In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.
G. K. Chesterton, “The Drift from Domesticity.” In: The Thing (London: Sheed & Ward, 1929), p. 35.
Atheism in the Greek αθεος , meaning without God is a position that denies the existence of any deity. It is the opposite of theism which believes in the existence of God. Atheism simply rejects the belief that there is no need for a supernatural being to justify the existence of this universe. “Atheism views the universe as “all there is” – there is nothing beyond it – and atheists believe the universe arose purely by chance, without any intelligent cause whatsoever.” They also believe that God is man’s invention, hence devil does not exist either. Atheism views that absolute moral values do not have their independent existence by which we live. So, morality is either determined by the given situation or is relative.
 αθεος first appeared in the Epistles to the Ephesians 2:12 on the 3rd century Papyrus 46 (P46) in the New Testament, referring to those who were living without God. Nevertheless, this word is not found in the Koine Greek Version of the Old Testament.
 Norman Geisler and Joseph Holden, Living Loud: Defending your Faith (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Pub., 2002), 72. Print.
“It is utterly wrongheaded to say that something is “true for you but not for me.” For example, what if I think fascism is true and you think liberal democracy is equally true? Should the fascist’s repression be tolerated by the believer in liberal democracy? If not, on what grounds? Why not permit Stalinism or Satanism or Nazism? Without criteria to determine truth, this relativism fails miserably.”
 Paul Copan, True for You, but not for Me (Minnesota: Bethany House, 1998), P. 23.
"Who is Jesus..."
according to popular culture?
according to Matthew?
according to Mark?
according to Luke?
and according to you?
This is a fundamental question that was being raised over and over in the gospels. People around the world have also been asking the same question who Jesus really is. The same question Jesus asked Pharisees and his disciples in the first century who they think he was. This question remains and will continue to remain on the table for debate and explanation for the days to come. And our generation has a burden to tell the world who Jesus really is, as he is revealed to us in the gospel accounts and extra biblical materials.
ACCORDING OT POPULAR CULTURE
According to popular culture, Jesus is a man who was born into a nomadic people group in the vicinity of Palestine 2000 years ago. He is a good moral teacher and revolutionary leader. Probably, he is an apocalyptic teacher. In the throng of isms, some have very lowly view of Jesus. A person like Oprah Winfrey thinks that Jesus is a ‘guru’ who came to the world to awake our Christ’s consciousness that was non-operational in its deep slumber. He is a path or a god who can lead to the essence of all consciousness.
The another conception about Jesus in our present day culture is that he is a man who claimed to be the Messiah but failed miserably to live up to his own claim. He is a poor deluded guy. And some people are simply ignorant to all the historical facts and reject that he ever lived in this world. Continue reading Who is JESUS? →