Following on from a similar testimony a couple of months ago I thought I might post the following extract of a newsletter from Creation Ministries International received this week:
"The really special, deep joy is of course whenever one finds out about someone brought from darkness into the marvellous light of the Gospel, as God is gracious to use us 'earthen vessels'.
One of these occasions involved one of our CMI speakers, prior to his retirement after 3 years ministry in Sydney—Warwick Armstrong. He told us recently of the exciting story of Sai-Chung C. who actually contacted CMI to get in touch with Warwick a few months ago. Warwick wrote":
'Sai-Chung was an atheist activist attending church to study Christianity — so as to be effective in undermining it! I gave a talk at this Chinese church ... in 2003. I vaguely remember a group of young Chinese University students coming forward afterwards, and asking many questions.'
"Warwick told us that the aim of this group was to challenge the creation speaker, but it was they who were challenged. In an email, Sai-Chung told us that this encounter was what God used to very quickly thereafter bring him to Christ. He is now a youth group leader in the Chinese Extension Church of one of the largest churches in Australia. As Warwick puts it":
'How extraordinary and exciting to be part of such a wonderful event! Truth is a mighty weapon.'
"But there is more. Sai-Chung's reason for contacting CMI to search for Warwick was to gain his assistance in polishing Sai-Chung's first-ever creation talk, to 70 high school and university students at the University of Technology, Sydney.
Warwick attended that presentation, along with CMI's Dr Mark Harwood, also based in Sydney. Warwick wrote that it was an impressive, God-honouring first-time effort, and said":
'What an overwhelming experience to listen to an ex-atheist holding forth on the truth of God's Word and the lie of evolution. What a truly emotional experience it was for me to see this regenerated man infusing hope and challenge to the young believers present. It was a bold, strong challenge placed before those yet to believe. Can there be anything more exciting and rewarding than this, to see this fruit which will be there for eternity? I doubt it. Definitely not.'
Events such as the turn around in this young man's life would not have occurred with responses given by Archbishop Jensen in a recent debate with Atheists in Sydney.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
Sai-Chung was never an atheist. If he had been one of us he would not have left us.
A couple of months ago you wrote about an anonymous conversion without providing any evidence of that person's. Is this Sai-Chung and Chinese Extension Church even real?
Peter, I have spoken to the Warwick Armstrong mentioned in the blog. Warwick's going to fix ya. Just you wait, Warwick's gunna fix ya!
Sam Drucker
Peter, Sai-Chung uniquely knows whether he was atheist or not.
You don’t!
His atheistic associates know that he was an atheist by the evidence of his word, and his activism.
You don’t!
I have his letter, where he tells the full story.
You don’t!
I have spoken with him by phone, at length.
You haven’t!
I have also spent time with him and heard him speak to a group at university, about his conversion from atheism.
You haven’t!
In fact you know nuthin!! In reality you write surrounded by the gloom of ignorance of the facts, fuelled by bigotry!
Warwick
Peter,
I clicked on to your name. Nothing. No information, no nothing. Just like the evolutionary fairy tale. No infor can't create something grander and more important and more complex. You don't exist man, because we know, ex nihilo, nihilo fit. You don't exist and can't generate nothing. Face it man, you are a no thing! And even if youu were something, you can't be much more than [falsely] glorified pond scum!
Peter says "Sai-Chung was never an atheist. If he had been one of us he would not have left us."
Hey, man, that's exactly what scientologists and other weirdo cults say. "Would never have left us" Whoa! mighty, mighty scary.
Unable to change your mind Peter? Pretty, pretty bizarre mate!
Peter, the recurring theme is that you respond to Theist propositions with blind objection.
Instances of people who were Atheists but who worked through issues found cause to give up Atheism are derided by you. This reads like someone who wants to be an Atheist rather than reaching that position by reason.
Can you tell me why you want to be an Atheist?
Sam Drucker
Warwick,
Why are you so defensive and aggressively name calling? Why don't you provide some evidence? Oh, I know... you don't have any.
And I don't need know if Sai-Chung thought he was an atheist. My friend John said that if Sai-Chung had belonged to us, he would have remained with us; but Sai-Chung's going showed that he did not belonged to us.
John,
You said:
"Hey, man, that's exactly what scientologists and other weirdo cults say. "Would never have left us" Whoa! mighty, mighty scary."
I think you are right. Only a weirdo cults holy text would say:
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
So do you think pond scum is an image of God? More likely your first guess is that "no thing" is an image of God is right.
sam drucker,
You are confusing "blind objection" with asking for evidence. Funny how no Christian here is asking evidence for Sai-Chung's conversion, but they all are taking it by blind faith. Asking for evidence here causes all out Christian attack. That's blindness for you.
And I don't "want to be an Atheist". I would rather want to believe in eternaly heavenly party, but there seems to no good evidence for that.
BTW, I like your article's title. Some people can't take the cold hard facts, but do need to be warm and fuzzy emotional religious "answers".
Peter, I am sorry if you were offended by what I wrote. Just having a bit of fun with you. What you said was born of complete ignorance of the facts though wasn't it?
As regards evidence I would have imagined I made a case. I have first hand knowledge of the situation: what he wrote to me, what he said to me, and what he said to the group at university. As you should know this is good enough to take to court.
Conversely you only have your opinion. Absolutely no evidence there!
Peter, having once been in a fight when three or four opponents jumped on me at once I am loathe to have you deal with three opponents at once.
I have a response but would prefer that you deal with Warwick and John first and at what seems a better time in a day or two I will respond to what you have put to me.
Sam Drucker
Warwick,
No offence taken. You are just completely confused what kind of evidence you have.
You don't have first hand evidence as you claim. Only Sai-Chung has first hand evidence of his experience. What you have is second hand hear say in a form of personal testimony. Personal testimony is the worst possible evidence of anything especially when you accept it hook line and sinker without checking the facts and getting offended when challenged.
But all this is a red herring so is this Sai-Chung and Chinese Extension Church even real?
Sam Drucker,
Not to worry. Warwick is confused without any evidence and John has not even read the Bible, so they take no effort to brush aside. ;-) Go for it.
Peter, what you call my defensive attitude is in reality boredom accumulated from dealing with people who know nothing but proclaim it loudly, and with conviction.
BTW I accept by faith that Peter is your real name. I have less than hearsay evidence of that.
If you are a rational person you must know you have no evidence you could tender in court. Regarding hearsay I read this on a website: "Adopting the colloquial definition of hearsay, most evidence in court is hearsay: the judge or jury hear what witnesses say about things the witnesses saw or heard." Likewise I have Sai-Chungs letter where he says he was an atheist, giving details of his activism and recounting the events leading to his conversion, to Christianity. I also have the recollection of a long phone discussion with him where such details were discussed, at length.
I attended a talk at university where he again gave the details of his atheistic belief and his subsequent conversion. I repeat this for you as you have not come to grips with the fact that this is eye-witness testimony. Eyewitness testimony may not always be totally reliable but it sure trumps your zero evidence. You don't even have 7th hand information, to support your view!
What should I have done Peter, demanded he supply proof? Should I have asked to see the operation scar upon his head? Or maybe he could have given me the secret atheist sign? Maybe he could have sworn to tell the truth upon a copy of the Sceptic?
I know the truth Peter,you don't and I have no need to prove anything to you. I have replied out of courtesy.
Have I asked you to prove whatever you believe? Could you? How?
Peter,
I have only two words to say to you re "genuine" atheists never leaving atheism.......Anthony Flew!
Peter,
You quote the Bible ("They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.") and use this as the test to see whether someone is a true atheist? It's a bit parasitical and highly unoriginal, wouldn't you say? Aren't you atheists capable of thinking of your own test to know whether your fellow atheists are wolves in sheep's clothing?
Warwick,
Like so many Christians you get your socks crossed when someone asks for evidence. You have not even supplied his church details, his full name or contact details. Please be honest and just admit it; Sai-Chungs was never an atheist, he is just a figment of your imagination. You made him up.
John,
You must feel silly calling your own religion a "weirdo cult" but don't worry, we agree on this.
Anthony Flew was never an atheist. If he had been one of us he would not have left us.
Who said the Bible has the original version of this. Weirdo cults have been around before Christianity and the Bible is just copies of older moral laws and mythical tribal stores. And what's wrong using the biblical criteria anyway? Surely it is ok with you.
Peter, you give no indication that you want something better than Atheism because you refuse to accept reasonable testimony in what Warwick has said and what he has received from one claiming to have once been an Atheist and is no more.
It is very poor hermeneutics for you to rip out of the Word of God a principle of Apostle John and apply it to Atheist doctrine (thanks for the faint praise of the Word of God though). The reason for this is that the Apostle John founded the principle on something Atheists deny i.e. Holy Spirit. You can't just rip 1 John 1:19 away in isolation from the rest of his first Epistle. Look at 1 John 3:24 which indicates that a Christian is someone who has received the Holy Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit bears fruit in the recipient and the Apostle John saw in the behaviour of those "who went out from us" sufficient to make the claims about them which you have quoted.
It is somewhat bizarre that you, a professed Atheist, should adopt a principle which has it origin and application in something that Atheists deny i.e. a supernatural Spiritual Being!
I see it so often. Atheists say and do things that are so foolish and contrary to what attempt to uphold.
I do wish you would come out of Atheism like others have done. A joyful knowledge of the future experiencing the full Glory of God beyond this life and a warm comfort to endure the trials of this life await you if you do come in from the cold.
Should you accept the Word of God fully you would have some terrific company like Warwick, John and myself. Now, that is something to look forward to!!! You shouldn't falter at that point because the Holy Spirit will change your attitude toward us and, well, we will be continued in change for the better but already we would gladly accept you.
Peter I feel no real need to prove anything to you. I have given solid evidence which you choose to ignore. I doubt you would accept any evidence. For example if I asked Sai-Chung to blog here would you believe what he wrote? I am confident you wouldn't, so what is the point?
I have no right to give Sai-Chung's name or the exact church he attends. The point is that I know the truth of the situation, you don't. You have only doubt based upon bigotry.
I once gave the name of the church I attend on this blog and an unpleasant character who blogged here contacted my pastor in a vain attempt to discredit me. Why would I give such as you the opportunity to so treat Sai-Chung?
Peter now I come to think of it I made you up.
Sam Drucker,
Personal testimony is the worst kind of evidence which you also reject if it comes from a non-Christian religious source. I do "want
something better than Atheism" but the cold truth is better than warm false religion, so I'll stay out in the cold.
If Apostle John can make his claim without supernatural evidence why can't I use the same method? Surely rationalisation after the
event is allowed ;-)
I don't really wish to come out of atheism to become angry Christian and start calling non-Christians derogatory names. And if hanging out with you guys depends on my views on some issues then no thanks. Real friends don't do that and I don't need fake friends. Two of my Christian friends don't want to see me after they found out that I'm an atheist, but most of my Christian friends don't mind that. So here is a tip: to find out who your real friends are tell them that you are an atheist.
Warwick,
Telling a story of someone experience and only providing a first name is not "solid evidence". It is just a simple claim without evidence. You don't have to prove anything, but come on just provide some evidence.
Did you become a Christian because you don't understand the difference between:
- "first hand evidence" and "the second hand hear say in a form of personal testimony"
- "solid evidence" and "claim without evidence"
If I convert to Christianity do I also have to call non-Christian bigots like you do?
Peter, your comment: If Apostle John can make his claim without supernatural evidence why can't I use the same method? Surely rationalisation after the event is allowed" is as invalid as your initial 'steal' of a Christian principle. You are in no position to deny the experience of Apostle John some 2,000 years ago. He wrote much of the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 14) and his Epistles affirm his experience. There is more but for brevity I will leave it at that.
[R]ationalism after the event is not permitted if you deny the foundation upon which the principle is introduced to the world.
I can confirm the activity of the Holy Spirit in my life since reception. Things I held dearly and anticipated as part of my life until death (but which were no good for me) have been subjected to a totally different attitude and excluded from my life. That which I had scorned beforehand (but which was good for me) I now embrace wholeheartedly - all according to the expressed will of God. This I am convinced was the work of God's indwelling Holy Spirit.
Emotional finger pointing has no merit as a response. I could easily produce (from the Web) name calling by Atheists toward those with differing views to their own. Get over it! - your record going back a couple of years on this blogspot is not pure.
It sounds like anything you can throw up as cause to reject Jesus Christ is your first resort every time.
Such blind objection has its root cause. The world wide web is not the place to share that but I just want you to know that 'your slip is showing'.
Sam Drucker
Peter,
You make me laugh mate. Actually cry is more accurate. You say Flew was never a real atheist. You are either very young and don't know how influential Flew was or you are just plain stubborn and won't accept any contrary evidence to your belief structure (thus making you about as unscientific as those who believe that great religion evolution).
But of course, you are an evolutionist. How sad that you've become involved in that weirdo cult. Say hullo from all of us here to your high priest Richard Dawkins.
How about explaining why someone wasn't a real atheist if they see the truth and become a theist?
sam drucker,
You said:
"You are in no position to deny the experience of Apostle John some 2,000 years ago."
And you are in no position to deny what Mohammed and Joseph Smith the experience a while ago. Fail!
You said:
"[R]ationalism [sic] after the event is not permitted if you deny the foundation upon which the principle is introduced to the world."
Having no foundation (=supernaturalism) is no better position to base one's rationalisation (not rationalism)
you said:
"I can confirm the activity of the Holy Spirit in my life since reception."
And Mohammed did confirm the activity of Allah in his life and Joseph Smith also confirmed the activity of the Holy Spirit in his life. You are in a good company.
you said:
"Emotional finger pointing has no merit as a response. I could easily produce (from the Web) name calling by Atheists toward those with differing views to their own. Get over it! - your record going back a couple of years on this blogspot is not pure."
Name calling atheists are not real atheists. You are a name calling real Christian. I don't want to become a name calling person. If I name called you before (can't remember that) then I was not a real atheist back then. ;-)
John,
What's wrong with the religion of evolution? You make it sound like "religion" is a bad word. How come all discussion here eventually go to evolution? I name this offspring of Godwin's law to Peter's law.
John, first you affirmed that you believe in a weirdo cult, now you think I'm in a weirdo cult(s). Is there anyone who is not in a weirdo cult according to your world view? Please don't utter R_____d D_____s name in vain. It's offensive.
you asked:
"How about explaining why someone wasn't a real atheist if they see the truth and become a theist?"
Your question has inherent contradiction. There is no truth in theism so an atheist cannot see the truth and become a theist.
Peter, you said:
"And you are in no position to deny what Mohammed and Joseph Smith the experience a while ago. Fail!"
Unacceptable! The subject is the invalidity of your adoption (or stealing) of a principle when the foundation of the principle is something you reject. If you want to venture into debate stick to the protocol of debate.
To resort to diversion is admission of defeat.
You said:
"Having no foundation (=supernaturalism) is no better position to base one's rationalisation (not rationalism)"
Unacceptable! You are yet to demonstrate the non existence of the Holy Spirit.
You said:
"And Mohammed did confirm the activity of Allah in his life and Joseph Smith also confirmed the activity of the Holy Spirit in his life. You are in a good company."
Again, introduction of Allah is an irrelevant diversion! As to Joseph Smith and the Holy Spirit - you have to examine whether the activity of the Spirit Joseph Smith speaks of is consistent with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. You will find it is not and is thus ruled out of our discussion.
You said:
"You are a name calling real Christian."
Present your case please?
Sam Drucker
Peter,
I won't be responding further to you. I guess once you hit 30 or so you may understand. You seem quite young and hold to principles (e.g. wasn't a true believer) regardless of contrary evidence. So, really, there is no point in debating. I'm way older and life is far too short to debate with someone who is not even going to disinterestedly examine counter-factuals.
One question: How many anti-evolution books have you read?
Sam Drucker,
Your foundation is by faith, mine by experience. Why is your any better?
You asked:
"You are yet to demonstrate the non existence of the Holy Spirit"
You offer a red herring and ask to prove a negative by shifting the burden of proof. Good work Sam!
Why do you think Joseph Smith speaks is not consistent with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. I haven't found any evidence to your view. We have eyewitnesses to Joseph's golden plates and miracles, where did those miracle then come from?
John,
You are right no point in debating. Luckily your hold to principles based on evidence and not by faith ;-)
I have read Behe's Darwin's Black Box and excepts of The Edge of Evolution. I have listen to couple of his lectures. I'm familiar with Stephen C. Meyer's and William Dembski's work and I used to subscribe to "ID The Future Podcast".
One question: How many anti-Gravity books have you read?
Peter, it is difficult to follow your case because you don't seem to maintain a regular stream of thought. Further, you don't take in information that is given you.
In your most recent comments you said:
"Your foundation is by faith, mine by experience. Why is your any better?"
As I have already indicated, my experience is also involved because I can attest to what the Holy Spirit of God has done in my life. Yes, faith is involved but experience also. I would contend that faith is also required by you to believe what you do about Atheism. After all, your experience has its limitations in a big universe and is also confined to a relatively small period of time.
You said:
"You offer a red herring and ask to prove a negative by shifting the burden of proof."
What on earth are you talking about? You had earlier said "Having no foundation (=supernaturalism) is no better position to base one's rationalisation (not rationalism)" I admit it is sometimes difficult to grasp what you intended because of you cryptic assembly of words but I presumed you meant to deny the supernatural viz Holy Spirit to justify your commandeering of the Apostle John's principle. If I was correct in understanding what you were implying (and please make it clearer if you weren't) then you need to make your case for removing the Holy Spirit from valid belief to deny His existence.
Logic dismisses your assertion of a "red herring". Your attempt to commandeer a principle while denying the foundation of the principle leaves your argument baseless.
You said:
"Why do you think Joseph Smith speaks is not consistent with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. I haven't found any evidence to your view."
The Apostle John speaks much of what Jesus Christ foreshadowed about the Holy Spirit eg John 16:12-16. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth about Jesus Christ and reminds the disciples cum Apostles of all Jesus had said about Himself including that He and the Father are One. Jesus Christ is God in the Person of the Son.
Joseph Smith could not accept this so who or whatever it was that gave Joesph Smith a revelation it was not the Holy Spirit of God because He must be true to Himself.
Now, once again. You said:
"You are a name calling real Christian."
Present your case please?
Sam Drucker
Peter,
Young man: Go away and do some research on what we hold to be true here. Go away and read books providing the scientific evidence. I said anti-evolution books, not ID.
And your three books isn't a big number, son. I'm writing a paper for a journal now on evolution and ethics and so far have read 75 books and about 100 papers by evolutionists in order to ''plough deeply''.
If you really were scientific and honest in your approach to truth you'd have read some basic works by men such as Werner Gitt, John Sanford, A.E. Wilder Smith, Lee Spetner etc etc.
I suppose we here at SAH can overlook your youthful ignorance - we were there once too - however, it's time to grow up kiddo and stretch your cerebral areas and begin to think for yourself.
I just had a catch up phone call with Dr Carl Wieland who some of you would know is CEO of the Christian organization Creation Ministries International. Interestingly Carl was an atheist in his university days but now is a very dedicated and effective Christian apologist.
So much for atheists not becoming Christian.
He is about to release a new book One Human Family, which sounds very interesting.
Some of you may have seen the public debate Carl had with Dr Paul Willis (Paleontologist and science journalist)some years ago. A vote on the night found Dr Wieland to be the clear winner.
In march last year some of the scientists from Creation Ministries challenged Richard Dawkins,(the atheist rabble-stirrer)and other atheistic scientists to a public debate. They declined. Probably a sensible decision on their part.
Warwick, the reality is that Peter has developed a principle which says "once an Atheist, always an Atheist". It is actually a 'steal' from the Apostle John's principle that certain people who went out from he and other Christians were not Christians at all. What our young friend Peter has failed to realise is that the Apostle John's principle is founded on Christians having God's Holy Spirit - a Being young Peter denies existence of.
Peter's principle (now there is a pun - the Peter Principle fully demonstrated) thus falls down.
Warwick, you and I and many others are aware of Atheists who have become Theists. That is a reality because those same former Atheists were prepared to accept truth when they are confronted with it. Sadly, our young friend Peter WANTS to be an Atheist and will not allow truth to get in the way of that.
Sam Drucker
I just remembered Dr Rick Smalley Ph. D. who Dr Jerry Bergman Ph.D. wrote about in 'Creation.' He "was was the Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy at Rice University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996 for his discovery, of (and his research on) a totally new allotrope (form) of carbon." The scientifically knowlegeable would know of these as 'buckyballs.'
Smalley was challenged by a visiting creationist speaker to reconsider the truth of evolution. He did so and came to the conclusion it was bad science. Soon afterwards he made a commitment to Christ. I do not believe he was an atheist, but was definitely an agnostic, and evolutionist.
Another one bites the dust.
Warwick, I had posted a comment complementary to your comment but have since decided to post it as a blog under the heading "And Another Atheist Comes in From the Cold!".
It is now deleted from the comments section here.
Sam Drucker
Post a Comment