate here.
>>> Ryan T. Anderson will be on ABC’s “This Week” this Sunday to discuss gay marriage and the Supreme Court. Tune in!