Scripture says that we should not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever (2 Corinthian 6:14). But there are situations where a believer develops feeling for an unbeliever.

In this session of Jaymikee’s vlog with Tee Mikee. The Bamiloyes share their views on why Christian Sisters fall for “bad boys” and what can be done to avoid these situations as Christians.

As a Christian, what are your thoughts on this issue?

Source: Christian Fellow, Author: Rashida Yakubu

The post Why Do Christian Sisters Fall For Bad Boys? appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

In any case, it’s not like you’ve worked out what you believe, or don’t — there’s just a lot of things you’re not quite sure about. The apologetics books your youth pastor recommended (you told him you had a cousin who’s stopped going to church, and you wanted to bring them back) didn’t help; in some ways, they made things worse. But it’s not like there’s anyone you can talk to about it. And that one time you raised the subject with your dad, he shut you down pretty quick.

I suspect the above scenario will feel fairly plausible to a good few nonverts of a certain vintage, raised throughout vast swathes of America. Think of it as a less extreme, mass-market analogue of the experiences of those raised in the Mormon-majority towns of Idaho and Utah. For them, the advent of the internet was “the game-changer, right? Because before, where would you go to find that? It was never out there, it was never publicly really available.” Mark, [a] now “ethnically Mormon” New York dentist, tells me over pizza how a close relative who had moved out of state, sensing in him a kindred spirit, started emailing links to all manner of LDS history websites. Pretty soon he discovered whole online communities of peers, raised just like he had been, who were now mutually encouraging each other in their nascent post-Mormon identities.

But this was by no means only an LDS phenomenon. The internet brought unabashedly nonreligious texts, ideas, and — most importantly — acquaintances and friends into millions of Christian homes. Some people, naturally, went looking for this stuff: precisely the kinds of teens, as sketched earlier, with prior reasons to go in search. And, thanks to there already being a vibrant atheist activist presence online since well before AOL brought dial-up internet to the mainstream, there was no shortage of websites, message boards, and new friends out there to be found. 

I suspect for most users social media has a net relativizing effect.

For many others, however, it’s likely that “something they saw on the internet” — something, that is, they wouldn’t have seen had it not been for the internet — ended up sparking, or otherwise contributing to, a gradual path of nonversion.

Naturally, the kinds of online social dynamics we’re dealing with can work both ways. If it’s possible to find one’s tribe via Usenet’s “alt. atheism,” Reddit’s “r/ exmormon,” or Twitter’s “#EmptyThePews,” one can equally do so via one of the internet’s endless variety of pro-religious websites, groups, and YouTube channels. But here’s the thing. Prior to the internet, while Americans had a limitless supply of the latter’s offline equivalents, the vast majority of them had almost none of the former’s. 

Sure, they existed alright — campus secular alliances, humanist chapters in major cities — but just think how many more, and better funded, religious competitors there were. So the growth of home internet suddenly brought new nonreligious possibilities where there had been few or none before. Remember, too, that this most affected a generation with markedly less resistance to the idea of nonreligion than their Cold Warrior parents and grandparents had.

The impact of the internet is not, we might add, only evident in those who ended up falling in with the “none” crowd. There are vastly more nonreligious Millennials and Generation Zs than could possibly have been deeply involved in one or other of these groups, no matter how prevalent they are. Obviously then, they weren’t all nonverted in this way. However, there are reasons for thinking that the internet, and social media especially, might be having a subtler but much more widespread secularizing effect on American society. 

For all the attention given to online “echo chambers” deepening participants’ commitment to a shared view and collectively pushing them to ever great extremes, I suspect for most users social media has a net relativizing effect. In general, worldviews are strongest when they present themselves as “givens” and can thus be taken for granted. It’s easier to be an evangelical if everyone you know, or at least everyone whose opinions you care about, are evangelicals, too. But a person’s Facebook or Twitter feed likely includes many “friends,” or people one chooses to follow, with a whole range of positions on all manner of topics. It’s possible to police one’s network very carefully to prevent this from happening, but I’m not sure very many people are sufficiently committed to ideological purity to bother. 

In the past, our social circles were much smaller (though likely deeper), and focused largely on where we lived and worked, plus a very select few people we actively kept in touch with at further distances. These were chiefly relatives, though perhaps with a couple of old school friends or college roommates in the mix too. Now it’s common to be aware, on a daily basis, of the doings and thinkings of a diverse collection of far-flung relatives, people you barely spoke to even when you were in the same room at school together, colleagues you met once at a conference, and all manner of others, many of whom you’ve never met once in person. You probably know a good deal more about what’s going on in the lives of many of them than you do about your own next-door neighbors or co-workers (unless they’re also Facebook friends).

Given how much more willing people are to talk about religion and politics online than they are in person, you’re therefore probably exposed to all manner of different viewpoints. Sometimes, maybe one of these makes you think differently about a political policy or religious doctrine — or even if not, it makes you a little less sure about it than you used to be. Given the sheer amount of time many people tend to spend on social media platforms, it’s not hard to imagine that the cumulative effect of all this might well be to chip away at lots of hitherto unexamined convictions. And that this, combined with other factors, might help nudge a good number further along the path away from religion — and to shove a few of them down one or another shortcut to Advance Directly to Go(dlessness).

Source: bigthink.com, Author: Stephen Bullivant

Send your news, stories or articles to info@chrife.com.gh or via Whatsapp +233550144803

The post Ex-Christian America: How social media created more “nonverts” and atheists appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

Despite this, little has changed. The people most interested in science are those who understand its relevance to their lives and who are legitimately curious about the workings of Nature. But the vast majority remains uninterested. Most people are dismissive of what science does and how scientists work. 

To these outsiders, science is a black box. They see scientists as weird, cold rationalists, devoid of any hint of spirituality — as people who care only about their own research and their grants. Sure, some admire what scientists produce, from the cures they find for diseases to the rovers they send to Mars. Science does have a massive “wow” factor. But these remarkable feats of human creativity and skill are seen from a distance that no one has felt compelled to shorten.

A moment of understanding

I will give an example of how I came to realize this problem in my own life. About twenty years ago, I did a live interview for a radio station in Brasília, the capital of Brazil. The interview took place during rush hour at the city’s busy bus terminal. The depot was crowded with workers from rural areas who came to the city to work all sorts of jobs, from cleaning the streets to working in factories and private homes. 

This interview made me rethink my understanding of how to bring science to the largest number of people. It impacted me for the rest of my life. It made me realize that making science relevant to a wider audience requires an emotional, not just a rational, appeal. 

When science speaks to people’s hearts, it makes a much deeper impact than any list of discoveries and clever accomplishments. The “wow” factor from achievements is ephemeral. The one that sticks is the one that shakes you inside.

The interviewer asked me questions about science’s take on the apocalypse. It was inspired by a book I had just published, The Prophet and the Astronomer: Apocalyptic Science and the End of the World. The book focuses on cataclysmic celestial events and how they have inspired religious narratives as well as scientific research. By cataclysmic, I mean asteroid or comet collisions, like the one that accelerated the extinction of dinosaurs; stars exploding and collapsing into neutron stars and black holes; or the fate of the Universe as a whole, either expanding forever, or shrinking back into a singularity.

A practice ancient and modern

I started the book arguing that images of celestial chaos stand out in many religious texts. Witness the many instances that stars, or fire and brimstone, fall from the sky in the Bible. Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, and the Apocalypse of John in the New, are but a couple examples. Remember also how the Celts believed that the skies would fall on their heads to mark the end of a time cycle. Signs of celestial chaos were obviously extremely scary, and they were frequently interpreted as messages of impending doom. In the late 17th century, scientists such as Edmond Halley and Isaac Newton used their science to try to make sense of such events. 

The practice has continued. It is common to hear of new possibilities of impending doom coming from the skies — or, even worse, cataclysms of man’s own making. Now, we call them “existential risks.” Many books have been written on doomsday science since I published mine, including Martin Rees’s Our Final Hour, and, more recently, Katie Mack’s The End of Everything: (Astrophysically Speaking) and Brian Greene’s Until the End of Time.

Back to the interview in Brasília.

I mentioned how 65 million years ago, the collision of an asteroid six miles wide into Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula triggered the extinction of the dinosaurs. I made a point of explaining how that event changed the history of life on Earth, freeing small mammals from predator pressure while resetting the planet’s evolutionary drive — a long story that finally brought humans into the game some 200,000 years ago. My point was that no divine intervention was needed to explain these episodes in our planetary history. The processes are natural, not supernatural.

It was then that a hand went up from a small man with torn clothes and grease stains on his face: “So the doctor wants to take even God away from us?”

I froze. The despair in that man’s voice was apparent. He felt betrayed, as if the ground had just been taken from beneath his feet. His faith was the one thing he held on to, the one thing that gave him strength to come back to that bus station every day to work for a humiliatingly low wage. If I took God away from his world and offered instead the rational argumentation of science, with its methodology of empirical validation, what would that even mean to him? How would it help him go forward with his life? How could science teach him to cope with life in a world without the magic and comfort of supernatural belief?

Exploring the mystery

I realized then how far we scientists are from the needs of most people; how far removed our discourse is from those who do not already look to science for answers, as most of you reading this essay do. I realized that to reach a larger audience — to bring the wonders of science to a much larger slice of the population — we must start from the youngest age with an outstanding science education, one filled with wonder and discovery. 

We must inspire a sense of awe about the natural world, showing how our science illuminates our search for meaning. We must teach that science has a spiritual dimension — not in the sense of supernaturalism, but in the way it connects us to something bigger than we are. The bridge is our need to connect with the mystery of who we are. Faith and science both address this need, albeit from different perspectives. 

I also realized how completely futile it was to stand up there and proudly proclaim how much scientists have discovered about the world. I saw how useless such claims are to someone whose faith is the main tool for coping with life’s challenges. Why should that man believe me when I say that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old? From his perspective, it was my words against the Bible.

If we really are going to make scientific education not just informative but transformative, we have an enormous task ahead of us.

It’s not Science vs. God

I answered the man, in a shaky voice, that science does not want to take God away from people, even if some scientists do. I told him that science explains how the world works, revealing the wonders of the Universe big and small, for all to share and appreciate. I went on to explain that scientific research is a passionate enterprise, one that brings us closer to Nature, to the mysteries we still face as we try to understand more of the Universe and our place in it. The man smiled. He did not say anything, but I knew that he identified in the scientific drive for understanding the same passion that drove him toward his faith. He understood that there is room in our lives for both science and faith, if that is the choice we make. Science does not have an interest in taking faith away from people. We should not confuse what science is with what some scientists do. There are many ways of knowing, and they all have a place in our lives.

I left the interview and went for a long walk around a lake. I thought of Einstein and his belief that scientific enterprise is the only true religion. He meant it in a deeply spiritual way, seeing science as an act of devotion. Scientists should engage with the mystery of existence, inspired by a deep sense of awe and filled with humility. If science is seen this way, many more will be ready to embrace it as one of the highest expressions of the human spirit.

Source: bigthink.com, Author: Marcelo Gleiser

Send your news, stories or articles to info@chrife.com.gh or via Whatsapp +233550144803

The post Science vs. God: Understanding reality is not a battle between reason and faith appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

What R.T. shares around minute three will change yours.

Source: charismamag.com

The post Forgive Them and You Will Be Set Free! appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

Our heart is a very special part of who we are. Our heart is the seat of our mind, will and emotions. Our heart, when we are honest, knows the truth about ourselves.

Our heart knows its own flaws and weaknesses. Often, I ask people to look into their heart and see if they know the truth of what we are talking about. Often, they do know the truth if they look in their heart.

When it comes to out-of-control behavior, we often surround ourselves with denial, rationalizations and excuses, but our heart knows the truth. Whether our out-of-control behavior is spending, envy, self-righteousness, controlling, lying or whatever it may be, our heart knows the truth.

Being honest with our heart can take real effort. When I say to my clients, “Now close your eyes and just go to your own heart. What does it tell you is the truth about this behavior?” It can take several minutes for them to actually hear their heart.

From the outside, it looks as if there is a battle going on inside. They are often fighting the lies, reasoning and justifications for their behavior but the heart knows the truth. Finally, as they push through, they declare the truth for their heart already knew this. “Yes, this is out of control,” or “I’m out of control,” they’ll say.

This heart-level admittance is usually a first step in the beginning of change. An honest heart really does know if you are out of control with some behaviors. I know in our culture, we spend so much time in our head that often, our heart is a stranger to us. For some, it could take a little while to locate their heart. Your heart will tell you the truth; it knows the truth as to whether you are out of control with the behaviors you are considering to be a problem.

Stop for a minute, close your eyes, and ask your heart, “Am I out of control with ___________________?” Then take a few minutes and really listen to your heart.

For those of you who took the time to listen to your heart, take a few minutes and write down your responses.

One thing I find helpful for clients to do is to evaluate themselves. It seems to mean more when you take a few moments and look at the big picture before plunging into the solutions.

I find if someone is thoroughly convinced that they have an out-of-control behavior, then they are much more likely to go through the process of getting control over what has been controlling them.

The road might get tough, but if you are committed to get to the other side, you go through the bumps to get there. There, by the way, is a great place, a life without being controlled by what has been controlling you.

So, let’s see if you are being controlled by something. List the behavior or behaviors you think might be controlling you

1. Have I promised myself to stop this behavior, and have I broken my promise?
2. Have I promised others to stop this behavior, and have I broken my promise?
3. Have I promised God to stop this behavior, and have I broken my promise?
4. Have I had entitlement in my heart to continue this behavior?
5. Have I demonstrated entitlement toward others in my life about this behavior?
6. Have I demonstrated entitlement toward God about this behavior?
7. Have I suffered the loss of a job due to this behavior?
8. Have I had lost opportunities due to my behavior?
9. Have I suffered losses in relationships due to this behavior?
10. Have I lost ministry opportunities due to my behavior?
11. Have I had consequences or repeated consequences due to this behavior?
12. Have I had repeated attempts at stopping this behavior that have met with eventual failure?
13. Do I feel my prayers have been ineffective in the past due to this behavior?
14. In my heart do I know I am out of control in this behavior?

As you look over these questions look at how many “yes” answers you have. If you have several yes answers, you are out of control with a behavior. Knowing this information is paramount to getting better.

You can find hope and a path many have traveled to finally getting control over what has been controlling them. Your feet are now on a path many have traveled with success, so put your next foot forward and take the next step by starting to get control over what has been controlling you.

Source: charismamag.com

The post What Is Your Heart Saying About Your Behavior? appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

1. Cajole to show up. The prayers of the Baal prophets in 1 Kings 18 were idolatrous, so there was no one home to answer. But to poison your prayers, you too can dishonor the true God like they did. Like us, they wanted their God to “show up” believing that He was an unfaithful, come-and-go, capricious God. They demonstrated their sincerity in costly ways, ways different from ours, of course, but still the same manipulative behavior toward God.

In contrast stands Elijah, who simply desires God to make Himself known and call back Israel. Elijah actually makes it three times harder for his prayer to be answered—not manipulative. His prayer lasts about 1 minute, not 9 hours like the others. It all shows his faith in God’s faithfulness. But don’t be like that if you don’t want your prayers answered.

2. Act sanctimoniously to others. To turn God against your prayers, be like Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. They accused Job and found fault in Job’s relationship with God. God specifically rebukes them.

Yes, Job said mean things about God, misinterpreting God’s motives. Yet God saw in Job’s tempestuous argumentation an uninterrupted faith in Him. God affirmed that Job’s prayer for the three “friends” would be answered if they repented.

3. Rely on the presence. Relying on “the presence of the Lord” cuts off our answers also. In Jeremiah 7:1-27 God specifically rebukes reliance upon any “presence” concept such as the temple, filled 550 years before. Like the Baal prophets, they believed some security was needed to ensure He hadn’t left them. “The presence of the Lord” even enabled them to justify their sin.

In contrast stands Jeremiah, who never relied upon “the presence,” not even when he was sinking in the dungeon mud (Jer. 38). Like Job’s, Jeremiah’s tempestuous words with God stand in the Bible as examples of true faith, knowing God was not come-and-go, but fully engaged at all times with all individuals through thick and thin.

4. Pray many words to be seen. Jesus used the Jewish religious leaders to show how to pray sinfully (Matt. 6:5-14). “They think they will be heard for their much speaking” (v. 7b)—just like the Baal prophets. Those were only responding to public pressure, but Jesus’ contemporaries went out of their way to be seen by men. They grimaced during fasts and prayed ostentatiously on street corners. This is an excellent way to avoid answered prayer.

In contrast stands the pure motive Jesus commended: to be seen by God. Also contrasting is the same underlying faith of Job and Jeremiah, that God is always fully engaged with each of us. In the place of many words to be seen by men, the Lord’s Prayer commends the attitude of a Beatitude person.

5. Don’t forgive. In the same passage, Jesus states that not forgiving someone turns God against our prayer. This is an unseen attitude of the heart, in contrast to the visible praying described above. God knows if you are not forgiving. Of course, if you do want your prayers answered, keep a constant vigilance to spot any unforgiveness in your heart.

6. Have sort-of faith. James 1:6-8 plainly shows us how to turn God against our prayers: pray with doubt in God, and doubt whether He gives liberally to all men without distinction.

In contrast stands prayer with faith in God’s trustworthiness. Reserving His right to determine the best answer to our prayers is not doubt in His magnanimous generosity.

7. Be self-centered. Pray to spend what you get on yourself, a sure way to cut off the answers (James 4:3-5). Comfort-seeking, pain-avoiding people can pray that way which shows our primary friendship is not with God. This provokes God’s jealousy for our prime loyalty. Treating God as your butler will usually keep your prayers unanswered.

8. Don’t be meek. Jesus’ parable in Luke 18:9-14 is plain. Like the Pharisee, you can use your manipulative religious compliance to make God indebted to you—a very effective method for preventing answered prayer.

The tax collector’s prayer was answered. How? He recognized his own poverty of spirit, beat his breast with mourning about it, expected nothing because of it, and only pled for God’s mercy. He was a Beatitude person.

Of course you do not want to pray sinfully, so be vigilant to spot it. Like the tax collector, recognize your poverty of spirit, mourn about it and lower your expectations in meekness because of it. Such people have an exalted standing with God.

Source: charismamag.com

The post 8 Sinful Ways to Pray That God Won’t Respect appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.