The problem with Generalizing

At least in Christianity's perspective...
The problem is that most generalizing is that it can confuse the issues at hand.
I have heard many sound bites that purport to be total truth, but being a soundbite it lacks the strength to have the WHOLE truth in it.
It can even be fundamentally wrong! And more than anything in the end it merely points out how LITTLE the person who came up with it really understands.

A few more famous examples are… “God is my Co-Pilot.”, “Name it and Claim it.” Or “God can do anything.” Or as I have already addressed here… “ God Loves the sinner but hates the sin.”

See all of these take part of the truth and then flips it into a trite and wrong concept.

My response to the first example is along the lines of “If God is the Co-Pilot you better switch seats!”
You see God has the plan in hand! He knows where we are all going and he knows how everything works! We do not! So if he is in the Co-Pilot’s seat then he is in the wrong seat. He needs to be the one we leave in charge. For that matter that would Make Jesus the Co-Pilot. And the Holy Spirit will Navigate for us and then we will reach our destination safely.

If we have any role on this flight, we are the stewards/stewardesses or flight attendants. We are supposed to serve all the other people flying with us.

We provide for their comfort as best we can, and teach them about the dangers we all face, and how to be safe in God’s care.
AND
Like the Flight Attendants of the Pre 911 airlines we have the amazing opportunity to take others up to see the Pilot (God) giving them the chance to Know him.

Now the next one is… “Touchy” because many of my own friends adhere to this belief BUT…

The “Name it an Claim it” crowd say, “you can have anything/everything you want. All you have to do is ask for it (or rather Demand it.)”
But This is what I also call the vending machine approach.
When you approach God with your list of demands, like this suggests you do, you are going to be disappointed.
God is not a vending machine where you put in your coin and press the button to get what you want.
He is the Lord of the universe. He is the one in control and he will decide what you need.
You cannot put God in a box simply because he is bigger than any box ever made.

As for the “God can do anything.” Thought… My statement immediately prior to this might seem to support this idea, BUT while God created everything and he is control of it all, He cannot do anything against his nature.

It would be more accurate to say that God can do anything... WITHIN HIS NATURE.

I actually had a young man once challenge me on this.
He was not a believer, and he thought he would stump me with his “logical” approach, he asked me Three questions.

First “Can God do anything?, and Is he stronger than everything?”
Second Can God make anything?”
Third “then Can he make a Rock that he cannot move?”

The idea being if God can do "ANYTHING" there is nothing he can not do.
But if he makes such a rock then either he is not able to do what I claim (the rock would be stronger).
But if he cannot make such a rock then he is not the all-powerful God We claim he is.

I confess that I was floored because I answered too quickly,without thinking it through, and I was not as learned as I ought to have been.
This is one reason that I wanted to post this, so you all won’t make my mistake, but the fact is that God would not make a rock that he couldn’t move. He won’t/ can’t go against his nature.

This is also why he can not allow sin in his presence. It is against his nature and cannot abide with/in him.
So Please read your Bible/s and get to know WHO God is. That way you won’t have these problems.

Does God truly love the sinner but hate the sin?

Or is it that he just hates both?

I know this has such an obvious answer! But people who are not Christian do not really know the answer. They think they do based on how Christians behave but, let’s face it, they are not being told the truth.

Here we have a generalization; one, which can be misleading.
Many times I have heard People declare that God “Loves the sinner but hates the sin.”
And while there is an element of truth to this statement the reality is a little more… unpalatable for non-Christians.
You see it all hinges on a person’s perception of what love might be.
Christians, if they have been “raised” properly in the faith, understand what God’s love means.
But Non Christians think that love means “I will do anything for you and give you anything you want!” in short they think love is what most people used to refer to as spoiling or being spoiled.

God Does love us even when we are in sin. It is true! But the love he shows is not one which leads to a person becoming spoiled! He wants what is best for us Not what we think we want.

We are after all his children, and like a child might want to eat nothing but Ice cream, cake and candy, we all know that that is not a healthy thing to do.
So if we are good parents then we will enforce a diet more consistent with what is GOOD for them.
And like we see people do towards God, They will scream and cry and rant that we do not love them.

BUT it is PRECISELY because of our love for them that we insist on what is better for them even though they would rather have it differently.

But unfortunately we are also all “adults” now and we do not like to think about our still being immature compared to God.
So we are worse. Because the Child will realize what his or her station in life is more readily than an adult might. Although in today’s society where we have become so permissive that might be a less accurate statement than it once was.

You see?
There is the issue though. God does love the sinner, and God does hate the sin. But God hates the sin so much that the sinner who does not become absolved of sin still cannot come into God’s presence.
He cannot be redeemed! But the statement of God loving the sinner while hating the sin does not address the issue.
It merely gives the sinner the false reassurance that he or she can do whatever he or she wants and he or she will still get in to heaven because, After all, “If God loves me he wouldn’t deny me this”.

But that would be the approach our grandparents have, not our parents! And God IS our father. He has a very large interest in making sure we grow up RIGHT. We need to teach the truth and the WHOLE truth. Not just little bits and pieces in half accurate generalizations.

Creation, VS. Evolution? or is it Science, VS. Church?

"Why is this really an issue?" you might ask.
Well let me tell you.
The problem many people have is that they see Science and Christianity as opposing. When they really don't.
See when you look at real science it does not have a problem with true Christianity, and Christianity doesn't have issue with REAL science.

Science is supposed to use the scientific Method in order to know what is going on.
Scientific Method is defined as,

scientific method
Function:
noun
Date:
circa 1810

: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

I have found that when you apply the Scientific Method to the word of God, it all fits. It works, the Bible has turned out to be historically accurate and from all observations it seems to be scientifically accurate too.

part of the problem with Evolution is that you cannot apply the scientific method to it, mostly due to this bit.

"the collection of data through observation and experiment"

no one can go and observe Evolution because it either takes to long or it happened to long ago.
"Scientists" will say they observe the stars to arrive at a time frame. but even Science, when it is being honest, admits that light can be altered (slowed down or moved/bent) and so observing the stars, or rather the light from the stars is not conclusive.
They claim they can observe the fossil record to determine the process by which Evolution occurs. But they don't tell you that in order for the fossil record to work certain things have to be taken for granted.

They say that they can use modern technology to date fossils, but they won't tell you what assumptions have to be in place first.

The other night on a talk radio show, the guest was a scientist who received abuse from other scientists. He believed in S.H.C. or Spontaneous Human Combustion. He pointed out that his views were unpopular because the scientific community didn't understand how S.H.C. Could happen, and because they didn't understand they refused to believe in it.
Then he said something VERY interesting to me.

He chose to compare the Scientific community to the "church" of the middle ages,he said, "scientists seem to be the new priesthood, they have their view of who God is and how everything works and you better believe them or you will be labeled a heretic."

See the reason why people want to deny God is because the church once had a problem in that the people in the church were, people.
Flawed, prideful, self motivated, self aggrandizing people. People who were so determined that they had to be right, that they refused to believe in anything that wasn't in line with what they WANTED to believe.

Now the science community seems to be going the same way, only they want to say the "Church" of today is still wrong, "I mean after all look at their track record with Galileo", and they will not see that even though there was a mistake once there could be grounds for truth here.

After all if the church was wrong then they must always be wrong. The problem is that what they are arguing isn't the real issue.

When the Catholic church condemned Galileo, they based their argument on the point that "if the Bible doesn't say it happened then it didn't happen." And yes I understand there are still people today who think that.

The thing is that, that is a very arrogant view point.

I like the way C.S. Lewis said it. "that is someone else's story and you do not need to know it [now]."

The point is that there are some things in the universe that God may or may not have done, that he did not see fit to tell us about, so the argument that, it isn't in the Bible so it doesn't exist, is not a good one.

On the other hand, here we have something different. God DOES tell us what he did to create the world and all on/in it.

And that actually makes sense for him to do! I mean think about all that we have to learn in school today. and we are still discovering how things work! if God had written down every single little thing he ever did, how every atom and molecule worked, how quantum physics worked, etc... then we would never be able to get through the whole thing. But we do need to know what he did in creation and where we stand in the plan.
He gave us enough that we could function, much like you have to teach the basics first.

If you dumped an Algebra or trigonometry textbook in the lap of a first grader that child would be unable to grasp what is going on.
See just because a first grader's books don't mention Advanced Calculus doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Conversely this does not invalidate what first grade textbooks teach! there is still value to be found in the books that "science" wants to cast off, there is still truth.

As far as it goes. The idea of Evolution is nothing more than a theory, and theory is not proven fact! as you can see by Merriam-Webster's definition.(please pay close attention to the italicized points.)

the·o·ry
Pronunciation:
\ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural the·o·ries
Etymology:
Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date:
1592

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
(in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all)
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (the wave theory of light)
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b: an unproved assumption : conjecture
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

The Thesaurus offered by Merriam-Webster is even more telling.

Entry Word:
theory
Function:
noun

Text: an idea that is the starting point for making a case or conducting an investigation (set out to prove her theory that people canʼt really taste any difference between colas, so they buy according to the product's image)

Synonyms: hypothesis, proposition, supposition

Related Words: assumption, concession, premise, presumption, presupposition; generalization, guess, guesswork, inference, speculation, surmise; proffer, proposal, suggestion; feeling, hunch, impression, inkling, notion, suspicion; abstraction, concept, conception

The thing is that Evolutionists want to state that theory is actually fact, just named differently.
We need to stop throwing out all that we have in favor of new ideas that don't fit the facts, and we ought to all be working together to find the real truth, all of it.

For a look at the definitions from Merriam webster online please click on these links. Scientific Method, Theory, Theory according to the thesaurus.

God: The great physician.

Something we often seem to miss is that God Is perfect; And, as I said before, he is unchanging. This creates a dilemma for most People (yes even Christians). I mean, How do you describe perfection? I mean Honestly, c'mon how do you do it?
Nothing in our lives or this world is perfect, so what can you compare with to describe perfection?
He is not just 99.9 percent pure this is the real deal.

But here is the thing, being perfect no sin or evil can be in his presence, period.

I suppose you could look at it like the “Black Plague”.
The Plague, or Black Death, was spread by Infected fleas, which lived on rats and then spread to humans.
Once a person was infected there was the chance of the disease being spread in a form called pneumonic plague, which attacked the respiratory system and was spread by breathing the exhaled air of the victim.

It decimated the known world in 1348 with some reports stating that up to half of the people existing then died.

Now in order to stop the disease, you either have to stop the carrier or destroy the disease.
Usually it is easiest to stop the carrier of the disease, this does not require anything special in training or fabrication and the disease, hopefully, will not spread any further.

In order to do that you might kill the carrier, the rats or fleas (or even the people)that spread the illness, or you can quarantine the infected until the disease has passed and is no longer virulent.

Sin is a lot like disease, and all of us are infected. So to keep God from being contaminated he might keep us away. But there is also the second possibility… antidote/vaccination or destroying the disease itself.

God offers us a way to do this. We just have to accept it.
And that is what Jesus did on the cross. His blood acts as the vaccination for our sins. He died that we might be saved. We were not allowed in God’s presence (quarantine) because of our sin but because of God’s love, and Jesus' sacrifice (antidote) we are able to come into his presence.

And that is probably the closest I can come to offering you the chance to see what Sin is like compared to God.

Now the question is... will you accept the antidote? Or do you think that is too harsh?
If you went to a doctor and he said you need to have a certain medicine or you will die, would you accept the medicine? or would you turn around and walk away saying... "I do not like death and for you to give me that ultimatum makes you mean and harsh."?

I hope for your sake that you choose the medicine.

What is Heaven like?

Recently while "surfing the web", I came across a statement that I found to be... unnerving.
Someone actually declared that heaven was (essentially) nothing more than A giant cosmic waiting room.

The gist of what he was trying to say, as I understand it, was that everyone who is saved goes to Heaven and just sort of hangs out until Jesus returns to earth and restarts everything in his millennial kingdom.

Well to tell you the truth this has me floored! I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where it makes this declaration. I think he is looking at the book of Revelation, well I guess he would HAVE to be. but I think he might have misinterpreted things a bit.

But on the other hand it does raise an interesting question... "What is Heaven really like?"

Many people have contemplated what Heaven is. From Cartoonists to Authors, From singers and songwriters to movie producers.
But Really... WHAT is it really like.

Well the first thing to do seems to be dispensing with the idea that it's just a big Waiting room.
The Bible tells us quite a bit about it.

For example, it is God's Home/where God resides... (Deuteronomy 26:15, 1 Kings 8:30, Matthew 6:9, Colossians 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, and Revelation 11:19.)

It is where God rules from... (Isaiah 66:1, Matthew 7:21, 19:14, 26:18, Acts 7:49)
It is where our rewards (or even punishment) are held for us... (Matthew 3:2, 4:17, 5:12, 6:20, 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 10:20, 18:22.)
It is where the Angels (celestial beings, not the baseball team.) reside... (Luke 15:7)
And it is our future home... (Matthew 19:14, 19:23, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Philippians 3:20)

In short it is a place where we will want to be. (Matthew 23:13)

But what is it like?

Well according to Ms. Watson in Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, it is a place to sit around playing Harps, according to Calvin from the Comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, it is a place where you always behave, According to Star Trek it is a vast Desert Planet in the heart of the galaxy, and according to country/western singer Andy Griggs it is, simultaneously... Twilight,his home town, a fast train, a piece of cherry pie, and his last tear.

According to C.S. Lewis it is a place where all that was good that ever existed remains, safe from harm and everything you experience, see, taste, touch, hear or feel is better than anything we have ever experienced before.

Most of us consider Heaven to be a destination, a place to get to, but I wonder if that really ought to be the focus; I think we miss the point.

All these ideas are Human Perspective; and all of them are rather slanted.
While Twain's Ms. Watson LIKES the idea of floating around playing a harp, Huck Finn would rather not go there! Calvin could not see the point in going to all the effort of Behaving if the only thing he got in return was having to behave even more (for Calvin Behaving = no fun).

Some people would rather see forest and grass than a desert so Star Trek's version wouldn't suit them, AND there are a lot of people out there who prefer the dawn over the dusk, Hate where they live, would rather fly or even drive than take a train (or conversely would rather be on a slow train so they can enjoy the journey), would prefer key lime pie for it's crisp citrus taste, and would rather not tear up in the first place.

Of Course Lewis' ideal is probably the best because it is the vaguest and allows people to put they're own interpretation in there.

I think the problem with all of this though is that we are so worried about the destination place and not the COMPANY we are going to meet.

When I was a young boy My mother and I went to England, and we had a great time. I enjoyed the sights and the sounds, the food and the newness of everything, but best of all were the people (Mostly the family members) we went to see.
See the point is in Heaven is God. when we are there we will be fully in his presence and that will trump all.
God created it all, and therefore he is BETTER then it all. I think we will be focused on who we are with so much that WHERE we are isn't going to matter so much.

THE END IS NIGH!

I had a very long conversation with a friend of mine last night. He was talking about the end times and the signs listed in prophecy.
We touched on a lot of things but I wanted to open some perspective for all you out there who might see this.

Some Christian's LOVE to point out that Jesus tells us we shall not know when he is going to come back (and the end of the world hits us).They drag out verses like...

"of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the son, only the Father." (Mk. 13.32)

Those words of Christ carry a great import but some people (Christians or not) often seem to take them the wrong way.
People treat this statement as a kind of pass... "well since no one knows when he will come I can do whatever I choose."

And those words do exist in many forms...

"It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority." (acts 1:7) or

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come." (Matthew 24:42)

But what he is actually saying is that we ought to be on our toes. we will not know the time he is coming back so we need to always be prepared.

1"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise.
3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them.
4The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps.
5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

6"At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'

7"Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps.
8 The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'

9" 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'

10"But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

11"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'

12"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'

13"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour."

(Matthew 25: 1-13)

"He replied, "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away."
(Matthew 16:2-4)

"Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you."
(Rev 3:3)

But even with those statements he does still give us a bit of help,

"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them." (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:3-7)

In short, we can probably ignore the declarations of man about when the world will end, And that will not cause us problems.

We can discard many notions of men about comets and calendars etc, and we can all do so based on what Jesus had to say about it. BUT the fact is that what Jesus did say was as a warning.
Do not let yourself fall into the traps of this world because he could come back at any time! Even if he doesn't return in YOUR time here on earth, you still need to prepare to see him and live every day as if it is your last because he could call YOU home at anytime and you need to be ready to meet him.

New age?

I wanted to tackle a slightly different subject today... I also need to catch up on some things here I guess. (each of my other Blogs have more than 20 posts this is this site's 6th.)
Anyway today I wanted to talk about the "new age" religions.
Did you know that the Bible actually talks about the "new age" religions? Yeah it's true. See "new age" religions are really just older religions dressed up to SOUND new. In reality these religions have existed for a long time, some maybe even monger than Christianity. BUT the Bible tells us we ought to stay away from these religions.
We are supposed to follow the one true God.
But they do sound tempting don't they? they speak of personal power and how "We are all part of God, God is in all of us, so we are wonderful." The problem with that is God made it very clear in the old testament that he is the only God.
"I am the Lord your God you shall have no other gods before me", and he also makes it clear in the person of Jesus in the New testament. " I tell you the truth no one comes to THE father [God] but by me."

See there? God is the only god. Jesus is the only messiah. and the admonishment in the Bible is against us trying to follow any one (or anything) else.

If you want you can even read in the old testament about how God defeated those religions/beliefs before, and he proved them to be false.

There is one aspect though that "new age" thinking kinda gets close to right. I attribute this to the point that a lie is stronger with a little truth mixed in.

When You accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior he promises us that the Holy spirit will "indwell" us. that means that the Holy spirit will come to live in us to guide us.
The Holy spirit is the third component of the trinity of God so it is part of God, in that way you could say that God was "in us" but that does not make us God.
We are made in God's image but THAT does not make us God either.

I liken it to a piece of furniture My Grandfather once made for me.

It was shaped somewhat like a short, little man, painted blue, with bolts and wing nuts for joints, and rumor had it that Grandpa had used his own feet to make a pattern for the feet of this creation of his.

If I wanted to I could loosen the bolts that were this guy's "hips" and fold him over re tighten those and then loosen it's arms at the shoulder and elbows so they hung down straight then re tighten those, and voila a table. or I could position it upright with the arms extended and hey presto a clothes hanger, or... well you get the point.
Anyway it was made to LOOK somewhat like a man and even it's feet "supposedly" were made "In Grandpa's image" BUT that thing was NOT my Grandpa.

I am quite certain that when Grandpa made it for me he did so with some level of care or even love. But that didn't make it grandpa either. (no matter how much of him he put in it.)

We dear friends are kind of like that. No matter what God puts in us, no matter how much we look like God, we are not he. We will never be he. And to say otherwise is to go against who he really is.

please do not fall into the trap of the "new age"

A continuation.

To continue with my thoughts of yesterday...

I once heard a pastor declare that the Bible did not say anything against a certain Lifestyle choice. the problem is that I heard of one place where such a statement IS made. And I heard about it long before I ever thought about being a Christian. (Genesis 18:20-19:5)

In order to make that claim the guy had to completely ignore that part or reinterpret it.
There are other verses but I do not have time to list them all right now.

I have heard many things come from a pulpit that ought not to have been said. (because what was said was wrong.) And I know of people who have trouble with Christianity because of pastors like that.

Of course there was one point in time I was conversing with a pastor (one on one) and I mentioned that I felt I ought to be preparing the ground as it were, I was referring to the parable of the sower.
Any way my point was that if I am going to spread the news of God I think I have at least SOME obligation to make sure it is getting to where it needs to be.

He (the pastor)said. "isn't that God's job?". (meaning, I assume, that I am being presumptuous in taking over and trying to play God.)
I was a bit floored at the time, and unsure of how to answer, but responded that I suppose, yes God will do that.

What I didn't say was... "BUT the way I understand it, and here is where I might be in the wrong, much of what God wants done here on earth is done through HIS PEOPLE here on earth."

You see it is my understanding that we are supposed to work for the Lord. Not so that we can be saved, but out of love for him.
We receive his saving grace "not by works or deeds but through Faith that we might not boast." but there is still the work of the kingdom to do.
And Jesus sent out the apostles saying "go and make disciples of all men." Indeed when he called Simon-Peter and his brother he said " I will make you fisher's of men." which tells me that we are to be doing the work of God, not just sitting back lazily waiting for God to do it all.

And as the Bible says we are to be laborers. I do not see telling someone "hey read John 3:16!" as being Labor. eh but what do I know?
lol
My point is, Jesus said whatever you do for these, the least of my [people] you do it for me." and for me that means I want to try to do ALL I can for them. not just the bare minimum to scrape by.

So that is why I have this here. if you wish to open debate on these topics, that is fine. I am willing to have a reasonable discussion with anyone, we are all equal here.
If we can grow and learn more about God and his will then that is great.

Matthew 9:37

Why do I feel a need for this Blog?

I think there might be people out there who would ask the question I posed in the title. I think it is simple.
We, as Christians, are supposed to take a strong interest in making sure we are learning the truth.
It seems sometimes the pastors out there after going to seminary or whatever they get a hyper inflated way of doing things. I am just a normal guy out here trying to live life as God sets me to do. I am just like everyone else. except, maybe, I might have spent a little more time learning. But I have not been to seminary all my learning has been in church, small groups or on my own. The only thing I got going for me here is God and my desire to serve him and know him more.

One of the big reasons for this concept is that I have heard men who are serving as or have the title of pastor, but they have decided that they know better than the God they are teaching about... or they just plain misinterpret the Bible.
I see people of all walks struggling everyday to understand God, and I see media and Hollywood portray God or Christians in a way that they were never supposed to be.
With little else to go on people assume that is what it really is all about and I want to be the small voice that speaks truth. I want, as does God, to reach all the people I can to teach them and help them make the decision to follow the Lord.

How to pray!

O.K. here is the thing you gotta remember about prayer.
Prayer is having a conversation with God.
That was easy huh?
I have actually had people say to me " [Colt] I have never prayed before, how do you do it?"

I can sympathize! I know how difficult it is to do something you have never done before.

Like I said here Prayer is talking With God. It doesn't have to be fancy, full of thee's and thou's (Nehemiah used "prayer Arrows" just a simple "help me Lord")

It does need to be respectful, don't lie to God, he WILL know. But otherwise it is just like talking to anyone else. One big difference though is you can do it quietly. God will hear you even if you just think the words (kinda like telepathy maybe?).

Of course there is one important part that most people forget! (even Christians ;-)) you also need to take the time to listen.

To create or evolve? (or is it DEVOLVE?)

This is an early post I made on another spot. I decided to go ahead and transfer it to here, just so I can have all my work categorized correctly. Later I intend to give everyone the chance to see what is really up in the issue between the "sciences" that try to explain what happened to cause life here. Originally posted,Monday, January 19, 2009




I was recently reading up on the creationist/evolutionist debate and I came across a blog where the author, who couldn't be bothered to post his name, (apparently an educator at NAU) had the following to say about the creationist Russ Miller.

"Radioisotope dating has demolished the notion that Earth is merely 6,000 years old. In retaliation, young-earthers wage an all-out smear campaign against mountains of evidence in the public domain. Their level of denial is exceeded only by the likes of Flat Earth Society. For example, the CSEM FAQ page says:

The only thing that these dating methods have proven is that they (Carbon, Ar-K, Isochron, etc.) are completely unreliable.

Right. And I suppose this is borne out by the ~900-page graduate text sitting on my desk, Isotopes, Principles and Applications. Funny I can’t find this point in there anywhere. Nor does it appear in a truly vast refereed literature (137 selected references for the K-Ar chapter alone). Ah, but CSEM explains this too:"

Wait a graduate paper?... you mean a paper turned in to you by a student? Granted one who is preparing to move on to bigger and better things but still... are we really to be expected that this means the author of the paper has the years and or decades of experience to prove all those creation scientists Mr. Miller references to be wrong?

Please forgive me my sarcasm here I am not as well educated as our illustrious "guest"

Back to the issue...

"'Typically a wide range of ages are given by these methods with the date selected being the one which matches the Geologic Column.'

Ok, this is really not obvious from the text; they never taught it to me in grad Geochemistry at Caltech either. I guess that’s because geochemists secretly throw out all the “bad” measurements before they report them. I’m glad a creationist was available to explain this to me - I’m sure they know better, having spent untold hours undercover as mainstream geologists witnessing the discarding of all that “bad” data.As a mere professor in planetary science with a Ph.D. from a Geological Sciences Division, I probably wouldn’t have been allowed to witness such a plot. Or could it be this is a great big fib? I thought that was against the ninth commandment. Surely biblical literalists would never act thus!"

WOW. The hate that pours from this... why so much emotion? at least now I can feel better about MY sarcasm.
Finally I wanted to bring up this quote...

"Russ Miller again confirmed his role as a disciple of Henry Morris by claiming in his Cline Library lecture that Earth’s crustal rocks originated literally in a global flood that wafted Noah’s ark. He left out details, but some are available in his online seminar about the Grand Canyon. Here he claims the entire Paleozoic sequence - from Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone to Permian Kaibab Limestone (consistently misspelled as “Kiabab” in his slides) - was laid down in the Genesis flood. Further, he claims that washing away of the overlying Moenkopi and Chinle formations constitutes “absolute proof” for a global flood (huh?). No notice is made of the preservation of these formations to the north, together with 1,000’s more feet of Mesozoic and Cenozoic rock in Zion, Bryce, and Grand Staircase National Parks".

At least the author did finally admit...

"Bottom line - we don’t yet know precisely how to make life or how it first arose. But there is no reason to believe the process required a miracle."

I will admit I felt some frustration at reading this but after the way this Professor with a Ph.D in geological sciences Division, treated others in his blog I also feel somewhat justified in my response, sarcasm and all since it was obviously good enough for him, after all if this guy who is so far above me in station can do it then I can too right?

Anyway my response...

Methinks though doth protesteth too much!

I believe from reading these articles that your “bone to pick” is entirely based on emotional distress.
And as such I cannot believe that what you are writing is truly thought out and considered.
“For in the heat of the moment one will say anything to try to convince others of how ‘right’ he is even when He is dead wrong.”
Therefore this entire line of reasoning becomes suspect due to too much emotion involved.

Reason for my “suspicion” lies in how you appear to feel you have to nit pick every little thing you can to try to make your “opponent” look like a fool. (The spelling of Kaibab? Come on who outside of Arizona is going to even care? It is petty to complain about this, especially when you couldn't even Get the CESM acronym right, while looking at the site... I mean you did create a link to it.)

If your opponent is truly as misguided or foolish as you claim then the mere facts will bear that out. What will not prove his foolishness is a diatribe given by an overwrought individual.

Similarly, while you pick at how much information he is or is not giving. I notice that you seem to be equally guilty of the same. You quote the “scientists” or “doctors” who support your viewpoint he does the same, and it all looks pretty equally balanced to me. That is when it becomes he said-he said.

You claim that your tests are real and work without really getting into how they work, somewhat reminiscent of the way the Wizard of OZ put on a big show that was all bluster no substance. Hey I could claim my face turns green when I am happy but how would you know it unless I showed you? But you want me to just take your word for it?

Maybe the real problem here is the air of “secrecy” that seems to exist around all the Biological /geological / anthropomorphic / or whatever science?

I have seen people try to discuss these issues with others and they all end up saying something to the effect of “it is too complex for someone who doesn’t have a P.H.D to understand.”

Well that right there is part of your problem with edumacatin us idjets. You make it too dad blamed hard fer us lowly scum who aint worthy of yur lofty attentions.

First, You make it too difficult to understand your view point.

Second, When trying to talk to anyone else you tend to treat people as if they were not as capable (or smart) as you, if they hold a different idea. (can we say Closed minded, kids? I knew you could!)

Third, When someone comes close to understanding your view and tries to put it in simpler terms, you tend to rant and rave about how “no, no it isn’t that simple” like someone pushed you and made you drop your ice cream cone.
(Side note here… for the record when I say “you” I do mean the scientific community as a whole.)

Therefore, because of their behavior, scientists make the entire scientific community actually look like a bunch of childish whiners who didn’t get what they wanted. (Not name calling here just sayin…)

So when you get emotional and distressed at the merest hint of a challenge and he faces the challenges he encounters equably. This helps me to believe that maybe he has something there.

Maybe I ought to thank you for “showing me the truth” through your unreasonableness. (Yes I have been to college, yes I believed Evolution was real! Now? Having seen what is out there I have to say the Creationist’s arguments do make a lot of sense).

Maybe I will go back to college some more so’s I ken git mahsef a gud edumacashun and one ov dem docterit thangs and then ah ken figur it out fer mahsef.

To sum up, please stop being condescending to all the “lay people”, and start trying to work with all the people openly. Oh and don’t tell me you have been open. If you were then there would NOT be all this room for them to argue otherwise.

I followed through and looked at some of the comments posted at his site there were things like...

"These people make me want to burn religious institutions."
Now how is that for "scientific method?"


Please forgive me any perceived hypocrisy. this blog is NOT meant to be a scientific paper, I am merely voicing an opinion here and pointing out that maybe there is a need for everyone to back off and try to find a new common ground.

Is God really mean?

Today I heard something that was very interesting to me.

A guy was trying to make a point on a radio talk show.
The host had on, as a guest, a Catholic man, who apparently recently wrote a book, which states, in summary, that there really is no conflict between science and religion.

I would actually have to agree with that idea; and my conflict is not lying there! My issue was a Christian at one point called the show and made a mistake that MANY Christians make.

He was not prepared.

I would therefore like to offer the rebuttal that ought to have been made at the time.
I need to offer the argument as it progressed, then I will jump in to the debate with the response that I feel is appropriate.

First though I ought to lay some groundwork. For some reason the caller had brought the conversation around to the rapture. Catholicism doesn’t believe in the rapture so the caller was trying to point out the support for it in the Bible. And, this may be the real start of the problem, he kept belaboring the point though it really wasn’t the issue that he called about.

But he did declare at one part that the Entire Bible was the inspired God breathed work OF God. And that we ought to take it as such.

The host of the show responded with citing a law he claimed was in the book of Leviticus, which states, “If a child is disobedient you must kill that child.”

The caller said, “well that’s how God used to be but he doesn’t do that anymore.”

And right there is his big mistake.

The host then responded “well if that is the God you have I don’t want to have anything to do with that God.” The implication was, he believed that to be an unloving and hateful God.

I hope I would not have made the caller’s blunder but I do want to try to respond.

First of all I tried to find the verse alluded to and I couldn’t find it off hand.
The closest I came was Leviticus 20: 9a. “If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.” This is not particularly pertinent to my argument/rebuttal though.

I do want to make it clear, I believe the ENTIRE Bible to be the word of God Inspired/breathed by the Lord and that all of it is for our edification. (Same as the caller.)
I also believe that being such it is entirely True and all of it can be taken at face value. (s.a.t.c.).

I do NOT believe that God has changed.

Those laws do still exist, and God still requires the conditions of those laws to be met, the same as he always has. He has not changed.

The difference is that we do not have to hold to the law the same way that we did because JESUS PAID THE DEBT!

I would like to make an example here, it is like if someone broke a law about littering. The fine for littering is $300.00, which MUST be paid. It is the law.

The offender is taken to court, and he/she pleads guilty as charged. As soon as the offender admits the guilt the judge stands up and pulls 3 hundred dollar bills out of his wallet and slaps that down on the “bench” and declares the debt to be paid in full.

The law still exists, but the penalty has been paid.

See when Jesus came to the earth he said that he “fulfilled the law and the prophets.” Meaning we were no longer under the burden of the law.

All we have to do is accept the generosity of the judge who paid the penalty for us.

You see? God never changed he is the same now as he was 2000 years ago and as he will be 2000 years hence.

Our Radio host chose to take the fact that the law existed as being the result of a mean God. But instead the point we need to take here is that God loved us so much that he PAID for us that which we could not pay on our own.

When I say that the whole Bible is good for our edification, I mean it but I do not mean that I am going to go out and kill all the people who break the laws of Leviticus.

What I get out of Leviticus then is that there are a lot of laws out there. And I could never hope to follow them all, but they are there for my benefit (and yours).
Just like there are a lot of human laws that I cannot follow. Consider this example.

I remember reading about a street worker working in a ditch dug for pipeline to be laid in the middle of the street.
All of a sudden the sides of the ditch collapsed and buried him alive. Nearby pedestrians quickly ran to his aid and dug him out. They saved his life! Then OSHA got involved and fined the good Samaritans a lot of money because they broke the law. It seems in their efforts to dig him out they all forgot to run off and find hard hats to wear and so they were all in violation of the law.

See? Same thing!

That law was there for their benefit. Wearing a hard hat in a construction zone is important! It saves people from injury or death. BUT if those people had stopped to follow that law, the street worker would have died.
We cannot always follow the law but the law still is there. God loved us enough to send his son to pay the cost of it.

That is why God is loving, not mean or vengeful.

The problem is that we have to accept what Jesus did. He said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but by me.”

That is where people like the host balk. They do not want there to be only the one way. That would mean accepting the God that gave us Leviticus. They choose not to see the love of God but rather they see the bad stuff or the rules that seem so unfair to them, even if they aren’t.

Then they say, as the host did, “I can not accept that God.” Well now here we have a whole ‘nother kettle ‘o’ fish.

See God isn’t in it for popularity. He isn’t sitting around wringing his hands saying, “oh I hope they will accept me, I hope they will love me.”

This is a poor analogy but… It’s kind of like if there was an asteroid large enough to obliterate the entire planet heading for us.
Saying “oh I don’t want to believe in that asteroid because it just seems to hateful, I mean crashing into the planet and destroying all life here. ”

The asteroid doesn’t care what you think. It just is! It exists period. Trying to stop it or dissuade it by telling it we don’t like it isn’t going to make it stop and reconsider.

Unlike the asteroid God does care. But he still is and he still has a certain nature. Nothing can change his nature. He created all there is. You cannot change God anymore than a pot can change the person who made it.

He cares about us enough though that, like a pot maker will protect and care for his favorite pot, God will care for us, in fact like God HAS cared for us. (John 3:16)

See that is where we need to take this. Whether you believe in God, or the Bible, or not. God does exist. Wishing him away, or denying his existence or nature will have no effect.
We need to accept him. God will prevail in the end.

And F.Y.I., when you get before the throne of judgment, saying, “ oh I couldn’t believe in God because he seemed too mean.” Will not work.

By reading this you have been told the truth of God and thus you cannot deny him. When the time comes, sink or swim, it was your choice.