Why CNN can't be trusted

Trump-hating agents of disinformation, CNN, decided to "fact-check" Republican speakers.

They love to lump "lies" with "misleading statements" because they stretch a statement to make it seem like one word might possibly be a tiny bit misleading (even though the rest of the statement is true), but they make people believe it's outright lies.

It's disingenuous.

Louder with Crowder is on the ball with this one! Take a watch:

A quick fact-check on Jacob Blake

Recently, another black man was shot by police.

Articles like this are widespread. This is what you get if you do a simple search. They are responsible for the new wave of peaceful protests riots, as people 'react' rather than seek the truth like decent human beings would.

Everything is disingenuous.

Firstly, Jacob Blake was not killed, he was shot. Similar wording to other recent incidents is used because the fake news media know that people won't do their research. If similar wording is used, then a similar response will happen, despite the guy not being killed.

Secondly, Jacob Blake was a criminal. Not only had he done things in the past, but there was a current warrant out for his arrest.

Thirdly, Jacob Blake had already shown himself to be a threat to the public, having pulled a gun and aiming it the bartender and patrons at a bar.

Fourthly, and most importantly, when the police came to speak with him and arrest him, HE RESISTED. The point cannot be stressed enough. He actively fought police officers, refused to follow their instructions, walked around his car and reached inside for "something".

Disingenuous reporters will say that because the officers did not know what he was reaching for, they were therefore unjustified in shooting him. The reality is that if the officers do not know what a person is reaching for, they will assume it is a weapon and will defend themselves.

We all know how quickly a gun can wound or kill. The officers can only protect the public if they themselves are protected. A dead or hospitalised cop can't protect anyone.

The shooting was justified.

Jacob Blake is no hero.

The Sneaky Coronavirus

A comment from a YouTube video:

COVID-1984 is all garbage.

This coronavirus is the strangest virus I’ve ever heard of.
It’s very dangerous in the way it spreads.
It is so mysterious the way it lurks in schools, but then dies at Home Depot.
It can wreak havoc in churches; praying people are exceptionally vulnerable!
Although it’s mind-boggling how it vanishes when people stand close together holding signs, destroying businesses, homes, property, monuments, etc.
Yet, standing to watch a marathon or a concert triggers its wrath.
It is sneaky.
It can spread when buying clothes at Kohl’s but not at Target.
It is non-alcoholic. It can’t spread when you are buying beer.
It lives for two days on Amazon boxes, you must wait 48 hours to touch them but it can’t survive on Dunkin' Donuts coffee cups, so enjoying a hot cup of joe is safe.
It is the most curious thing, how it lives on basketballs, baseball bats and ballet bars, but dies on WWE ropes and Walmart shopping carts.
It is spread by hair stylists, dog groomers, and dentists, but not by bank tellers, cashiers, and fast food workers.
It’s so smart.
It won’t bother the first 10 people gathered but it knows when the 11th person shows up, so be careful if that’s you!
It even knows what you want vs. what you need.
If you want a massage or your nails done it is very actively on the prowl and not even a mask can stop it, but if you need a plumber, it is weak, and a mask will keep it away.
It also seems to be most dangerous after 5:30pm so businesses must start to close before the virus comes out of hiding and wreaks havoc upon the populations.
It also requires dine-in restaurants to have a shorter menu and you use real plates but only plastic forks and spoons.

Whoever heard of such a clever, sneaky virus?!?

Christian evangelism... bigoted??

 I was recently directed to a Reddit question:

Why must we evangelize...especially when it doesn't work and is considered bigoted?

I'm a Christian who doesn't understand the concept of evangelizing...it's literally foreign to me. So Christians are expected to convince non believers who want empirical evidence of God's existence, when the bedrock of Christianity is faith in Jesus? Please refer to Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Faith ≠ evidence, and pretending otherwise is wilful denial.

And I'll tackle the criticisms I'm bound to receive; Jesus preached (He also performed miracles i.e. proof), as did the Apostles (but they also had the Holy Spirit which blessed people).

Furthermore, modern Christianity is viewed as a bigoted colonial religion (thanks America! /s) and its depiction in the media is less than flattering. Any motivation I had to even try is down the drain when I consider those optics...

God is going to have to be mad at me because I really don't think evangelizing is impactful in the 21st century. I'm a private believer and encourage other Christians to act the same. We can help people and show God's love through our actions. If anything, words seem to turn people away.

Anyone else feel this way?

 

My response:

I want to break down the question to help with the understanding, then answer step-by-step:

1. What is "evangelism"?

2. How should we evangelise?

3. Who is to evangelise?

4. What is "evidence" of God?

5. What makes something "bigoted"?

1. What is "evangelism"?

Evangelism is simply telling others the good news about Jesus. This message can be communicated in just a few sentences:

- The world is bad (just turn on the news).

- There is a God who loves us. - Jesus came into the world (as God's representative, filled with the Holy Spirit, etc.).

- Evil people didn't like him, so killed him.

- God used his death as the sacrifice that renews all who choose to believe in him.

- (There is a better world to come.)

People often want more than just this, but this is "the message" of evangelism (certain denominations will tweak parts or emphasise different bits). When such a message is communicated, evangelism has taken place. Often, discussion about Christian topics will include aspects of this "Gospel message", even though those discussions were not intending to be evangelistic. Most Bible study has an evangelistic element because it is very hard to discuss (in depth) any part of Scripture without touching on Jesus, sacrifice, etc.

[Note that the sentences above do not mention "hell". Some people feel that evangelism must include mention of hell, but I disagree (people are welcome to prove me wrong, but I'd want Scriptural evidence). This is because the idea of hell is usually misunderstood, poorly communicated, turns more people away than draws them closer, and not many people have a logical explanation when probed about it.]

2. How should we evangelise?

There is no "correct" method to evangelise. Some methods are more effective than others.

- Personally, I don't like the street preaching method, as usually it's someone yelling at people as they pass by... not many people stop to listen. This is hugely contrasted with Jesus who had crowds running to him to hear him. So, in my view, something is wrong with this, but I wouldn't condemn people who do it, because it does take a lot of guts.

- Some people like to get to know people, build up a relationship, then spread the message slowly, over time, through chat and discussion. This, in my experience, has the most long-lasting effects. Because it is a slow process, there is plenty of time to look things up, learn more, etc. Because of the friendship, the element of trust means that you aren't necessarily expected to have all the answers, and can explore together. (I would not consider "meeting for a coffee" to be evangelism unless there is the intention to talk about God.)

- Courses (such as the Alpha Course) can sometimes be good. These usually work best when people are seriously exploring the Christian faith, as it requires a commitment to a regular scheduled session.

- Some people prefer to let their actions speak for them, by doing charitable things. It can be very easy to get caught up in the events and forget the message, which would make it a "good deed" but not "evangelism". That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, just that people often kid themselves into thinking it is evangelism when it doesn't contain the message. It's also worth finding out about the organisation: many non-Christian organisations do charitable events. A Christian may see the benefit, and it may help them spread God's love to others, but "spreading God's love" is not "evangelism" unless the message is communicated as well. It cannot be stated enough that such things are not bad! Just don't be misled into thinking that all good deeds constitute "evangelism" specifically.

- Oftentimes evangelism can take place before we even realise! If someone asks, "why do you believe [something]?" Often, the answer can include the message. Personally, wherever I go, people know I am a Christian. I don't hide it. I also don't talk about it every minute, as that would turn people off (and make holding down a job pretty tough). But it means that people know they can ask me for a Christian perspective on issues, and it means I can say, "Well, as a Christian..." without the awkward silence followed by the question, "Wait, you're a Christian?!" That ice is already broken, and the discussion/conversation can then be about my comment. Most people will accept that you are a Christian, if you don't turn out to be one of those who never shuts up about it.

3. Who is to evangelise?

People often twist Matthew 28:19-20. Yes, it is referring to all followers of Jesus. Yes, it means your whole life, not just certain events or conversations (understanding the Greek of "go"). However, it does NOT say, "Therefore go and evangelise to all nations." It says "make disciples". That is a huge difference. The act of "making disciples" includes:

- Evangelising.

- Baptising.

- Further Bible study.

- Joining a community of believers (whether that's church, home group, etc.).

- Encouragement to be active in the faith to continue the process.

It is simply not good enough to seek "converts" then leave them to struggle on their own. Sadly, I see this happen all too often. Many "evangelists" count "success" by the number of converts they have made. True success is found in the number who stick out the faith until the end.

Ephesians 4:11-13 shows that there are many aspects to equipping the believers: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers. Why is "evangelist" a designated group like the others, if we are all to evangelise, but not all to be a prophet? Some people argue that we really are all called to do every aspect, but personally, I find that hard to justify. Some people are better suited to leading Bible studies. Others to pastoring (admittedly, some "pastors" are really bad a pastoring!), etc. All are involved in the work of "making disciples", and we should all be ready to give an answer for our beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), but I find it difficult to believe that all people are instructed to specifically be "evangelists". Is the disabled person who can't speak excluded from this? The Bible doesn't say "except for certain people". No. Instead, such people can still be actively engaged in "making disciples", without the burden of being forced to "evangelise" as well.

4. What is "evidence" of God?

There are many forms of evidence. Observational evidence is what science heavily relies upon. Repeated observances lead to theories and then proves them into being facts. Sometimes observational evidence is hard to come by: no one has lived long enough to actually witness the mutational changes of evolution, and so there is an inference, which is why it remains the "theory" of evolution. (Note: "theories" are not to be confused with "theorems" in mathematics. "Theorems", like Pythagoras' Theorem, are facts, not "theories".) Inferences are not facts, and that becomes the realm of philosophy. Then there is historical evidence: accounts written by people nearer the time, or by people who have studied a particular event in great depth. Most people are happy with historical evidence (unless it applies to "Was Jesus real?" then, ironically, they become irrationally sceptical!).

Interestingly, when it comes to evidence for God, atheists fall back on "scientific" evidence as the only acceptable form. That is simply not the case, and, as has rightly been pointed out, if God could be "scientifically proven" then there would be no need for "faith" whatsoever. Is this a clever trick from the writer of the Bible, to delude people in following something make-believe? Well, it's pretty clever that there's a strong and clearly defined explanation of "faith" throughout the Bible, which was written over a number of centuries by a lot of different people! But also, many people claim to have experienced God in various ways: feelings, experiences, specific and timely advice, healings, etc. The atheist would have to discount every single one of those experiences. I would encourage all people to have a watch of Darren Wilson's "The Finger of God" (2007), as a way of avoiding being so narrow-minded in their view of the ways in which God can work.

Why doesn't God always work in the same way for all people? That's a huge question, which I won't explore here, but suffice to say that if God did that, then there again be no need for faith.

Science only tests the physical world. The Bible says that "God is spirit" (John 4:24). So therefore, science will never be able to "prove" God's existence. Why do atheists demand it? Because they deny (the true atheists, at least) the existence of anything that is not physical. They need to be called out on the bad logic. They need to learn to not be so narrow-minded to think that the physical world is all there is to our existence.

Wisdom can be found in knowing that not understanding something does not, per se, mean it does not exist.

5. What makes something "bigoted"?

A "bigot" is: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Personally, I'm not "intolerant" other people, creeds, beliefs or opinions, and I will happily discuss differences to find a logical path through life. But who's the bigot? The person who says, "Marriage should only be between a man and a woman," or the person who says, "All people should be free to marry whoever they want (and if you disagree with me, I'm going to insult you!)"? Most people who throw the words "bigot" and "intolerant" around are usually intolerant bigots themselves. To such people, I ask, "Why do you not tolerate my views?" or "Why do you hate my view so much that you want to silence me?"

"Intolerance" and "bigotry" is seen in our actions, not in our beliefs. I have friends from all religions, differing sexualities, opposite political perspectives, etc. I value all people simply because they are "people". But all opinions are not equal. I do not believe it is right to murder someone (I would argue that self-defence and war are big topics, but don't necessarily count as "murder"). I do not believe it is right to steal. I think that beliefs to the contrary are morally inferior on that topic. This can be explored through civilised and rational debate, because that respects the person of the opposing view. But to shout and scream "You're a bigot!" is an act of intolerance in the highest regard.

As a Christian, I take seriously 1 Peter 3:15, which I mentioned earlier, about always being ready to give a reasoned account for what I believe. I also take seriously the last part of that verse: "but do this with gentleness and respect." Those who scream "Bigot!" have neither (but then, they don't base their lives on the Bible, so I don't expect them have gentleness or respect!).